דְּאָמַר רָבָא סוֹחֵט אָדָם אֶשְׁכּוֹל שֶׁל עֲנָבִים וְאוֹמֵר עָלָיו קִידּוּשׁ הַיּוֹם As Rava says: A person may squeeze the juice from a cluster of grapes and then recite the sanctification of the Shabbat day over it.
וְאֶלָּא לְמַעוֹטֵי מִפִּיהָ וּמִשּׁוּלֶיהָ וְהָא תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא מִפִּיהָ וּמִשּׁוּלֶיהָ לֹא יָבִיא וְאִם הֵבִיא כָּשֵׁר Rather, Rav’s statement is to exclude wine that is taken from the mouth of the barrel, which has scum floating in it, and wine taken from the bottom of the barrel, which contains the pomace. The Gemara challenges this: But didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya teach: One may not bring wine that is taken from the mouth of the barrel or from the bottom of the barrel as a libation ab initio, but if one brought it as a libation it is valid after the fact? Accordingly, it should be fit for use for the sanctification of the Shabbat day.
וְאֶלָּא לְמַעוֹטֵי יַיִן כּוּשִׁי בּוֹרֵק הֵילִיסְטוֹן שֶׁל מַרְתֵּף שֶׁל צִמּוּקִים וְהָא תַּנְיָא בְּכוּלָּן לֹא יָבִיא וְאִם הֵבִיא כָּשֵׁר Rather, Rav’s statement is to exclude black wine, borek wine, sweet wine [heiliston], wine from the cellar, and wine made from raisins. The Gemara challenges: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to all of these types of wine, one may not bring them as a libation ab initio, but if one brought one of them as a libation it is valid after the fact. Accordingly, it should be fit for use for the sanctification of the Shabbat day.
וְאֶלָּא לְמַעוֹטֵי יַיִן קוֹסֵס מָזוּג מְגוּלֶּה וְשֶׁל שְׁמָרִים וְשֶׁרֵיחוֹ רַע דְּתַנְיָא בְּכוּלָּן לֹא יָבִיא וְאִם הֵבִיא פָּסוּל Rather, Rav’s statement serves to exclude souring wine, diluted wine, wine that has been left uncovered, as there is a concern that a snake may have injected its venom into it, and wine made from grape pomace, and wine that has a foul odor. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to all of these types of wine, one may not bring them as a libation, and if one brought one of them as a libation, it is disqualified.
לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי אִי לְמַעוֹטֵי קוֹסֵס פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי הִיא The Gemara asks again: Rav’s statement serves to exclude which of these types of wine? If one suggests Rav intended to exclude souring wine, that cannot be, as the status of wine that tastes like wine but has the odor of vinegar is the subject of a dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi (96a).
אִי לְמַעוֹטֵי מָזוּג עַלּוֹיֵי עַלְּיֵיהּ דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא מוֹדִים חֲכָמִים לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּכוֹס שֶׁל בְּרָכָה שֶׁאֵין מְבָרְכִין עָלָיו עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן לְתוֹכוֹ מַיִם If one suggests that Rav’s statement serves to exclude diluted wine, why would such wine be disqualified for the sanctification of the Shabbat day? Diluting wine is an improvement of it, as Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: Even though the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer and hold that over undiluted wine one recites the blessing: Who created the fruit of the vine, nevertheless the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Eliezer with regard to a cup used for a blessing, such as the cup of wine over which Grace after Meals is recited, that one does not recite the blessing over it until he adds water to it to make it palatable.
אִי לְמַעוֹטֵי מְגוּלֶּה סַכָּנָה הִיא If one suggests that Rav’s statement serves to exclude wine that has been left uncovered, it would be unnecessary for Rav to teach this, because such wine, which is dangerous to drink, as a snake may have injected its venom into it, is already forbidden.
אִי לְמַעוֹטֵי שֶׁל שְׁמָרִים הֵיכִי דָמֵי אִי דִּרְמָא תְּלָתָא וַאֲתָא אַרְבְּעָה חַמְרָא מְעַלְּיָא הוּא אִי דִּרְמָא תְּלָתָא וַאֲתָא תְּלָתָא וּפַלְגָא פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבָּנַן וַאֲחֵרִים הִיא If one suggests that Rav’s statement serves to exclude wine made from pomace, what are the circumstances? If it is referring to a case where one poured three jugs of water over the pomace and the volume of the resulting beverage came to four jugs, that is considered full-fledged wine, which may certainly be used for the sanctification of the Shabbat day. If it is referring to where one poured three jugs of water over the pomace, and the resulting beverage came to three and a half jugs, this is the subject of a dispute between the Rabbis and Aḥerim, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who rule that it is not regarded as wine.
אֶלָּא לְמַעוֹטֵי שֶׁרֵיחוֹ רַע וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא לְעוֹלָם לְמַעוֹטֵי מְגוּלֶּה וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּעַבְּרֵיהּ בִּמְסַנֶּנֶת כְּרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי הַקְרִיבֵהוּ נָא לְפֶחָתֶךָ הֲיִרְצְךָ אוֹ הֲיִשָּׂא פָנֶיךָ Rather, Rav’s statement serves to exclude wine that has a foul odor. And if you wish, say that actually his statement serves to exclude wine that has been left uncovered, and it teaches the novelty that even though one passes it through a sieve, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya (see Terumot 8:7), nevertheless, it still may not be used for the sanctification of the Shabbat day. This is because it is disrespectful to use inferior wine for a mitzva, as derived from the verse in which God rebukes the Jewish people for offering lame animals as offerings: “Present it now unto your governor; will he be pleased with you or will he accept your person? says the Lord of hosts” (Malachi 1:8).
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא חֲמוּהּ דְּרַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא מֵרָבָא חֲמַר חִוַּורְיָין מַהוּ אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַל תֵּרֶא יַיִן כִּי יִתְאַדָּם: Rav Kahana, father-in-law of Rav Mesharshiyya, asked Rava: With regard to using white wine for libations and for the sanctification of the Shabbat day, what is the halakha? He said to him in response that the verse states: “Do not look upon the wine when it is red, when it gives its color in the cup, when it glides down smoothly” (Proverbs 23:31), which indicates that red wine is considered to be of a superior quality.
קַנְקַנִּים בַּשָּׁרוֹן וְכוּ׳ תָּאנָא פִּיטָסוֹת נָאוֹת וּמְגוּפָּרוֹת: § The mishna teaches: When purchasing jugs of wine in the Sharon region, he accepts upon himself that up to ten inferior-quality jugs may be present in each hundred jugs purchased. It was taught in a baraita: The buyer must accept ten inferior-quality jugs in one hundred only when even those ten inferior-quality jugs are beautiful and sealed with pitch to strengthen them.
מַתְנִי׳ הַמּוֹכֵר יַיִן לַחֲבֵירוֹ וְהֶחְמִיץ אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ וְאִם יָדוּעַ שֶׁיֵּינוֹ מַחְמִיץ הֲרֵי זֶה מִקָּח טָעוּת וְאִם אָמַר לוֹ יַיִן MISHNA: If one sells wine to another and then it sours, the seller does not bear financial responsibility for its loss. But if it is known of this seller that his wine always sours, then this sale is a mistaken transaction, i.e., one based upon false assumptions, as the buyer intended to purchase wine that would maintain its quality; therefore, the seller must reimburse the buyer. And if the seller said to the buyer: It is wine