Avodah Zarah 57b (נז:) — the Talmud in English

And some say that he concluded:

there are those who concluded:

pure.

Their wine is libation wine when they are

when they are

adults—

they render wine libation wine; but

when they are

minors—

they do not render wine libation wine.

Who are these adults, and who are these minors?

Adults are those

who understand the nature of idolatry and its accessories; minors are those

who do not understand the nature of idolatry and its accessories.

Rava now raises an objection:

in any event, it teaches—

we learned in this beraita:

“They were circumcised but did not immerse.”

And we infer:

“They were circumcised but did not immerse”—

yes,

indeed, they render wine libation wine; whereas if they

were circumcised and immersed—

no,

they do not render wine libation wine.

And this is difficult for the opinion of Shmuel, who holds that until twelve months have passed, he still renders wine libation wine?

The Gemara answers:

Interpret it—

we shall explain the beraita as follows: The inference that once they were circumcised and immersed their status is that of Jews applies to

the children of maidservants.

This was stated only with regard to the children of maidservants: Since they grew up in a Jewish household, it is unnecessary to wait until the name of idolatry has disappeared from their mouths, because they are not accustomed to pouring libations—

but with regard to slaves purchased from gentiles, who are accustomed to idolatry, circumcision and immersion alone do not suffice; they must wait until twelve months have passed.

The Gemara raises an objection:

But it teaches, “and likewise”

in the beraita: “And likewise the children of maidservants.” This indicates that the law governing the children of maidservants is equivalent to the law governing slaves, with no distinction between them. Yet according to your explanation, the children of maidservants are not equivalent to slaves?

The Gemara answers: The matter in which the beraita equates them is

their spittle and the treading under them.

This comparison was stated only with regard to the law that their spittle and the treading under them in the marketplace are impure—

and with regard to this law, the children of maidservants who were circumcised but did not immerse are equivalent to slaves who were circumcised but did not immerse—

but with regard to the law of wine libation wine, they differ: Slaves must wait twelve months after circumcision and immersion, whereas the children of maidservants need not wait.

The Gemara raises an objection:

This works—

this resolution is satisfactory—

according to the one who says: impure.

According to him, the beraita teaches that even the children of maidservants, although they are closer to being Jews, transmit impurity like zavim as long as they have not immersed—

But according to the one who says: pure:

it is difficult:

what can be said?

With regard to which law did the beraita equate them? If it came to teach that just as slaves do not transmit impurity like zavim, and their spittle and the treading under them are pure, so too the children of maidservants, this is difficult: Is it obvious? Would it have occurred to anyone to say that the children of maidservants are subject to a more stringent law than slaves?

Did the beraita not come to equate them with regard to the law of wine libation wine, and to say that their laws are equivalent: Just as the children of maidservants do not render wine libation wine immediately after circumcision and immersion, so too slaves do not?

The Gemara answers: Indeed, the beraita equates them with regard to the law of wine libation wine—

but the comparison concerns a different law:

This teaches us—

this is the law that it comes to teach us:

Slaves are analogous to the children of maidservants.

Just as the children of maidservants—

only adults render wine libation wine,

whereas

minors do not render wine libation wine,

since they grew up in a Jewish household, and the name of idolatry is not familiar on their lips,

so too slaves—

adults render wine libation wine, and minors do not render wine libation wine.

And what does it come to teach us?

To exclude—

to exclude

from

from the words of

Rav, who said: A child on the day of his birth renders wine libation wine—

It teaches us—

the beraita teaches us, by stating “and likewise,”

that this is not so;

minor slaves do not render wine libation wine, just as the children of maidservants do not render wine libation wine during their minority.

The Gemara relates an incident involving a gentile who touched wine and even agitated it, but did not intend to pour a libation.

There was an incident that occurred in

A certain incident occurred in the city of

Meḥoza,

Rava’s city.

A

A

gentile came and entered

a

a shop,

belonging

belonging to a Jew. He said to them—

the gentile said to them:

“Do you have wine to sell?”

“Do you have wine to sell?”

They said to him—

The shopkeepers said to him:

“No,”

we do not.

There was wine standing in a bucket;

There was wine in a bucket.

He put his hand into it—

The gentile put his hand into it,

and agitated it,

and agitated it,

He said to them—

and

said to them:

“Is this not wine?”

The Jew seized it in his anger—

The Jew angrily took the wine because the gentile had touched it without permission,

and poured it into the barrel.

and poured it into a barrel.

This question concerning the wine was brought before Rava—

Rava permitted it to be sold to gentiles—

Rava permitted the entire barrel, into which the wine touched by the gentile had been mixed, to be sold to gentiles, and did not instruct them to deduct the value of the wine that had been in the bucket. That is to say: Rava permitted deriving benefit from the wine in the bucket.

Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana and Rav Huna, son of Rav Naḥman, disagreed with him;

Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana and Rav Huna, son of Rav Naḥman, disagreed with him.

Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana and Rav Huna, son of Rav Naḥman.

They disagreed “with him,” though not in his presence,

because they were not in the city and did not dispute “with him.”]

The Gemara relates:

Heralds went out—

A proclamation went forth

of Rava, and they permitted

concerning Rava, and they permitted the wine.

And a proclamation went forth concerning Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana and Rav Huna bar Rav Naḥman, and they prohibited it.