וְזֶהוּ אוֹצָר שֶׁשָּׁנוּ חֲכָמִים בְּמִשְׁנָתֵינוּ,

Rav Zevid concludes: And this is the case of the storeroom, i.e., the cellar, that the Sages taught in the mishna. It is clear from this baraita both that it contradicts the suggested addition to the previous baraita, and that the mishna concerns a case where one specified which wine cellar he was selling.

אֶלָּא מַתְנִיתִין נַמִי אָמַר לֵיהּ ״זֶה״.

Rather, as indicated by the baraita, the mishna also concerns a case where one says to the buyer: I am selling you this particular cellar, and because he specified a particular cellar the buyer accepts upon himself the possibility that up to ten barrels per hundred might be sour.

קַשְׁיָא ״זֶה״ ״זֶה״.

Having retracted the addition to the first baraita, the Gemara asks: If so, it is difficult to reconcile the first baraita, which rules that if the seller specified that he was selling this cellar, he must provide wine that is all of good quality, with the second baraita, that of Rav Zevid, which rules with regard to the same case, in which the seller specified he was selling this cellar, that the buyer accepts that up to ten barrels per hundred may contain souring wine.

לָא קַשְׁיָא. הָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְמִקְפָּה הָא לָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְמִקְפָּה. רַב זְבִיד אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְמִקְפָּה, בָּרַיְיתָא לָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְמִקְפָּה,

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This baraita is referring to a case where the buyer said to him that he needs the wine for cooking, and therefore he requires good-quality wine, whereas that baraita is referring to a case where the buyer did not say to him that he needs the wine for cooking. The Gemara elaborates: The second baraita, taught by Rav Zevid, is referring to a case where the buyer said that he needs the wine for cooking, whereas the first baraita is referring to a case where the buyer did not say to him that he requires it for cooking.

הִלְכָּךְ ״מַרְתֵּף שֶׁל יַיִן״ וְאָמַר לוֹ לְמִקְפָּה נוֹתֵן לוֹ יַיִן שֶׁכּוּלּוֹ יָפֶה; ״מַרְתֵּף זֶה שֶׁל יַיִן״ וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ לְמִקְפָּה נוֹתֵן לוֹ יַיִן שֶׁכּוּלּוֹ יָפֶה, וּמְקַבֵּל עָלָיו עֶשֶׂר קוֹסְסוֹת לְמֵאָה; ״מַרְתֵּף זֶה שֶׁל יַיִן״ וְלָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְמִקְפָּה נוֹתֵן לוֹ יַיִן הַנִּמְכָּר בַּחֲנוּת.

The Gemara concludes: Therefore, the halakha is that if one said that he is selling: A wine cellar, and the buyer said to him: I need the wine for cooking, then the seller is obligated to give him wine that is all of good quality. If one said that he is selling: This particular wine cellar, and the buyer said to him: I need the wine for cooking, then the seller is obligated to give him wine that is all of good quality, but the buyer accepts upon himself ten barrels of souring wine in each hundred barrels purchased. If one said that he is selling: This particular wine cellar, and the buyer did not say to him: I need the wine for cooking, then the seller may give to him the wine that is in his possession, even if it is of a quality that is sold in the shops, i.e., it is beginning to sour.

אִיבַּעֲיָא לְהוּ ״מַרְתֵּף שֶׁל יַיִן״ וְלָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְמִקְפָּה, מַאי? פְּלִיגִי בָּהּ רַב אַחָא וְרָבִינָא, חַד אָמַר: מְקַבֵּל וְחַד אָמַר: לֹא מְקַבֵּל.

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If one said that he is selling: A wine cellar, and the buyer did not say to him: I need the wine for cooking, what is the halakha? Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree about this. One says: The buyer must accept ten barrels of souring wine per hundred, and the other one says: The buyer need not accept any barrels of souring wine.

מַאן דְּאָמַר מְקַבֵּל דָּיֵיק מִדְּרַב זְבִיד, דְּקָתָנֵי: ״מַרְתֵּף שֶׁל יַיִן אֲנִי מוֹכֵר לְךָ״ – נוֹתֵן לוֹ יַיִן שֶׁכּוּלּוֹ יָפֶה, וְאוֹקִימְנָא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ לְמִקְפָּה; טַעֲמָא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ לְמִקְפָּה, הָא לָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְמִקְפָּה – מְקַבֵּל.

The Gemara explains their reasoning. The one who says that the buyer must accept ten barrels of souring wine per hundred infers this though a precise reading of the baraita of Rav Zevid, as it teaches: If one says: I am selling to you a wine cellar, then he is required to give him wine that is all of good quality. And we interpreted this baraita as referring to a case where the buyer said to him: I need the wine for cooking. The Gemara explains the inference: The only reason that he must provide him with wine that is all of good quality is that the buyer said to him that he needed it for cooking. By inference, where the buyer does not say to him: I need it for cooking, the buyer must accept ten barrels of souring wine per hundred.

