ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Basra 96
BAVA BASRA 96 - dedicated by Rabbi and Mrs. Mordecai Kornfeld in honor of
the Bris of their son, Eliezer Aryeh, last Thursday. May Hashem grant that
we may raise him l'Torah l'Chupah ul'Ma'asim Tovim!
(a) Abaye asked Rav Yosef whether (with regard to which B'rachah to recite
over Yiyin she'Hikrim) he held like Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, or like Rav
Chisda. The gist of his reply was - that he follows the opinion of a Beraisa
(which we will now proceed to explain).
(b) The Beraisa states that a barrel of wine which someone uses for Terumos
and Ma'asros on other barrels, and which, after a month or two, he finds has
turned sour - is Vaday all three days and Safek from then onwards.
(c) The Beraisa uses the expression 'ha'Bodek es ha'Chavis', implying that
he tastes the wine (see Tosfos). He may taste the wine from the barrel even
before having separated Ma'asros from it - by separating the T'rumos and
Ma'asros from the small part that he removes in order to taste.
(d) The problem that now concerns the Tana is - whether all the barrels that
he rectified with the Terumos and Ma'asros that he separated until now are
indeed Ma'asered or not.
(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, the Tana means that for the first three
days, the contents of the barrel are considered wine, and it is only from
the third day on that it is considered a Safek vinegar. It is considered ...
1. ... wine the first three days (and not Safek vinegar) - because since at
that stage it had not yet even begun to taste like vinegar, even assuming
that it began to go off immediately after he placed the wine in the barrels,
it would take at least three days to taste like vinegar too.
(b) We know that it was definitely wine at that first stage - because when
wine begins to turn sour, it starts at the top.
2. ... Safek vinegar the last three days (and not Vaday vinegar) - because
we know that when he placed the wine in the barrel it was not vinegar.
Consequently, even though now it has become vinegar, perhaps it only began
to go sour at the beginning of the last three-day period.
(a) According to Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi - from the beginning of the last
three days, the wine was definitely vinegar, before that, it was a Safek.
(b) He considers the wine a Safek vinegar right from the beginning -
because, in contrast to Rebbi Yochanan, he holds that when wine begins to
go off, it starts from the bottom. Consequently, even though the owner
tasted it at the beginning, he would not necessarily have noticed even if
the bottom had begun to turn sour.
(c) In fact, he might even concede to Rebbi Yochanan that the wine begins to
turn sour from the top. However, he did taste it, and it did not taste of
vinegar. Consequently, it can have been no more than a Safek vinegar at that
(d) And he considers the wine Vaday vinegar since the beginning of the last
three-day period, because, as opposed to Rebbi Yochanan, he considers wine
that smells like vinegar, to be vinegar. Consequently, since it now tastes
like vinegar, it must have been vinegar for at least three days, because it
must have smelt like vinegar for the three days prior to that (since this is
how long it takes for the smell to turn into taste).
(a) According to the Deruma'i - Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, interprets the
Beraisa to mean that the first three days it is Vaday wine (like Rebbi
Yochanan), the last three days it is Vaday vinegar, whilst the days in
between are all a Safek.
Rav Mari and Rav Z'vid argue over whether Rav Yosef (on the previous Amud)
was referring to Rebbi Yochanan's interpretation of the Beraisa, or Rebbi
Yehoshua ben Levi's. We will accept the first explanation over the second -
because according to the Derumai, even Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi holds like
him (with regard to wine that smells like vinegar but still tastes like wine
[the case to which Rav Yosef pertains]).
(b) The problem with this quotation is - that it is self-contradictory,
since the first statement follows the opinion that wine that tastes like
wine but smells like vinegar is wine, whereas the second statement seems to
hold the opposite.
(c) So we conclude that basically, Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi concurs with
Rebbi Yochanan. And when the Deruma'i quote him as saying that for the last
three days, it is Vaday vinegar, they must mean - that it turned excessively
sour, indicating that it had already become vinegar at least three days
(d) Rebbi Yochanan - does not establish the Beraisa in such a case, and
what's more, he doesn't seem to agree with this interpretation either. In
his opinion, the last three days are always a Safek, irrespective of how
acutely sour they became.
