Bava Batra

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.