Implied question: The Seifa in Ma'aseros (5:6) says that the amount above the measure he entered, he tithes it from elsewhere;

Rabanan argue with him only when he entered three and four came out.

Question (Ri): How can Rabanan exempt when he entered three and three and a half came out, since it gives taste?

We hold in Avodah Zarah (73b) that Min b'Eino Mino forbids if it gives taste!

Answer: It is mere acidity. It is not Nosen Ta'am. It is like mere earth. It seems that the Rashbam explained like this.

Pesak: Based on this, R. Tam ruled that b'Di'eved, if a Nochri bathed in a barrel of dregs of wine, it is permitted, for it is not wine. It is mere acidity.

Question: What does the Beraisa discuss?

If it is the same measure, or even if he entered three and three and a half came out, according to Rabanan, even the first should be permitted;

If he entered three and four came out, according to Rabanan, even the fourth of Ma'aser should be forbidden!

Answer: The case is, there is no taste of wine, just mere acidity. Even so, regarding Hekdesh they were stringent to forbid until the third; `

We discuss when he was not Makdish dregs. If he was Makdish them, it is always forbidden.

Question: Here it connotes that there is a difference between rainwater and other liquids. What difference can there be between them?

Answer #1 (Rashbam): Regarding water, we require that he is pleased [for it to be Machshir]. We do not require this for other liquids such as wine. Even if he is not pleased, it is Machshir, for [only] regarding water it is written "v'Chi Yutan Mayim Al Zera."

Objection (Rashba): We do not find anywhere that wine is more important than water regarding Hechsher. We learn Hechsher for all liquids from "Asher Yavo Alav Mayim"!

In Pesachim (18a), some do not establish "v'Chol Mashkeh Asher Yishaseh b'Chol Kli" regarding Hechsher. If so, what is the source that we do not require that he is pleased?

Answer (Ri): Regarding rain, we require two matters - that he intend from the beginning that they be drinks, and afterwards we require that he is pleased;

However, other drinks, e.g. water, wine and oil, since he is pleased, they are Machshir, even if he does not consider them to be a drink.

Question: A Mishnah in Machshirin (6:1), brought in Chulin (13a) teaches that one who takes his Peros up to the roof due to lice, and dew descended on them, they are not b'Chi Yutan;

If he intended for this, they are b'Chi Yutan, even though initially he did not consider them to be a drink!

Answer: Perhaps dew is more important to be a drink than rainwater.

Explanation: Now, we properly discuss even good water that is not rainwater. Since they became mixed with dregs, they are not proper to be Machshir.

Implied question: Why doesn't it say "Ela" (since we retract)?

Answer: It is because no Amora was mentioned above.

Suggestion: We can prove from here that cooked wine is Kosher for Kidush, and we bless on it Borei Peri ha'Gafen, since it does not say that it is to exclude cooked wine!

Rejection: This is not a proof. Even if we may not say Kidush on it, we could not say to exclude cooked wine, for if so, it should have said "we do not bless on it Borei Peri ha'Gafen"!

Opinion #1: However, we can bring a proof from the Yerushalmi in Shekalim and Pesachim that it is absolute wine, for it says there that the four cups that they said, one is Yotzei with cooked wine!

Inference: One may make Kidush on cooked wine!

Opinion #2: This is unlike Rashi and the Rashbam, who wrote that we bless sheha'Kol on cooked wine, for it changed detrimentally. It is not proper to elaborate more here.

Explanation: This refers to the Mishnah in Brachos (50b) which says that we do not bless on wine until putting water into it. This is R. Eliezer's opinion;

About this, R. Yosi b'Ribi Chanina said in the Gemara that they agree about the Kos Shel Brachah. It explains the reason there, that this is to do the ideal Mitzvah. (We do not bless until it is proper to drink.)

Question: It says in Brachos (51a) that 10 things were said about the Kos Shel Brachah. One rinses it, Chai (one puts pure wine in it), it must be full...

Inference: The Kos Shel Brachah must be Chai, and not mixed!

Answer #1 (Chachamei Narvona): "Chai" refers to the cup. It must be complete, and not broken.

Source: Death applies to a Kli, like it says in Bava Kama (54a) that breakage of a Kli is its death.

Support: All 10 matters refer to the cup, and not the wine.

Answer #2 (Rashi in Brachos): Chai means that one puts pure wine in the cup over which he will bless, and afterwards they mix it with water. This excludes that they may not mix it in this cup, and [pour it into and bless] on another cup.

Answer #3 (R. Tam): There, Chai means partially mixed.

Support: This is how we establish in Sanhedrin (70b) Rav's teaching that [a Ben Sorer u'Moreh] is liable only if he eats meat and drinks wine Chai, to be partially mixed.

Implied question: In Shabbos (76b), it connotes that we mix it until a Revi'is, for it says that the Kos Shel Brachah must have a quarter Revi'is [of pure wine], so it will be mixed and will be a Revi'is! (I.e. it is fully diluted with three parts of water for each part of wine.)

Answer (R. Tam): In Birkas ha'Aretz, he adds water, like it says in Brachos (51a) "and we add in Birkas ha'Aretz", unlike Rashi, who explained there that we add wine.

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): Chivaryan is Borak (poor white wine. Rav Kahana, who asked this,) did not hear the Beraisa above, which teaches that one may not bring Borak, but if he brought it, it is Kosher.

Explanation #2 (Ri): He properly heard the Beraisa. Chivaryan is worse than Borak, for Chivaryan is too white. Borak is only shiny and a little whitish, and has some semblance of redness, therefore if he brought it, it is Kosher.

Question #1 (Ri): Abaye said in Bava Metzi'a (64a) that one may give coins to his friend for a barrel of wine, and say "if the price increases or decreases, it is in my Reshus. If it spoils, it is in your Reshus."

What is Abaye's Chidush? Our Mishnah here teaches this! If it is known that his wine spoils, he has Achrayus, even though if the price increases or decreases, it is in the buyer's Reshus!

Similarly, in the seller's bottles, even if it is known that his wine spoils (he has Achrayus).

Also we ask there "he is close to profit, and far from loss" (this is forbidden due to Ribis). We should challenge our Mishnah here!

Suggestion: There is a difference between "Takfah" and "Hichmitz" (they are different levels of spoiling or souring).

Rejection: It says in Brachos (5b) that 400 barrels of Rav Huna's wine Takfu. The price of vinegar rose, and he sold them for the price of wine. This shows that [Takfah and Hichmitz] are the same!

Question #2 (Ri): How does Ribis apply there? If it soured, it is a Mekach Ta'os. It was revealed retroactively that it was not destined to last!

Answer: Abaye teaches that even for wine that we know that it is proper to last, even so the seller accepts on himself that if it sours due to anything, e.g. heat, moving it, or changing the spout. Therefore, it resembles Ribis;

However, here we do not discuss when it was proper to last. Therefore, from the beginning, at the time of the sale, it was not a sale;

When it soured at the end, the matter was revealed, and the end proved about the beginning that it was not proper to last, and it does not look like Ribis at all.