הַמְתַמֵּד וְנָתַן מַיִם בְּמִדָּה וּמָצָא כְּדֵי מִדָּתוֹ פָּטוּר וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מְחַיֵּיב עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי אֶלָּא בִּכְדֵי מִדָּתוֹ אֲבָל בְּיוֹתֵר מִכְּדֵי מִדָּתוֹ לָא פְּלִיגִי In the case of one who produces tamad, a beverage made by steeping grape pomace in water, and he placed a measured amount of water into a container together with the pomace, and after removing the pomace he found that the volume of the tamad produced was equivalent to the amount of water used, one is exempt from the requirement to tithe the tamad, even though the pomace came from grapes that had not been tithed. And Rabbi Yehuda deems one liable to tithe the tamad. The Gemara explains the difficulty posed by this mishna: It would appear that they disagree only with regard to a case where the volume of the tamad produced was equivalent to the amount of water used, but in a case where the volume of the tamad produced was greater than the amount of water used, they do not disagree; rather, they all agree that it must be tithed because it is regarded as wine. This would appear to contradict Rava’s explanation.
הוּא הַדִּין דַּאֲפִילּוּ בְּיוֹתֵר מִכְּדֵי מִדָּתוֹ פְּלִיגִי וְהַאי דְּקָא מִיפַּלְגִי בִּכְדֵי מִדָּתוֹ לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחוֹ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה The Gemara resolves the difficulty: Actually, the same is true in that they would disagree even where the volume of the tamad produced was greater than the amount of water used. And the reason that the mishna records only that they disagree about a case where the volume of the tamad produced was equivalent to the amount of water used is in order to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that one is liable to tithe the tamad even in this case.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק מֵרַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין שְׁמָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן טַעַם יַיִן מַהוּ אֲמַר לֵיהּ מִי סָבְרַתְּ חַמְרָא הוּא קִיּוּהָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak asked Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin: If one steeps pomace and produces tamad that has the taste of wine, what is the blessing that one should recite before drinking it? Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said to him: Do you hold that such a beverage is wine? It is merely a sharp-flavored beverage, not wine.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן שְׁמָרִים שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי אָסוּר וּשְׁלִישִׁי מוּתָּר רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר אַף שְׁלִישִׁי בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם § The Sages taught in a baraita concerning the production of successive batches of tamad of decreasing strengths by reusing the pomace after each time a tamad is produced: With regard to pomace of teruma wine, the first and second products are considered to be teruma, and it is prohibited for a non-priest to drink it. But with regard to the third product, a non-priest is permitted to drink it. Rabbi Meir says: Even with regard to the third product, if the wine that seeps out of the pomace imparts the flavor of wine to the water, it is forbidden to a non-priest.
וְשֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן אָסוּר שֵׁנִי מוּתָּר רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר אַף שֵׁנִי בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם וְשֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ שְׁלִישִׁי אָסוּר וּרְבִיעִי מוּתָּר רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר אַף רְבִיעִי בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם The baraita continues: And with regard to water added to pomace of second-tithe wine, the first product is also considered to be second tithe, and it is prohibited to drink it outside Jerusalem. But with regard to the second product, it is permitted to drink it anywhere. Rabbi Meir says: Even with regard to the second product, if the wine that seeps out of the pomace imparts the flavor of wine to the water, it may be consumed only in Jerusalem. And with regard to water added to pomace of wine that was consecrated to the Temple, up to the third product it is prohibited to derive any benefit from it, as it is considered to be consecrated, but from the fourth product, it is permitted. Rabbi Meir says: Even with regard to the fourth product, if the wine that seeps out of the pomace imparts the flavor of wine to the water, it is prohibited.
וּרְמִינְהִי שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ לְעוֹלָם אָסוּר וְשֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר לְעוֹלָם מוּתָּר קַשְׁיָא הֶקְדֵּשׁ אַהֶקְדֵּשׁ קַשְׁיָא מַעֲשֵׂר אַמַּעֲשֵׂר And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a different baraita: Tamad produced from the pomace of wine that was consecrated to the Temple is always forbidden, even after having steeped them many times, and the beverage produced from pomace of second tithe is always permitted, even from the first such product. The Gemara explains: The ruling concerning consecrated pomace is difficult, as it is contradicted by the ruling of the first baraita concerning consecrated pomace. And the ruling concerning second-tithe pomace is difficult, as it is contradicted by the ruling of the first baraita concerning second-tithe pomace.
