Explanation #1 (Rashbam): He took a little from the barrel and separated Terumah from it, and afterwards tasted it.

Rebuttal: There was no need to give this difficult explanation. He can "taste" it through smelling it! If it smells like wine, it is Vadai wine, for there is Vadai wine that smells like vinegar, but vinegar never smells like wine.

Remark: This that it says below "he tasted it, and it had not soured" forced him to explain so, for it does not connote that he tasted it through smell.

Implied question: Why can't we say that according to R. Yochanan that it spoils from the bottom?

Answer: If so, what is the source that the first three days it is Vadai wine? Perhaps at the time he tasted it, the taste already soured below two days ago!

Suggestion: Perhaps it already soured below three days ago!

Rejection: It is unreasonable that it is total vinegar below, and above it smells and tastes like wine.

Question: What is the Gemara's source to distinguish like this, since we can say that according to everyone, it spoils from the top?

Answer: We must say that it says so because it holds that this is the truth, that it spoils from the bottom.

Suggestion: This reason that it spoils from the bottom [suffices] alone, but really, he holds that if it smells like vinegar and tastes like wine, it is wine!

Rejection: If so, the last three days, why is it Vadai vinegar? Perhaps all three days it smelled like vinegar and tasted like wine, and now it finished souring!

Pesak (Rashbam): The Halachah follows R. Yochanan, for Romai hold like him.

Support: Also Rava holds like him in Avodah Zarah (66b), which I brought above (95a DH v'Nosen).

Explanation: Even if the buyer gave coins, [the seller] returns them, for since it looks like absolute vinegar within three days of the sale, it is known that at the time of the sale it smelled like vinegar, and people do not pay money for such wine.

Even though he tasted it and it smelled like wine, surely he did not taste it well, since it soured within three [days].

[If it soured] from here [three days] and onwards, it is in the buyer's Reshus, and even if he did not yet give coins, he is obligated to give.

Distinction: However, it seems that when he did not taste it at the time he bought it, we say ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah (to collect, one must bring a proof), for it is a Safek.

Implied question: A Mishnah below (97b) says that if one sold wine to his friend and it soured, he has no Achrayus!

Answer #1: That is when [it soured] after three days.

Answer #2: [He poured it] into the buyer's Kelim, like R. Yosi bar Chanina below. So the Rashbam explained.

Consequence: [The Rashbam] must say that here, we know that the seller's bottle is good. If not, why is he liable in Achrayus?

The seller can say "the wine was good, and the bottle caused it to spoil within three days. You should not have kept it [in the Kli], rather, you should have drank it or emptied it into a different Kli", like he tells him when it was in the buyer's bottles!

Question: It is difficult to say that we discuss when the seller kept it in this Kli for a long time, and [we cannot attribute the souring to the Kli, for] if the Kli caused it, it would have soured earlier.

It is more reasonable to say that here we discuss within three days, and even in the buyer's bottle, for the bottle does not cause it to spoil within three days.

Conclusion: Rather, surely he did not taste it well, and there [it soured] after three days (like Answer #1), and he said that it is for porridge (to use it little by little. Therefore, R. Yosi bar Chanina distinguishes between the seller's Kli and the buyer's Kli.)

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): A person's Mazel causes wine [to sour].

He holds like R. Chiya bar Yosef below. Therefore it is not in the seller's Reshus.

Rebuttal #1: [If so,] he should have used the wording below "wine, a person's Mazel causes [it to sour]."

Rebuttal #2: Also, when it says below "he argues with R. Chiya bar Yosef", it should have said that he argues with Shmuel!

Rebuttal #3: It is unreasonable that a person's Mazel would cause wine to sour quickly within three days, for always, wine sours only after three days!

Rebuttal #4: R. Yochanan said above that the first three days, it is Vadai wine. Perhaps the person's Mazel caused it to sour immediately!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): "Wine jumps on the man's shoulder", i.e. since the wine was carried on the shoulders, it spoiled through being shaken, and soured quickly.

Question: R. Yosi bar Chanina said below that in the seller's Kelim, he can say "here is your wine, and here is your bottle.' How can he say so? Perhaps it was spoiled through shaking. Why must the seller pay (return the money)?

Answer #1: Below we establish it when he said "for porridge." Since he said so, it should last even when he shakes it, and even after three days.

Answer #2: Below, since it is after three days, it is more reasonable to attribute that it soured normally, than to say that shaking caused [it to sour];

However, within three days, we should say that shaking caused it to sour, rather than say that he did not taste it properly.

Question: Why isn't it in the seller's Reshus? He sold it to the buyer with this intent, to take it from there and move it!

Question: According to the Rashbam, why does it say that [Rav Yosef] ruled in a case about beer like Rav? [All agree about beer, for] Shmuel said [that the seller is exempt] only because [the buyer's] Mazel caused it to sour. This applies only to wine, like it says "ha'Yayin Boged..."!

Explanation #1: This is not only for date beer. Rather, even date honey one blesses sheha'Kol on it;

What is the reason? It is like Mar bar Rav Ashi said in Brachos (38a) that one blesses sheha'Kol on date honey. What is the reason? It is a mere Zei'ah (secretion).