(a) When Rav says that for the first three days following the sale, wine is
considered to be in the seller's domain, he means - that if wine becomes
vinegar (in taste as well as smell) within three days of the sale, it is a
false sale (as if he would have sold wine which turned out to be vinegar),
because when he sold it, it already smelt like vinegar.
(b) This does not mean - that Yayin she'Hikrim is considered vinegar. In
fact, it might well be considered wine, yet it is a false sale, because wine
that smells like vinegar is bound to go off.
(c) We will learn a Mishnah shortly 'ha'Mocher Yayin la'Chavero ve'Hichmitz,
Eino Chayav be'Asharayuso'. Rav might well establish the Mishnah when this
took place after three days. We can infer this from the Lashon of the
Mishnah itself - because had the Tana been speaking when it occurred within
three days, he should have said 've'Nimtza Chometz'.
(d) Alternatively, Rav might establish the Mishnah, even if it occurred
within three days - only the wine had been poured into the purchaser's
barrel (like Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina later in the Sugya).
(a) Shmuel rules that if wine turns sour even during the first three days
and even in the barrels of the seller - then, based on the Pasuk in Chavakuk
"Af ki ha'Yayin Boged", it is the Mazel of the purchaser that caused it (see
Tosfos DH 'u'Shmuel').
(b) Rav Yosef issued a ruling like Shmuel in a case concerning wine because
a S'tam Mishnah later in the Perek clearly corroborates his opinion. But he
ruled like Rav - in a case concerning beer.
(c) Our Sugya however, concludes - 've'Hilch'sa Kavaseih di'Shmuel'.
(a) The Beraisa states that the B'rachah over date-beer, barley-beer and
Shemarei Yayin (dregs of wine to which one added water) is - 'Shehakol'.
(b) We would otherwise have thought that one recites - 'ha'Eitz' on
date-beer, 'Mezonos' on barley-beer, and 'ha'Gafen' on Sh'marei Yayin.
(c) Acccording to Acherim - one does indeed recite 'ha'Gafen' over Sh'marei
(d) Rabah and Rav Yosef rule like - Acherim.
(a) Rava qualifies the above Machlokes. According to him, if one added three
cups of water to the dregs and four emerged - even the Rabbanan would agree
that the correct B'rachah would be 'ha'Gafen'.
(b) When we comment on this 'Rava le'Ta'ameih', we are referring to Rava's
well-known opinion that wine is only considered such if one adds three parts
water to one part wine.
(c) In a case where one poured three cups and three cups emerged, says
Rava - even Acherim agrees that it is not wine, even if it tastes like wine.
(d) Even Rebbi Yehudah, who considers the wine in this very same case
subject to Ma'aser - will agree that the B'rachah is 'Shehakol', because, in
fact, he has a Safek whether this is considered wine or not. Consequently,
based on the ruling that Bedieved, one is always Yotze if one recites
'Shehakol', that is the best thing to do in case of a Safek. And by the same
token, one is obligated to Ma'aser it.
(a) The Rabbanan and Acherim argue when one added three cups of water, and
three and a half emerged.
(b) The reasoning behind the ruling of ...
1. ... the Rabbanan is - that the three and a half that emerged comprise the
three of water, and only a half of wine, and one seventh wine is
insufficient to recite 'ha'Gafen' over.
(c) We will not apply the same principle in the case where one added three
cups of water and three emerged, and say there too, that two cups of water
emerged and one of wine - because firstly, there is no indication that
anything other than the water that he poured in came out. And secondly, we
would at most, assume that half of wine emerged, and less than a quarter of
wine (a fifth in this case) is insufficient to recite 'ha'Gafen' over.
2. ... Acherim is - that two and a half of the water emerged plus one of
wine, and one to two and a half (two fifths) wine is sufficient to recite