משנה: הַמּוֹכֵר פֵּירוֹת לַחֲבֵירוֹ וְלֹא צִימֵּיחוּ וַאֲפִילוּ זֶרַע פִּשְׁתָּן אֵינוֹ חַייָב בְּאַחֵרָיוּתָן. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר זֵרְעוֹנֵי גִינָּה שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱכָלִין חַייָב בְּאַחֵרָיוּתָן. הַמּוֹכֵר פֵּירוֹת לַחֲבֵירוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה מְקַבֵּל עָלָיו רוֹבַע טִינּוֹפֶת לַסְּעָה. תְּאֵינִים מְקַבֵּל עָלָיו עֶשֶׂר מְתוּלָּעוֹת לַמֵּאָה. מַרְתֵּף שֶׁל יַיִן מְקַבֵּל עָלָיו עֶשֶׂר קוֹסְסוֹת לַמֵּאָה. קַנְקַנִּים בַּשָּׁרוֹן מְקַבֵּל עָלָיו עֶשֶׂר פִּיטַסָּאוֹת לַמֵּאָה. הַמּוֹכֵר יַיִן לַחֲבֵירוֹ וְהֶחֱמִיץ אֵינוֹ חַייָב בַּאַחֵרָיוּתוֹ וְאִם יָדוּעַ שֶׁיֵּינוֹ מַחֲמִיץ הֲרֵי זֶה מֶקַח טָעוּת. אִם אָמַר לוֹ יַיִן מְבוּשָּׂם אֲנִי מוֹכֵר לָךְ חַייָב לְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ עַד הָעֲצֶרֶת. יָשָׁן מִשֶּׁל אֶשְׁתְּקַד. מְיוּשָּׁן מִשֶׁל שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים. MISHNAH: If somebody sells grain to another and it did not sprout, or even flax seed, he is not responsible for it¹Since he may say that he sold it as food.. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, for garden seeds which are not edible he is responsible²The prior argument does not apply.. If somebody sells produce³Wholesale. to another he has to accept a quarter [qab] of chaff per se’ah; for figs he has to accept ten worm-bitten ones per hundred; with a wine cellar he has to accept ten sour ones per hundred; with vessels in the Sharon⁴Local product. Sharon does not necessarily refer to the Palestinian plain, Latin sarannus may mean “Tyrian” or “Karthaginean”. he has to accept ten pitassaot^4*In several Tosephtot (Kelim Bava qamma 4:16, Ahilut 10:3,15:11) פיטס means πίθος, “wine barrel, large vessel.” This is the equivalent of Hebrew קַנְקָן; it is not relevant for the Mishnah.
Rabbenu Ḥananel explains the word פיטסאות here as a noun, קנקנים דשחלי “junk barrels”. Since the Yerushalmi does not explain the Mishnah, one must have recourse to the Babylonian sources. Tosephta 6:4 supports Rabbenu Hananel’s explanation of פיטסאות as “junk”: “If somebody buys amphoras and they turn out to be פיטסות and broke, the seller has to return the price of the amphoras but not the value of the wine.” The Babli, 97b, is somewhat ambiguous: תאנא פיטסות נאות ומגופרות “It was stated: pitassot half-baked and sulphured.” It is not clear whether פיטסות is a noun or an adjective. An addition in the Munich ms. of the Babli, referred to by Rashbam, explains that instead of being fired in a kiln, the inner walls of the clay vessel were lined with sulphur, which then was lit, burned off, and gave the impression of a finished vessel while it was only superficially baked.
The three sources of Tosephta 6:3 have different texts:
Vienna ms.: קנקנים מקבל עליו עשר נאות פיטסות מגופרות למאה
Erfurt ms.: למאה קנקנים מקבל עליו עשר פוטסות נאות מגופרות
Editio princeps: קנקנים מקבל עליו עשר נאות פינוסות פוניסות מגופרות למאה
If the ms. before the Venice printer was none too clear, it was easy to misread ט as נו; therefore the editio princeps may count as confirmation of the Vienna text which clearly defines פיטסות as an adjective: “Barrels, he has to accept ten half-baked, pytswt, sulphured per hundred.” S. Lieberman (Tosefta kiFshutah Bava batra p. 396) explains פיטסאות as Greek πισσωταί “pitched”. Since Tosephta Abodah zarah 8:1 uses standard Hebrew זפות for “pitched”, there is no reason why a Greek word should be used here. A clay vessel used for storage of fluids must be waterproofed; good vessels also are pitched. Therefore, פיטס is a word of unknown etymology, an adjective which denotes inferior quality which upon close inspection could have been detected. {But also cf. Greek ἐπιτάσσω “put upon, enjoin; place beside, order”; ἐπίταξις “injunction, assessment”. An imposition of 10% amphoras of lesser quality? (E. G.)} per hundred.