What comes out of Peros is called Zei'ah.

Explanation #2: Bahag said that only there, when they soaked [date honey] in water, but what drips from dates, one blesses Borei Peri ha'Etz on it.

Rebuttal #1: Mar bar Rav Ashi said that it is a mere Zei'ah, and what comes out of Peros is called Zei'ah;

Even what comes out of olives and grapes would be [considered] mere Zei'ah, if not that we derive in Chulin (120b) that one receives 40 lashes for [Orlah] for what comes out of them.

Rebuttal #2: We bring regarding [that Mishnah about Orlah] a Beraisa about Terumah, which says "like whom is this? It is like the following Tana;

Citation (Chulin 120b - Beraisa - R. Eliezer): Date honey and apple wine [of Terumah, if a Zar ate them b'Shogeg,] he is liable principal and Chomesh. R. Yehoshua exempts;

The reason is because it did not change to something better than when it became honey.

Explanation: It did not change to something better, for it has another improvement, i.e. it can become bread. (We say so in Brachos 36a about wheat flour.)

Also, perhaps the barley is not primary. Perhaps the water is primary!

Pesak (R. Tam): Wine that they make from [putting water on] Chartzanim (grape pits), even if it has a taste of wine, since he did not put in three [measures] and get out four [measures of wine], we bless sheha'Kol on it.

Suggestion: Perhaps Purtzani (such wine) is better than that made from dregs!

Rejection: It says in Pesachim (42b) 'does [R. Yehudah hold that] Temed need not be tithed? A Mishnah teaches that if one made Temed and put in a measure of water, and got out [the same] measure, he is exempt, and R. Yehudah obligates;

We answer that this refers to Ravaki, and this refers to Purtzani.

Explanation: [Wine] of Purtzani is worse. "Of Ravaki" is of dregs. It is esteemed, and it must be tithed.

Suggestion: We could say oppositely! Purtzani is esteemed, and the case of one who made Temed discusses Purtzani!

Rejection: If so, what was the question below "when it is more than the measure, do they argue? A Mishnah says that if one made Temed..."

What was the question? Temed of Purtzani is different, for it is esteemed!

Conclusion: Rather, surely, of dregs is more important, and even so we bless sheha'Kol on it, since he did not put in three and get out four, and all the more so of Purtzani.

Observation: It says so also in Shabbos (76b) that a Kos Shel Brachah must have a quarter Revi'is so that one will mix it [with water], and in all it will be a Revi'is.

Question: It says in Sanhedrin (37a) "Al Yechsar ha'Mazeg" - if 23 [judges of the Great Sanhedrin] will not remain, corresponding to a small Sanhedrin, one may leave. If not, one of them who needed to leave may not leave.

Inference: We expound from "Mazeg" that there are two parts of water and one of wine. Here we say that there are three parts of water!

Answer #1 (R. Yitzchak): There, we compare the Sanhedrin to the mixing of Sharoni wine. Two parts of water suffice for it, like it says in Shabbos (77a) "Sharoni wine is different, for it is weak."

We cannot say that it refers to other wines, for a quarter of the [Great] Sanhedrin is not proper for capital cases, for we learn (Sanhedrin 2a) from verses that we require 23.

Answer #2 (R. Menachem): He expounds "Al Yechsar ha'Mazeg". The Gematriya of Mazeg is 50, but 49 may be lacking, and 22 remain, and we do not have a Beis Din with an even number of judges, so we add one, and there are 23.

Disclaimer: However, in the Yerushalmi and Pesikta it explicitly expounds from the mixing of wine.

Answer #3: Some explain "Al Yechsar ha'Mazeg", i.e. the mixing of wine proper for 70 parts of water, i.e. mixed, which is 23 [measures of wine], for each one three [measures of water].

Implied question (Rashbam): We could have asked that they argue about when the same measure comes out, for R. Yehudah obligates!

Answer #1: We could have said that R. Yehudah's opinion is a mere stringency regarding Tevel.

Question: A Mishnah in Chulin (25b) teaches that Temed, before it ferments, is not bought with Kesef Ma'aser, and it disqualifies a Mikveh (because it is Mayim She'uvim, i.e. it was in a Kli). After it ferments, it may be bought with Kesef Ma'aser, and it does not disqualify a Mikveh (because it is not considered water);

The Gemara asks "who taught this? It is not R. Yehudah, and not Rabanan, for the Mishnah says that Temed..."

What was the question? We can say that really, it is R. Yehudah of (who taught about) Ma'aser, and even if it did not ferment, it is a mere stringency [that one must tithe it]!

Answer #1: It is obvious to him that [the Chiyuv] even when it did not ferment is only a stringency that R. Yehudah imposes to tithe.

Answer #2: It is a Safek whether it is considered wine, and it should not disqualify a Mikveh, just like Safek Mayim She'uvim, which is Kosher.

Answer #2: Some explain that we do not ask that they argue about when the same measure comes out, for this is not so difficult if Rabanan and others are like Rabanan of R. Yehudah;

However, if they exempt when it is more than the measure, who are they? They are not R. Yehudah, and not Rabanan!