תְּנֵינָא: הַמּוֹצִיא יַיִן — כְּדֵי מְזִיגַת כּוֹס, וְתָנֵי עֲלַהּ: כְּדֵי מְזִיגַת כּוֹס יָפֶה. וְקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: ״וּשְׁאָר כׇּל הַמַּשְׁקִין בִּרְבִיעִית״. וְרָבָא לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: כֹּל חַמְרָא דְּלָא דָּרֵי עַל חַד תְּלָת מַיָּא לָאו חַמְרָא הוּא.
learned that in the mishna: One who carries out undiluted wine is only liable if he carries out a measure equivalent to the wine typically diluted for a cup. And it was taught with regard to the mishna: A measure equivalent to the wine diluted for a significant cup of wine. And it was taught in the latter clause of the mishna: And the measure that determines liability for carrying out all other liquids is a quarter of a log. Since a quarter of a log is the significant measure for liquids, that is also the significant measure for diluted wine. And Rava is consistent with his line of reasoning, as Rava said: Any wine that does not hold one part wine diluted by three parts water is not wine. Wine must be sufficiently potent to be capable of being diluted with water three times its measure.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: שְׁתֵּי תְּשׁוּבוֹת בַּדָּבָר — חֲדָא, דִּתְנַן: וְהַמָּזוּג שְׁנֵי חֶלְקֵי מַיִם וְאֶחָד יַיִן, מִן הַיַּיִן הַשֵּׁירוֹנִי. וְעוֹד: מַיִם בַּכַּד וּמִצְטָרְפִין?!
Abaye said: There are two possible responses with regard to this matter. One, as we learned in a mishna: Diluted wine, which is used to determine the exact color of red, is two parts water and one part wine from the wine of the Sharon. Apparently, wine constitutes one-third and not one-quarter of the diluted cup. And furthermore: Rava’s opinion is that the measure that determines liability for carrying out wine is a measure that, when diluted, would equal a quarter of a log, i.e., a quarter of a quarter of a log of undiluted wine. Is it possible that the water is in the jug and yet joins together with the wine? The wine that he is carrying out is less than the required measure and is not fit for drinking.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: הָא דְּקָאָמְרַתְּ שְׁנֵי חֶלְקֵי מַיִם וְאֶחָד יַיִן מִן הַיַּיִן הַשֵּׁירוֹנִי — יַיִן הַשֵּׁירוֹנִי לְחוּד, דְּרָפֵי. אִי נָמֵי, הָתָם מִשּׁוּם חֲזוּתָא, אֲבָל לְטַעְמָא בָּעֵי טְפֵי. וּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ: מַיִם בַּכַּד וּמִצְטָרְפִין — לְעִנְיַן שַׁבָּת מִידֵּי דַּחֲשִׁיב בָּעֵינַן, וְהָא נָמֵי — הָא חֲשִׁיב.
Rava said to him: That which you said that the dilution ratio that determines the color red is two parts water and one part wine, from the wine of the Sharon, is no proof. Wine of the Sharon is unique in that it is weak, and therefore two parts of water are sufficient to dilute it. Alternatively, there the dilution ratio mentioned is for determining the appearance of the color red; however, for the purpose of taste, more water is necessary. And that which you said: Is it possible that the water is in the jug and yet joins together with the wine? With regard to the liability of carrying out on Shabbat, we require an object that is significant, and this quarter of a quarter of a log of wine is also significant.
תָּנָא: יָבֵשׁ בִּכְזַיִת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי נָתָן. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: רַבִּי נָתָן וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אָמְרוּ דָּבָר אֶחָד. רַבִּי נָתָן — הָא דַּאֲמַרַן, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שִׁשָּׁה דְּבָרִים מִקּוּלֵּי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּמֵחוּמְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל. דַּם נְבֵלָה — בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מְטַהֲרִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מְטַמְּאִין. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אַף כְּשֶׁטִּמְּאוּ בֵּית הִלֵּל, לֹא טִמְּאוּ אֶלָּא בְּדָם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ רְבִיעִית, הוֹאִיל וְיָכוֹל לִקְרוֹשׁ וְלַעֲמוֹד עַל כְּזַיִת.
A tanna taught in a Tosefta: The measure that determines liability for carrying out congealed wine on Shabbat is an olive-bulk; this is the statement of Rabbi Natan. Rav Yosef said: Rabbi Natan and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said the same thing. Rabbi Natan’s statement is that which we just stated. And the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, is as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: Six matters are among the leniencies of Beit Shammai and among the stringencies of Beit Hillel. They include the blood of a carcass. Beit Shammai deem it ritually pure, as, in their opinion, only the flesh of a carcass imparts impurity; and Beit Hillel deem it ritually impure. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said: Even when Beit Hillel deemed it impure, they deemed impure only a measure of blood that contains a quarter of a log, since it can congeal and constitute an olive-bulk. Rav Yosef draws a parallel between the two opinions. Both tanna’im agree that a quarter of a log of liquid congeals to the size of an olive-bulk.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: דִּילְמָא לָא הִיא. עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי נָתָן הָכָא דִּכְזַיִת בָּעֵי רְבִיעִית — אֶלָּא בְּיַיִן דִּקְלִישׁ, אֲבָל בְּדָם דִּסְמִיךְ — כְּזַיִת לָא בָּעֵי רְבִיעִית. אִי נָמֵי, עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הָתָם דִּכְזַיִת סַגִּי לֵיהּ בִּרְבִיעִית — אֶלָּא בְּדָם דִּסְמִיךְ, אֲבָל יַיִן דִּקְלִישׁ — כְּזַיִת הָוֵי יוֹתֵר מֵרְבִיעִית, וְכִי מַפֵּיק פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת לִיחַיַּיב.
Abaye said: Perhaps that is not the case, as Rabbi Natan said that a quarter of a log is required only here, with regard to wine, which is liquid; however, with regard to blood, which is viscous, in order to produce an olive-bulk when congealed, a quarter of a log is not required. Less than a quarter of a log of blood congeals into an olive-bulk. Alternatively, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said that in order to create a congealed olive-bulk, a quarter of a log is sufficient only there, with regard to blood, which is viscous; however, wine, which is liquid, in order to create a congealed olive-bulk, more than a quarter of a log of wine is required. And, therefore, even when he carries out less than an olive-bulk on Shabbat, let him be liable. There is no proof that the two tannaitic opinions are parallel.
חָלָב כְּדֵי גְמִיעָה. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: ״כְּדֵי גְמִיאָה״, אוֹ ״כְּדֵי גְמִיעָה״. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: ״הַגְמִיאִינִי נָא מְעַט מַיִם מִכַּדֵּךְ״.
We learned in the mishna: The measure that determines liability for carrying out milk is equivalent to that which is swallowed [kedei gemia] in one gulp. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is the correct version of the mishna: Kedei gemia with an alef or kedei gemia with an ayin? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It should be written with an alef as we find in the Torah: “And he said: Give me to swallow [hagmi’ini with an alef ] please, a little water from your jug” (Genesis 24:17).
A similar dilemma with regard to spelling was raised before the Sages.