If somebody sells wine to another and it turned into vinegar, he is not responsible for it. But if it was known that his wine turns into vinegar, it is a buy in error⁵The seller would have had to warn the buyer that the wine was only for immediate use; if he failed to do so, the buyer might return the merchandise for a full refund.. If he told him, I am selling you spice wine, it has to keep until Pentecost⁶The wine has to keep from the harvest in the fall to the next Pentecost.. “Old” is from the year before, “aged” from three years⁷These are common trade terms..

הלכה: הַמּוֹכֵר פֵּירוֹת לַחֲבֵירוֹ כול׳. תַּנֵּי. הַמּוֹכֵר פֵּירוֹת לַחֲבֵירוֹ וְלֹא צִימֵּחוּ אֲפִילוּ זֶרַע פִּשְׁתָּן אֵין חַייָב בְּאַחֵרָיוּתוֹ. וְאִם הִתְנָה עִמּוֹ מִתְחִילַּת הַזֶּרַע חַייָב בְּאַחֵרָיוּתוֹ. מָהוּ נוֹתֵן לוֹ. דְּמֵי זַרְעוֹ. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים. נוֹתֵן לוֹ דְּמֵי יְצִיאוֹתָיו. HALAKHAH: “If somebody sells grain to another,” etc. It was stated⁸Tosephta Bava meṣia‘ 9:16.: “If somebody sells grain to another and it did not sprout, even flax seed, he is not responsible for it. But if he made it conditional from the start as seeds⁹If the grain was sold as seed grain, rather than food., he is liable. What does he pay him? The value of the seeds. Some say, he gives him his expenses¹⁰All expenses to prepare the field for sowing; Babli Bava batra 93b..”

הָכָא מְקַבֵּל עָלָיו. בְּרַם תַּמָּן יְמָעֵט. הָכָא וּבִלְבַד טְנוּפָה. בְּרַם תַּמָּן מִין. הָכָא וּבִלְבַד כְּדֶרֶךְ מַגָּעוֹ. בְּרַם תַּמָּן וּבִלְבַד כְּדֶרֶךְ מִשּׂוֹאוֹ. הָכָא רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מוֹדֶה. בְּרַם תַּמָּן רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. שְׁנֵי מִינִין הֵן וְאֵין מִצְטָֽרְפִין. Here, he has to accept it, but there¹¹Kilayim 2:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kilayim.2.1.1">Mishnah Kilaim 2:1. While in commercial transactions 1/24 of contamination is permitted and only more than 1/24 is cause for rejection, for seed grain a contamination with 1/24 of another kind of seeds must be rejected and only less than 1/24 is acceptable. it should be diminished. Here only chaff, but there another kind. Here only the way he touched it, but there only the way he carried it¹²This refers to the discussion in Kilayim 2:1:5" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kilayim.2.1.5">Kilaim 2:1, Notes 20–24, that the contamination with other seeds occurs during transport of the harvest to storage. But the chaff found in grain comes from the winnowing process, when the grain is touched during threshing.. Here Rebbi Simeon agrees, but there, Rebbi Simeon says they are two kinds and do not count together¹³In commercial transactions, anything which is not of the kind contracted for is a contamination; they all add together up to the statutory limit of 1/24. But in matters of illicit mixing of seeds, R. Simeon counts each kind as a separate contamination..

