When Abaye asked Rav Yosef whether (with regard to which B'rachah to recite over Yiyin she'Hikrim) he held like Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, or like Rav Chisda, the latter replied - that he follows the opinion of a Beraisa (which we will now proceed to explain).

The Beraisa states that a barrel of wine that someone uses to cover the T'rumos and Ma'asros of other barrels, and that, after a month or two, he finds has turned sour - is Vaday all three days and Safek from then onwards.

The Beraisa uses the expression 'ha'Bodek es ha'Chavis', implying that he tastes the wine (see Tosfos). He may taste the wine from the barrel even before having separated Ma'asros from it - by separating the T'rumos and Ma'asros from the small part that he removes in order to taste.

The problem that now concerns the Tana is - whether all the barrels that he rectified with the T'rumos and Ma'asros that he separated until now are indeed Ma'asered or not.

According to Rebbi Yochanan, the Tana means that for the first three days, the contents of the barrel are considered wine, and it is only from the third day on that it is considered a Safek vinegar. It is considered ...

... wine the first three days (and not Safek vinegar) - because since at that stage it had not yet even begun to taste like vinegar, even assuming that it began to go off immediately after he placed the wine in the barrels, it would take at least three days to taste like vinegar.

... Safek vinegar the last three days (and not Vaday vinegar) - because we know that when he placed the wine in the barrel it was not vinegar. Consequently, even though now it has become vinegar, perhaps it only began to go sour at the beginning of the last three-day period.

We know that it was definitely wine at that first stage - because when wine begins to turn sour, it starts at the top.

We do not take into account the possibility that it began to turn sour immediately after he tasted it - because even if it did, it would be a case of 'wine that smells like vinegar but tastes like wine', which is considered wine.

According to Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi's interpretation of the Beraisa, we assume that - from the beginning of the last three days, the wine was definitely vinegar, and before that, a Safek.

He considers the wine a Safek vinegar right from the beginning - because, in contrast to Rebbi Yochanan, he holds that when wine begins to go off, it starts at the bottom. Consequently, even though the owner tasted it at the beginning, he would not necessarily have noticed, even if the bottom had begun to turn sour.

In fact, he might even concede to Rebbi Yochanan that the wine begins to turn sour from the top. Since however, he tasted it, and it did not taste like vinegar - it can not possibly have been more than a Safek vinegar at that stage.

And he considers the wine Vaday vinegar since the beginning of the last three-day period, because, as opposed to Rebbi Yochanan, he considers wine that smells like vinegar, to be vinegar, even though it tastes like wine. Consequently, since it now tastes like vinegar, we assume that it must have smelt like vinegar for the three days prior to that (since this is how long it takes for the smell to turn into taste).

According to the D'ruma'i - Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi interprets the Beraisa to mean that the first three days it is Vaday wine (like Rebbi Yochanan), the last three days it is Vaday vinegar, whilst the days in between are all a Safek.

The problem with this quotation is - that it is self-contradictory, since the first half of the ruling maintains that wine that tastes like wine but smells like vinegar is wine, whereas the second statement seems to hold the opposite.

So we conclude that basically, Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi concurs with Rebbi Yochanan. And when the D'ruma'i quote him as saying that for the last three days, it is Vaday vinegar, they must be speaking in a case - where it turned excessively sour, indicating that it had already become vinegar at least three days earlier.

Rebbi Yochanan - does not establish the Beraisa in such a case, and what's more, he doesn't seem to agree with this interpretation either. In his opinion, the last three days are always a Safek, irrespective of how acutely sour the wine became.

Rav Mari and Rav Z'vid argue over whether Rav Yosef (on the previous Amud) was referring to Rebbi Yochanan's interpretation of the Beraisa, or Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi's. We will accept the first explanation over the second - because according to the D'rumai, even Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi holds like him (with regard to wine that smells like vinegar but still tastes like wine [the case about which Rav Yosef is speaking]).

When Rav says that for the first three days following the sale, wine is considered to be in the seller's domain, he means that - if wine becomes vinegar (in taste as well as in smell) within three days of the sale, it is a Mekach Ta'us (an invalid sale (as if he would have sold wine which turned out to be vinegar), because when he sold it, it already smelt like vinegar.

This does not mean - that Yayin she'Hikrim is considered vinegar. In fact, it might well be considered wine, yet it is a Mekach Ta'us because wine that smells like vinegar is bound to become vinegar.

We will learn a Mishnah shortly 'ha'Mocher Yayin la'Chavero ve'Hichmitz, Eino Chayav be'Asharayuso'. Rav might well establish the Mishnah when this took place after three days, which we can infer from the Lashon of the Mishnah itself - because had the Tana been speaking where it occurred within three days, he should have said 've'Nimtza Chometz'.

Alternatively, Rav might establish the Mishnah, even if it occurred within three days - only the wine had been poured into the purchaser's barrel (like Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina later in the Sugya).

Shmuel rules that if wine turns sour even during the first three days and even in the barrels of the seller - then, based on the Pasuk in Chavakuk "Af ki ha'Yayin Boged" - it is the (bad) Mazel of the purchaser that caused it (see Tosfos DH 'u'Shmuel').

Rav Yosef issued a ruling like Shmuel in a case concerning wine, because a S'tam Mishnah later in the Perek clearly corroborates his opinion. He rules like Rav however - in a case concerning beer.

Our Sugya concludes - 've'Hilch'sa Kavaseih di'Shmuel'.

The Beraisa states that the B'rachah over date-beer, barley-beer and Sh'marei Yayin (dregs of wine to which one added water) is - 'Shehakol'.

We would otherwise have thought that one recites - 'ha'Eitz' on date-beer, 'Mezonos' on barley-beer, and 'ha'Gafen' on Sh'marei Yayin.

Acccording to Acherim - one does indeed recite 'ha'Gafen' over Sh'marei Yayin.

Rabah and Rav Yosef rule - like Acherim.

Rava qualifies the above Machlokes. According to him, if one adds three cups of water to the dregs and four emerge - even the Rabbanan will agree that the correct B'rachah is 'ha'Gafen'.

When we comment on this 'Rava le'Ta'ameih', we are referring to Rava's opinion - that wine is only considered such if one adds three parts water to one part wine.

Rav also states that if one pours three cups and three cups emerge - even Acherim will concede that it is not wine, even if it tastes like wine.

Even Rebbi Yehudah, who considers the wine in this very same case subject to Ma'aser, will concede that the B'rachah is 'Shehakol' ...

... based on the fact that he has a Safek as to whether this is considered wine or not. Consequently - bearing in mind that Bedieved, one is always Yotzei if one recites 'Shehakol', that is the best thing to do in case of a Safek. On the other hand, since it is a Safek, one is obligated to Ma'aser it.

The Rabbanan and Acherim therefore argue over a case - where one added three cups of water, and three and a half emerge.

The reasoning behind the ruling of ...

... the Rabbanan is - that the three and a half that emerge comprise the three of water, and only a half of wine, and one seventh wine is insufficient to recite 'ha'Gafen' over.

... Acherim is - that two and a half of the water emerged plus one of wine, and one to two and a half (two fifths) wine is sufficient to recite 'ha'Gafen' over.

We will not apply the same principle in the case where one added three cups of water and three emerged, and say there too, that two cups of water emerged and one of wine - because there is no indication that anything other than the water that he poured in came out. And even if it did, we would at most, assume that half of wine emerged, and less than a quarter of wine (a fifth in this case) is insufficient to recite 'ha'Gafen' over.