וּמַאן דְּאָמַר לָא מְקַבֵּל דָּיֵיק מִבָּרַיְיתָא, דְּקָתָנֵי: ״מַרְתֵּף שֶׁל יַיִן אֲנִי מוֹכֵר לְךָ״ – נוֹתֵן לוֹ יַיִן שֶׁכּוּלּוֹ יָפֶה, וְאוֹקִימְנָא דְּלָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְמִקְפָּה.

And the one who says that the buyer need not accept any barrels of souring wine infers this through a precise reading of the first baraita, as it teaches: If one says: I am selling to you a wine cellar, then he is required to give him wine that is all of good quality. And we interpreted this baraita as referring to a case where he did not say to him: I need the wine for cooking, and even so, the buyer need not accept any barrels of souring wine.

וּלְמַאן דְּדָיֵיק מִדְּרַב זְבִיד, קַשְׁיָא בָּרַיְיתָא! חַסּוּרֵי מִחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ לְמִקְפָּה, הָא לָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְמִקְפָּה – מְקַבֵּל. וּ״מַרְתֵּף זֶה שֶׁל יַיִן״ וְלָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְמִקְפָּה – נוֹתֵן לוֹ יַיִן הַנִּמְכָּר בַּחֲנוּת.

The Gemara asks: But then, according to the one who infers his opinion through a precise reading of the baraita of Rav Zevid, the first baraita poses a difficulty. The Gemara answers that according to his opinion, the baraita is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: If one says: I am selling to you a cellar of wine, then he is required to give him wine that is all of good quality. In what case is this statement said? It is said in a case where the buyer said to him: I need the wine for cooking. By inference, where the buyer did not say to him: I need the wine for cooking, the buyer must accept ten barrels of souring wine per hundred. And if one said that he is selling: This particular wine cellar, and the buyer did not say to him: I need the wine for cooking, then one may give to him the wine that is in his possession, even if it is of a quality that is sold in the shops, i.e., it is beginning to sour.

וּלְמַאן דְּדָיֵיק מִבָּרַיְיתָא, קַשְׁיָא דְּרַב זְבִיד, דְּאוֹקִימְנָא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ לְמִקְפָּה, הָא לָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְמִקְפָּה – מְקַבֵּל!

The Gemara asks: And according to the one who infers his opinion through a precise reading of the first baraita, the baraita of Rav Zevid poses a difficulty, as we interpreted it as referring to a case where the buyer said to him: I need the wine for cooking. And this opinion inferred that if the buyer did not say to him: I need it for cooking, then the buyer must accept ten barrels of souring wine per hundred.

הוּא הַדִּין דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְמִקְפָּה לָא מְקַבֵּל, וְהַאי דְּאוֹקִימְנָא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ לְמִקְפָּה – מִשּׁוּם דְּקַשְׁיָא ״זֶה״ אַ״זֶּה״.

The Gemara answers: The same is true according to both baraitot, that even where the buyer did not say to him: I need the wine for cooking, the buyer need not accept ten barrels of souring wine. And there is no proof from the fact that we interpreted the baraita as referring to a case where he said to him: I need it for cooking, since we did so only due to the difficulty of the contradiction between the ruling of the first baraita in the case where the seller specified that he was selling this cellar and the ruling of the baraita of Rav Zevid in the same case where the seller specified he was selling this cellar. Due to that difficulty, the entire baraita was interpreted as referring to a case where the buyer said: I need the wine for cooking, despite the fact that in the case where he did not mention a specific cellar it makes no difference whether or not he said so.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: יַיִן הַנִּמְכָּר בַּחֲנוּת – מְבָרְכִין עָלָיו ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הַגֶּפֶן״; וְרַב חִסְדָּא אֲמַר: גַּבֵּי חַמְרָא דְּאַקְרִים לָמָּה 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.

מֵיתִיבֵי: עַל הַפַּת שֶׁעִפְּשָׁה, וְעַל הַיַּיִן שֶׁהִקְרִים, וְעַל תַּבְשִׁיל שֶׁעָבְרָה צוּרָתוֹ – אוֹמֵר ״שֶׁהַכֹּל נִהְיָה בִּדְבָרוֹ״!

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Yehuda’s opinion. It is taught in a baraita: Over bread that has become moldy, and over wine that has formed a film, and over a cooked dish that has spoiled, one recites the blessing: By Whose word all things came to be. Since these foods have partially spoiled, it is inappropriate to recite the specific blessings designated for such foods in their fresh state.

אֲמַר רַב זְבִיד: מוֹדֶה רַב יְהוּדָה בְּפוּרְצְמָא דְּמִיזְדַּבַּן אַקַּרְנָתָא.

Rav Zevid said: Rav Yehuda concedes that one does not recite the blessing of: Who creates fruit of the vine, on wine made from grape seeds that is sold on the street corners. It is to such significantly inferior wine that the baraita refers. Wine sold in the shops still has the taste and appearance of wine, so one should recite the standard blessing for wine.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבַּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: הָא רַב יְהוּדָה, הָא רַב חִסְדָּא, מָר כְּמַאן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ? אֲמַר 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.