Bava Batra — Daf 97a

המתמד ונתן מים במדה ומצא כדי מדתו פטור ור' יהודה מחייב עד כאן לא פליגי אלא בכדי מדתו אבל ביותר מכדי מדתו לא פליגי

הוא הדין דאפילו ביותר מכדי מדתו פליגי והאי דקא מיפלגי בכדי מדתו להודיעך כחו דר' יהודה

בעא מיניה רב נחמן בר יצחק מרב חייא בר אבין שמרים שיש בהן טעם יין מהו אמר ליה מי סברת חמרא הוא קיוהא בעלמא הוא

ת"ר שמרים של תרומה ראשון ושני אסור ושלישי מותר רבי מאיר אומר אף שלישי בנותן טעם

ושל מעשר ראשון אסור שני מותר רבי מאיר אומר אף שני בנותן טעם ושל הקדש שלישי אסור ורביעי מותר ר"מ אומר אף רביעי בנותן טעם

ורמינהי של הקדש לעולם אסור ושל מעשר לעולם מותר קשיא הקדש אהקדש קשיא מעשר אמעשר

הקדש אהקדש לא קשיא כאן בקדושת הגוף כאן בקדושת דמים מעשר אמעשר נמי לא קשיא כאן במעשר ודאי כאן במעשר דמאי

א"ר יוחנן משום ר"ש בן יהוצדק כדרך שאמרו לענין איסורן כך אמרו לענין הכשירן

הכשירן דמאי אי דמיא אכשורי מכשרי אי דחמרא אכשורי מכשרי לא צריכא שתמדו במי גשמים

וכיון דקא שקיל ורמי להו למנא אחשבינהו לא צריכא שנתמד מאליו

וכיון דקא נגיד קמא קמא אחשבינהו אמר רב פפא בפרה ששותה ראשון ראשון:

אמר רב זוטרא בר טוביה אמר רב אין אומרים קידוש היום אלא על היין הראוי לינסך על גבי המזבח

למעוטי מאי אילימא למעוטי יין מגתו והא תאני ר' חייא יין מגתו לא יביא ואם הביא כשר וכיון דאם הביא כשר אנן אפילו לכתחלה נמי

He who, in making Tamad,  poured water into lees by measure and obtained the same quantity [of Tamad] is exempt [from the tithe]. And R. Judah makes him liable.  [Does not this imply that] they are in disagreement only so far as [the case] where only the quantity put in [is extracted], but not where more  than that quantity [is obtained]? — [No]; they are in disagreement even where more than the quantity put in [has been obtained], and [the reason] why they are in dispute in [the case where only] the quantity put in [has been obtained] is to show you how far-reaching is the view  of R. Judah. R. Nahman b. Isaac inquired of R. Hiyya b. Abin: What [is the law  in regard to] lees which have the flavour of wine? — He replied unto him: Do you think this is wine? It is a mere acidiferous  liquor. Our Rabbis taught: [In the case of] lees of Terumah,  the first and the second [infusion] are forbidden [to laymen],  but the third is permitted.  R. Meir says: Even the third [infusion is forbidden], when [there is in it enough of the wine] to impart a flavour [to the water]. And [in the case] of [second] tithe, the first [infusion] is forbidden,  [but] the second is permitted. R. Meir says: The second [infusion is] also [forbidden] when [it contains enough of the wine] to impart a flavour [to the water]. And [in the case] of consecrated [lees], the third [infusion] is forbidden, but the fourth is permitted. R. Meir says: The fourth [infusion is] also [forbidden] when [it contains enough of the wine] to impart a flavour [to it]. A contradiction was pointed out [from a Baraitha which states that infusions] of consecrated [things] are forever  forbidden and [those] of [the second] tithe are always  permitted. [Surely this shows] a contradiction between [the respective laws relating to] consecrated things and also between those relating to tithe! — There is no contradiction between [the respective laws relating to] consecrated things, [for] here [the law relates] to objects which were themselves  consecrated, but there [it relates] to objects whose value  only was consecrated. There is [also] no contradiction between [the respective laws relating to] tithes, [for] here, [the law relates] to that which is certainly tithe, [but] there [it relates] to tithe of Demai. R. Johanan said in the name of R. Simeon b. Jehozadak: The same [laws] that have been said [to apply] in respect of their prohibitions  have similarly been said [to apply] in respect of their making objects fit [for Levitical uncleanness].  What [kind] of making fit [is meant]? If [the infusion is regarded as consisting] of water, it certainly makes [objects] fit [for the Levitical uncleanness]; [and] if [it is regarded as consisting] of wine it [equally] makes the objects fit. [For what purpose. then, is R. Simeon's statement required?] — It is required in the case where the Tamad  was made of rain water.  But since he took up [the rain water] and poured it into the vessel [containing the lees], he [surely] intended them [for use, and consequently there is again no difference between an infusion of wine and one of water. Why, then, R. Simeon's statement]? — It is required [in the case] where the Tamad was made without the aid of human effort.  But since he draws out [the infusions] one after the other,  [does he not, thereby,] reveal his intention [of using them]? — R. papa replied: In [the case  of] a cow which drank the [infusions] one after the others [and, consequently, the owner's intention is not known]. R. Zutra b. Tobiah said in the name of Rab: The Kiddush  of the day must be proclaimed on such wine only as is fit to be brought as a drink offering upon the altar. What does this exclude? If it is suggested that it excludes wine [that comes] from his vat,  [it may be retorted]: Did not R. Hiyya teach, 'One must not bring wine from his vat [as a drink offering], but if already brought, it is permitted [to be used]'; and, since [in the case of offerings] it is permitted when brought, it [should be allowed for Kiddush] even at the start also.