Avodah Zarah 57b — the Talmud in English

And some say:

there is one who concluded

pure.

One who handles wine,

when they are

adults—

they make wine of libation,

and when they are

minors—

they do not make wine of libation.

Who are these adults, and who are these minors?

Adults—

those who know the nature of idolatry and its accessories; minors—

those who do not know the nature of idolatry and its accessories.

And now Rabba raises a difficulty:

in any event, it teaches,

we learned in this beraita:

they circumcised but did not immerse;

and let us infer:

they circumcised but did not immerse—

yes,

indeed, they make wine of libation; but if

they circumcised and immersed—

no,

they do not make wine of libation.

And this is difficult for the words of Shmuel, who maintains that until twelve months have passed, they still make wine of libation?

And we answer:

explain it,

let us explain the beraita such that what is inferred from it—that when they circumcised and immersed their status is like that of Israelites—is stated only regarding

the sons of maidservants;

it is said only regarding the sons of maidservants, since they grew up in an Israelite household, there is no need to wait until the name of idolatry has sunk from their mouths, since they are not accustomed to making libations—

but slaves purchased from gentiles, who are accustomed to idolatry, it is not enough that they circumcised and immersed, until twelve months have passed.

And we raise an objection:

but it teaches “and likewise”

in the beraita: “and likewise the sons of maidservants,” implying that the law of the sons of maidservants is equal to the law of slaves, and there is no distinction between them. But according to your words, the sons of maidservants are not equal to slaves?

And we answer: The comparison that the beraita makes is

with regard to their spittle and their treading,

this comparison was stated only regarding the law that their spittle and their treading in the marketplace are impure—

and with regard to this law, the sons of maidservants who circumcised but did not immerse are equal to slaves who circumcised but did not immerse—

but with regard to the law of wine of libation, they are different: slaves must wait twelve months after they circumcised and immersed, whereas the sons of maidservants do not need to wait.

And we raise an objection:

this works out well,

this resolution works out well

according to the one who says: impure,

and according to him, the beraita teaches that even the sons of maidservants, although they are closer to being Israelites, convey impurity like “zavim” as long as they have not immersed—

but according to the one who says: pure:

it is difficult,

what is there to say? To which law did the beraita equate them? If it came to teach us that just as slaves do not convey impurity like “zavim,” and their spittle and treading are pure, so too the sons of maidservants—this is difficult: it is obvious! Would it enter one’s mind to say that the sons of maidservants are more stringent than slaves?

Was the beraita not coming to equate them with regard to the law of wine of libation, and to say that their laws are equal, and that just as the sons of maidservants do not make wine of libation immediately after they circumcise and immerse, so too slaves?

And we answer: Indeed, the beraita equates them with regard to the law of wine of libation—

but the comparison is to a different law:

But the comparison concerns a different aspect of that law:

this comes to teach us,

this law comes to teach us:

slaves are analogous to the sons of maidservants.

Just as the sons of maidservants—

it is adults who make wine of libation,

whereas

minors do not make wine of libation,

for they grew up in an Israelite household, and the name of idolatry is not familiar in their mouths,

so too slaves—

adults make wine of libation; minors do not make wine of libation.

And what does it come to teach us?

To exclude,

to exclude

from

the words of

Rav, for Rav said: A child on his first day makes wine of libation—

it comes to teach us,

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

that not,

and minor slaves do not make wine of libation, just as the sons of maidservants do not make wine of libation in their minority.

The Gemara brings an incident involving a gentile who touched wine, and even agitated it, without the intention of making a libation.

There was that incident that occurred in

the city of

Mehoza,

Rava’s place.

There came,

a

gentile; he entered,

entered

the shop,

the shop

of an Israelite. He said to them,

the gentile:

Do you have wine to sell,

do you have wine to sell?

They said to him,

the shopkeepers:

No,

we do not have any.

There was wine sitting in a bucket,

there was wine there in a bucket;

he put his hand into it,

the gentile inserted his hands into it,

he agitated it,

in the wine;

he said to them,

the gentile:

Is this not wine,

is this not wine?

The other one took it in his anger,

the Israelite took the wine in his anger because the gentile had touched it without permission,

and poured it into the wine-vat,

and poured it into the barrel.

This question concerning the wine came before Rava—

Rava permitted it to be sold to gentiles,

Rava permitted the sale of the entire barrel in which the wine touched by the gentile was mixed, and did not instruct them to deduct the value of the wine in the bucket. That is: Rava permitted the wine in the bucket for benefit.

They disputed him,

they disputed him

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

They disputed “him,” not in his presence,

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

And the Gemara relates:

horns went out,

the report went out

of Rava, and they permitted,

and they permitted the wine.

And the horns of Rav Huna bar Hinena and Rav Huna bar Rav Naḥman went out, and they prohibited it.