הֶקְדֵּשׁ אַהֶקְדֵּשׁ לָא קַשְׁיָא כָּאן בִּקְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף כָּאן בִּקְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים מַעֲשֵׂר אַמַּעֲשֵׂר נָמֵי לָא קַשְׁיָא כָּאן בְּמַעֲשֵׂר וַדַּאי כָּאן בְּמַעֲשֵׂר דְּמַאי The Gemara answers: The contradiction between the ruling of one baraita concerning consecrated pomace and the ruling of the other baraita concerning consecrated pomace is not difficult, as one can explain that here, the second baraita is referring to pomace with inherent sanctity, and there, the first baraita is referring to pomace with sanctity that inheres in its value. Also, the contradiction between the ruling of one baraita concerning pomace of second tithe and the ruling of the other baraita concerning pomace of second tithe is not difficult, as one can explain that here, the first baraita is referring to pomace whose status as second tithe is certain and there, the second baraita is referring to pomace of second tithe of doubtfully tithed produce [demai].
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוֹצָדָק כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁאָמְרוּ לְעִנְיַן אִיסּוּרָן כָּךְ אָמְרוּ לְעִנְיַן הֶכְשֵׁירָן Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: In the same way in which the Sages said concerning differing strengths of tamad that with regard to their prohibition, after a certain number of times the tamad produced is not considered to be wine, so too they said the same rulings with regard to their capacity to render foods susceptible to ritual impurity.
הֶכְשֵׁירָן דְּמַאי אִי דְּמַיָּא אַכְשׁוֹרֵי מַכְשְׁרִי אִי דְּחַמְרָא אַכְשׁוֹרֵי מַכְשְׁרִי לָא צְרִיכָא שֶׁתִּמְּדוֹ בְּמֵי גְשָׁמִים The Gemara asks: When the baraita is referring to their capacity to render other foods susceptible to ritual impurity, why does it matter which kind of beverage the tamad is considered to be? Whether the tamad is regarded as water it can render food susceptible to impurity, or whether it is regarded as wine it can render food susceptible to impurity. The Gemara clarifies: No, it is necessary in a case in which one produced tamad with rainwater that he had not previously intended to use. Rainwater does not render food susceptible to ritual impurity, so the tamad will do so only if it is regarded as wine.
וְכֵיוָן דְּקָא שָׁקֵיל וְרָמֵי לְהוּ לְמָנָא אַחְשְׁבִינְהוּ לָא צְרִיכָא שֶׁנִּתַּמֵּד מֵאֵלָיו The Gemara challenges this: But since he took the rainwater and poured it into a container holding the grape pomace, he has thereby intended it for a use. Even if the resulting tamad is regarded as water, such rainwater renders food susceptible to ritual impurity. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary in a case where the pomace produced tamad by itself, having been steeped in water that happened to fall upon it.
וְכֵיוָן דְּקָא נָגֵיד קַמָּא קַמָּא אַחְשְׁבִינְהוּ אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא בְּפָרָה שֶׁשּׁוֹתָה רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן: The Gemara persists: The baraita above states that from the third product, the tamad is regarded as water, which the Gemara has explained is referring to rainwater that one did not intend to use and that consequently cannot render food susceptible to impurity. The Gemara asks: But since he draws off each subsequent lot of tamad that is produced, one by one, in order to allow more rainwater to fall onto the pomace and produce more tamad, he thereby demonstrates his intent to use the rainwater. Therefore, even if the tamad is regarded as water, it should render food susceptible to impurity. The Gemara answers: Rav Pappa says that this is a case of a cow that drank the lots of tamad, one by one, and some inadvertently dripped from the cow’s mouth onto food. Since no person intended to use the tamad, if it is regarded as water it will not render food susceptible to impurity.
אָמַר רַב זוּטְרָא בַּר טוֹבִיָּה אָמַר רַב אֵין אוֹמְרִים קִידּוּשׁ הַיּוֹם אֶלָּא עַל הַיַּיִן הָרָאוּי לִינָּסֵךְ עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ § Rav Zutra bar Toviyya says that Rav says: One may recite the sanctification of the Shabbat day only over wine of a quality that is fit to be poured as a libation upon the altar.
לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי אִילֵּימָא לְמַעוֹטֵי יַיִן מִגִּתּוֹ וְהָא תָּאנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא יַיִן מִגִּתּוֹ לֹא יָבִיא וְאִם הֵבִיא כָּשֵׁר וְכֵיוָן דְּאִם הֵבִיא כָּשֵׁר אֲנַן אֲפִילּוּ לְכַתְּחִלָּה נָמֵי The Gemara asks: This statement is said to exclude what? If we say it is to exclude the use of wine fresh from one’s press, i.e., grape juice, which has not yet fermented, that is difficult. But didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya teach: One may not bring wine fresh from his press as a libation ab initio, but if one brought it as a libation, it is valid after the fact. And since if one brought it as a libation it is valid after the fact, we should also be able to use it for the sanctification of the Shabbat day, even ab initio.