Thoughts on Bava Batra 95-96
Aside from my article about Rav and Shmuel on Beer and Wine, some thoughts about a somewhat earlier sugya.
(1) Let us begin on 95b.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: יַיִן הַנִּמְכָּר בַּחֲנוּת – מְבָרְכִין עָלָיו ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הַגֶּפֶן״. וְרַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: גַּבֵּי חַמְרָא דְּאַקְרֵים לְמָה לִי?
§ Apropos wine that is sold in the shops, the Gemara considers additional halakhot pertaining to such wine: Rav Yehuda says: Over wine of the same quality as that which is sold in the shops, one recites the standard blessing for wine: Who creates fruit of the vine. Despite the fact that such wine is not of the highest quality, it is still regarded as wine. And Rav Ḥisda said: Over wine that has formed a film as it begins to sour, why do I need to recite the blessing for wine? Since it has begun to sour, it is no longer regarded as wine. Instead, one should recite the generic blessing recited over foods of lower importance: By Whose word all things came to be.
Rav Yehuda is second-generation, Pumbedita, Rav Chisda is third-generation, Sura-oriented. So it a younger generation picking a fight with the older generation.
What is Rav Chisda saying? That it has begun to sour, as above / Rashbam / the plain meaning of the later gemara?
I would say that there are two readings of this. First, that shop-wine is wine in an intermediate spoilage stage, equivalent to the later assertions of wine which tastes like wine but smells like vinegar. They are debating the blessing on this intermediate substance.
Second, the one I’d champion, that shop wine may be near spoilage. They would not serve actual spoiled wine. The last time the owner served it, it was still fine. But you are drinking it there, and are not necessarily tasting it first. There is the chance that after the blessing of hagafen, you taste it and it is actually vinegar. If so, you said the wrong bracha. Now, this does not often happen, plus there is a chazaka, a status quo that it is actually fine. To this, Rav Yehuda says that in ritual matters — monetary matters are discussed elsewhere — you can rely on its prior status. Rav Chisda is worried about the possibility that it might have spoiled, and so wine in this safek state should not have hagafen recited over it.
We can see in a bit whether the chazaka / safek works.
(2) Yes, the alternative to hagafen seems to be shehakol. They cite the brayta from Berachot 40b. But look earlier on the daf. On actual vinegar, or any siman kelala, one shouldn’t make a blessing at all. I wonder whether we should read in a shehakol on this.
Also, see the debate of whether there is a mem sofit or a samech in shehikrim in Rav Chisda and this brayta. The Aruch has a samech, so it means spoiled, rather than formed a film (krum).
Printings with Mem:
Manuscripts with samech or with end apostrophe so you cannot tell:
Manuscripts with a Mem:
Both for akrim and hikrim. Of the two choices, krum is a more known word, with a samech, not so. Lectio difficilior → the samech is right here.
(3) Then we have Rav Yosef. I’d say he’s Rav Yehuda’s student. After all, he succeeded Rav Yehuda in leading Pumbedita academy, and often cites him in statements from Rav and Shmuel. Should he hold like his rebbe from the same place, or his contemporary third-generation from another academy? After all, there was an attack on Rav Yehuda from a brayta. My inclination would be a Rav Yehuda alignment, like we see elsewhere (e.g. the village of shepherds).
The attack from a brayta, which is defended by Rav Zevid. There is a Rav Zevid I (student of Rav Nachman, contemporary to Rav Yosef) and Rav Zevid II, student of Rava. We know from the story of Rav Adda bar Abba II’s death that Rav Yosef was still around when Rava and Abaye’s academies were operating in Pumbedita, so Rav Zevid II is acceptable. And later we will have him argue with Rav Mari. There’s similarly a Rav Mari I and II, but II is Rava’s students. Other factors make me want Rav Zevid II and Rav Mari II there, so let us assume here as well it is Rav Zevid II. Rav Yosef and Abaye may still be aware of Rav Zevid II’s defense.
Rav Zevid’s defense, that the brayta is talking about corner wine sellers, not wine shops, may just indicate that there is even less of a safek, so we don’t have to say it is about the status of intermediate stage wine.
(4) So Abaye asked Rav Yosef how he aligns.
אָמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: הָא רַב יְהוּדָה, הָא רַב חִסְדָּא; מָר כְּמַאן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ? אָמַר לֵיהּ: מַתְנִיתָא יָדַעְנָא.
Abaye said to Rav Yosef: This is the opinion of Rav Yehuda, and this is the opinion of Rav Ḥisda. In accordance with whose opinion does the Master hold? Rav Yosef said to him: I know a baraita from which it is possible to derive the halakha.
We say this phrase earlier. We might add to his expression — I don’t know from X or from Y, but I do know this source. I don’t find this expansion in a manuscript, but I still imagine it.
This brayta reads.
דְּתַנְיָא: הַבּוֹדֵק אֶת הֶחָבִית לִהְיוֹת מַפְרִישׁ עָלֶיהָ תְּרוּמָה וְהוֹלֵךְ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצֵאת חוֹמֶץ; כׇּל שְׁלֹשָׁה יוֹם – וַדַּאי, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ – סָפֵק.
As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Terumot 2:8): With regard to one who inspects a barrel to see if it still contains enough wine to continually mentally separate teruma from it to exempt other untithed wine he has, until all the wine in that barrel would be teruma and would be given to a priest, and afterward the contents of the barrel were found to have turned to vinegar, which cannot be set aside as teruma for untithed wine, then all three days after he had last inspected it, it is definitely viewed as having been wine, and any wine for which teruma was separated during those days is tithed. From that point onward, more than three days after the previous inspection, it is uncertain as to whether it had already turned to vinegar, and any wine for which teruma was separated during those days is not tithed.
The Stamma, the Talmudic Narrator, then interjects a segment about how to understand the brayta, like Rabbi Yochanan, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, or the Southern version of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. However, Rav Yosef didn’t say any of this. It was just the brayta. And Rav Zevid II and Rav Mari II argued about the meaning of his brayta citation, and so the Stamma expands about what the possible interpretations are.
The plain meaning of the brayta is that he has checked the barrel and it was wine. There is a chazaka, a status quo. Of course, spoilage is a process. And he found at the end that it had spoiled. How far forward do we cast original? Three days. Afterwards is safek. So you see that while there was an initial check, you are allowed to rely on it for ritual matters, such as teruma, or making hagafen. On the other hand, the brayta also mentions safek, where one could not rely on it (after the fact when discovered) for teruma. Maybe Rav Yosef meant to tap the safek aspect, not the original chazaka aspect. And that is what Rav Zevid and Rav Mari were arguing about.
However, the Stamma interprets it as about wine in an intermediate state, for we might assume it is in this intermediate state immediately after checking. So that is the Rabbi Yochanan / Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi / second Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi about whether such wine has wine or vinegar status. And this then involves disputes about metziut — does the wine turn to vinegar from the top or the bottom.