רִבִּי חִייָה בַּר בָּא שָׁאַל. סְאָה חִיטִּין שֶׁנָּֽפְלָה לְתוֹךְ מֵאָה שֶׁלִּשְׂעוֹרִין. כֹּהֵן וְיִשְׂרָאֵל מָהוּ שֶׁיְּחַלְּקוּ אֶת הַשְׁבָח. רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר טֶבֶלַיי שָׁאַל. סְאָה תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנָּֽפְלָה לְתוֹךְ מֵאָה שֶׁלְּחוּלִין. מוֹכֵר וְלוֹקֵחַ מָהוּ שֶׁיְּחַלְּקוּ אֶת הַשְּׁאָר. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked: One se’ah of wheat which fell into one hundred of barley, do the Cohen and the Israel split the increase in value? Rebbi Isaac bar Tebelai asked: One se’ah of heave which fell into one hundred of profane grain, do the seller and the buyer split the remainder¹⁴It seems that in the first question, one has to read “seller and buyer” and in the second “Cohen and Israel”. The first question is about a sale of grain. If some of the more valuable wheat fell into a large quantity of barley, the value of the barley is increased. Who benefits from that increase? It naturally is balanced by the loss incurred by the owner of the wheat which now is contaminated with barley.
The second question is about heave, which is forbidden to everybody except a Cohen in a state of purity. If one part of heave falls into more than 100 parts of profane grain, everything becomes profane but 1 part of the profane mixture has to be separated and given to a Cohen (Mishnah Terumot 4:8). But if there were only 100 parts it is dema‘ and the entire mixture must be sold to a Cohen to be eaten in purity. Here then it is a question of repartition of the loss.? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, let us hear from the following¹⁵Babli 93b/94a, Kilayim 2:1:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kilayim.2.1.3">Kilaim 2:1, Note 14. Since the farmer could have sold the contaminated grain, the person who cleaned it caused him monetary loss. As a fine, the person responsible is not permitted to put the contaminants back. As application to the questions asked, the person responsible for the mess-up is responsible for its financial consequences.: He who takes out impurities from his neighbor’s heap has to give him good grain in their stead.

אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָה. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מֵהָדָא. הַבּוֹרֵר צְרוֹרוֹת מִתּוֹךְ כֵּירִייוֹ שֶּׁלַּחֲבֵירוֹ חַייָב לִשְׁפוֹת לוֹ. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר כַּהֲנָא אָמַר. בָּאוֹמֵר. צְבוֹר וְאֶקְנֶה. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ צְבוּרִין מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה לֹא בְדָא. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, if he said, collect and acquire¹⁶This refers to the statement in the Mishnah that the buyer of figs has to accept ten percent worm-infested ones.. But if it was collected from the start, this does not apply¹⁷For stored figs, the acceptable amount of bad ones is much smaller..

תַּנֵּי. מֵאָה חָבִיּוֹת אֲנִי מוֹכֵר לָךְ. חַייָב לְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ יַיִן יָפֶה כְּרוֹב הַיַּיִן הַנִּמְכָּר בְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם. מֵאָה חָבִיּוֹת יַיַן אֲנִי מוֹכֵר לָךְ. חַייָב לְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ יַיִן יָפֶה כְּרוֹב הַיַּיִן הַנִּמְכָּר בְּאוֹתוֹ חָנוּת. מֵאָה חָבִיּוֹת אֵילּוּ אֲנִי מוֹכֵר לָךְ. אֲפִילי חוֹמֵץ הִגִּיעוּ. רִבִּי חִייָה בַּר װָה. בְּשֶּׁהָיוּ הַקַּנְקַנִּים לְלוֹקֵחַ יְכִיל מֵימַר לֵיהּ. לִשְּׁתִּייָה מָכַרְתִּיו לָךְ. It was stated¹⁸Tosephta 6:8–9. A slightly different text in the Babli, 95a.: “100 amphoras¹⁹If these were wine amphoras. I am selling to you, he has to deliver wine in the quality which is customarily sold at this place. 100 amphoras of wine I am selling to you, he has to deliver wine in the quality which is customarily sold at this store²⁰The Babli holds that if wine was mentioned explicitly, best quality wine must be delivered.. These 100 amphoras I am selling to you, even if they were vinegar they are delivered.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: If the vessels belonged to the buyer, he may tell him: I sold to you for [immediate] consumption²¹It seems that the correct version is the expanded text of E:
רִבִּי חִייָה בַּר װָה. בְּשֶּׁהָיוּ הַקַּנְקַנִּים שֶׁל
מוֹכֵר. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ קַנְקַנִּים שֶׁל לוֹקֵחַ יְכִיל
מֵימַר לֵיהּ. קַנקַנֶּיךָ הֶחֱמִיצוּ הַיַּיִן. וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן
חֲנִינָה אוֹמֵר. אֲפִילוּ קַנְקַנִּים שֶׁל מוֹכֵר יְכִיל מֵימַר
לֵיהּ. לִשְּׁתִּייָה מָכַרְתִּיו לָךְ.
Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: If the vessels belonged to the seller. But if the vessels belonged to the buyer, he may tell him: Your vessels turned the wine into vinegar. But Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, even if the vessels belonged to the seller, he may tell him: I sold to you for [immediate] consumption.
They hold that if the wine turned into vinegar in the buyer’s possession, the seller cannot he held responsible unless he guaranteed a certain quality..

בָּדַק חָבִית לִהְיוֹת מַפְרִישׁ עָלֶיהָ וְהוֹלֵךְ. עַד שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים וַדַּאי. מִיכָּן וְהֵילָךְ סָפֵק. רִבִּי סִימוֹן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים וַדַּאי יַיִן. הָאַחֲרוֹנִים חוֹמֵץ. אֶמְצָעִיִים סָפֵק. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. אֲנִי שְׁמַעְתִּיהָ מִמֶּנּוּ. מַה מִעַבִּד וָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. עַד שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים וַדַּאי. מִיכָּן וָהֵילָךְ סָפֵק. רִבִּי לָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רַבָּנִין דְּעָלִין וְשָֽׁמְעִין מִבֵּי מִדְרָשָׁא דְבַר עִיטְייָן בְּמַחַט כְּהָדָא דְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי בְּחָבִית. אִיבֵּד מַחַט שׁוּפָה וּבָא וּמְצָאָהּ חֲלוּדָה. רִבִּי סִימוֹן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים װַדַּאי טְמֵאָה. אַחֲרוֹנִים טְהוֹרָה. אֶמְצָעִייִם סָפֵק. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. אוּף שְׁמַעְתִּיהָ מִמֶּנּוּ. מַה מִיעַבִּד וָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. עַד שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים װַדַּאי. מִיכָּן וָהֵילָךְ סָפֵק. רִבִּי חִייָה בַּר װָה שָׁאַל. בָּא בְסוֹף (שָׁבוּעַ) [אַרְבָּעִים] וּמְצָאוֹ חָמֵץ בָּרוּר [מִיַּד נַעֲשֶׂה חָמֵץ בָּרוּר] אוֹ מִכָּן וּלְהַבָּא. רִבִּי יִצְחָק שָׁאַל. עָבַר הַפֶּרֶק בְּסוֹף אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם. כּוֹחוֹ שֶׁלְּפֶרֶק בִּיטֵּל כֹּחַ אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם אוֹ כֹחַ אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם בִּיטֵּל כּוֹחוֹ שֶׁלְּפֶרֶק. ²²This is a reformulation of a paragraph in Gittin 3:8:2-5" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.3.8.2-5">Giṭṭin 3:8, explained there in Notes 166–177 (Babli Bava batra96a). The formulation here gives the impression of Notes which a lecturer made for himself to outline the argument to be presented in class. If one checked an amphora to continuously give heave from it²³At the beginning of the wine making season the vintner sets aside an amphora to give heave for all the wine he is going to produce. It is forbidden to give vinegar as heave for wine. Therefore, the amphora should periodically be inspected to make sure it still contains wine. In Gittin 3:8:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.3.8.1">Mishnah Giṭṭin3:8, R. Jehudah specifies three dates when wine might turn into vinegar because of damaging meteorological phenomena; Bava Batra 3:8:2-4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Bava_Batra.3.8.2-4">Halakhah 3:8 also states that in the first 40 days of winemaking no vinegar is created.. Up to three days it is certain, after that in doubt²⁴This is R. Joḥanan’s opinion. If the barrel was first checked and it contained wine, then rechecked and contained vinegar, any heave given during the first three days after checking is legitimate, the remainder questionable (but not unacceptable). Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The first three days it certainly is wine, the last vinegar²⁵Heave for any wine produced then must be given anew., the middle ones are in doubt. Rebbi Abbahu said, I heard this from him. What does and says Rebbi Joḥanan? For three days it is certain, after that in doubt. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Yasa in the name of the rabbis, who come and hear from the House of Study of Bar Iṭyan, similar to the statement of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi about an amphora. If he lost a smooth needle and then found it rusty²⁶A broken vessel or tool cannot be impure; a rusty needle is not touched by the laws of impurity.. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The first three days it certainly is impure²⁷Not actually impure but subject to the laws of impurity., the last pure, the middle ones are in doubt. Rebbi Abbahu said, I also heard that from him. What does and says Rebbi Joḥanan? The first three days it is certain, after that in doubt. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked: If he came at the end of (a week)²⁸Reading of L. [40 days]²⁹Reading of E. The reading of E is more probable but both are possibly correct. and found it clearly to be vinegar, [did it clearly become vinegar immediately]³⁰Reading of E, required by the context. or only from that moment in the future³¹This question can be asked only for R. Joḥanan since R. Joshua ben Levi asserts retroactivity for three days.? Rebbi Isaac asked: If the crucial time passed at the end of forty days, did the importance of the crucial time invalidate that of forty days or did the importance of forty days invalidate that of the crucial time³²If a meteorologically dangerous day occurred during the first 40 days of wine making, does one have to worry or not??

רִבִּי קְרִיסְפָּא שָׁאַל. בְּכָל־שָׁנָה בוֹדֵק אוֹ אַחַת לְג̇ שָׁנִים. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מֵהָדָא. הַמּוֹכֵר יַיִן לַשָּׁנָה חַייָב בְּאַחֵרָיוּתוֹ עַד הֶחָג. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. תִּיפְתָּר כְּגוֹן אִילֵין גָּלִילָאֵי דְּלָא קָֽטְפִין כַּרְמֵיהוֹן אֶלָּא בָּתָר חַגָּא. וְלֵית שְׁמַע מִינָהּ כְּלוּם. וַייְדָא אָֽמְרָה דָא. יָשָׁן מִשֶּׁלְּאֶשְׁתְּקַד. מְיוּשָׁן שֶׁלְּג̇ שָׁנִים. נֵימַר מִשּׁוּם הָדָא מַטְמוּעִיתָא. מַה חָבִית אַחַת הוּא בוֹדֵק כּוּלְּהוֹן תְּלוּיוֹת בָּהּ. כָּל־אַחַת וְאַחַת הוּא בוֹדֵק וְאֵין מַחֲמִיצוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי שַׁמַּי. אִית בְּנֵי נַשׁ מַקְשִׁין עַל גַּרְבָּא מִלְּעֵיל וְיָֽדְעִין מָה דְּאִית בֵּיהּ מִלְּגַיו. ³³This is a truncated copy of a paragraph in Gittin 3:8:5" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.3.8.5">Giṭṭin 3:8, Notes 178–185. Rebbi Crispus asked: Does he check every year or only once every three years³⁴Following R. Jehudah, after meteorologically dangerous days.? Let us hear from the following: If somebody sells wine for a year, he has to warrant it until after Tabernacles. Rebbi Yudan said, explain it for those Galileans who only harvest after Tabernacles and you cannot deduce anything. That is what was said, “old from the preceding year, aged three years”, should we say because of the tasting³⁵The correct spelling is in Gittin 3:8:2-5" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.3.8.2-5">Giṭṭin3:8.? ³⁶There is a rather large lacuna here, compared to the text in Giṭṭin, which leaves the text here with a logical lacuna; cf. Note 22. May one check one amphora on which all others depend [or] does he have to check every single one whether they would not turn into vinegar? Rebbi Shammai said, there are people who knock on the barrel at the top and know what is inside^36aVintners do not have to open the amphoras and taste; they learn how to check quickly and accurately; the rules of warranty do not require an undue amount of work..