בַּשּׁוּק טָמֵא, וְאָמְרִי לָהּ: טָהוֹר; יֵינָן – גְּדוֹלִים עוֹשִׂין יֵין נֶסֶךְ, קְטַנִּים אֵין עוֹשִׂין יֵין נֶסֶךְ. אֵלּוּ הֵן גְּדוֹלִים וְאֵלּוּ הֵן קְטַנִּים? גְּדוֹלִים – שֶׁיּוֹדְעִין בְּטִיב עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וּמְשַׁמְּשֶׁיהָ, קְטַנִּים – שֶׁאֵין יוֹדְעִין בְּטִיב עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וּמְשַׁמְּשֶׁיהָ;

even if they are found in the marketplace, are ritually impure. But some say that they are ritually pure. With regard to their wine, the adults render the wine that they touch wine used for a libation, but the minors do not render the wine that they touch wine used for a libation. Which slaves are considered adults, and which slaves are considered minors? The adults are those who know the nature of idol worship and its accessories, and the minors are those who do not know the nature of idol worship and its accessories.

קָתָנֵי מִיהַת: מָלוּ וְלֹא טָבְלוּ – אִין, מָלוּ וְטָבְלוּ – לָא! תַּרְגְּמָהּ אַבְּנֵי שְׁפָחוֹת.

In any event, the baraita teaches that with regard to those slaves who were circumcised but did not immerse, yes, the wine they touch is prohibited, but with regard to those who were circumcised and immersed, no, the wine they touch is not prohibited, even if they have not yet forgotten their idolatrous worship. The Gemara replies: Interpret this halakha as referring only to the sons of maidservants who were raised in a Jewish home and never engaged in idolatrous worship, but not to slaves who were acquired from gentiles.

הָא ״וְכֵן״ קָתָנֵי! אַרוּקָּן וּמִדְרָסָן.

The Gemara asks: Doesn’t the baraita teach that the halakha applies to slaves purchased from gentiles and also to the sons of gentile maidservants, indicating that there is no differentiation between them? The Gemara replies: The baraita equates the two cases only with regard to the impurity of their spittle and of the objects upon which they tread.

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר טָמֵא, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר טָהוֹר מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that their spittle and the objects upon which they tread are impure. But according to the one who says that they are pure, what can be said? If the spittle of the slaves and the objects upon which they tread are pure, clearly the same halakha applies in the case of the sons of maidservants, and it is unnecessary to state this. One may therefore conclude that the baraita equated the two cases with regard to the status of the wine that they touch.

הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן: עֲבָדִים דּוּמְיָא דִּבְנֵי שְׁפָחוֹת, מַה בְּנֵי שְׁפָחוֹת – גְּדוֹלִים הוּא דְּעוֹשִׂין יֵין נֶסֶךְ, קְטַנִּים אֵין עוֹשִׂין יֵין נֶסֶךְ, אַף עֲבָדִים נַמִי – גְּדוֹלִים עוֹשִׂין יֵין נֶסֶךְ, קְטַנִּים אֵין עוֹשִׂין יֵין נֶסֶךְ;

The Gemara answers: Even if the baraita equates the slaves and the sons of maidservants with regard to the status of their wine, it does not intend to compare their status once they have immersed. Rather, this teaches us that the halakha with regard to slaves is similar to the halakha with regard to the sons of maidservants. Just as in the case of the sons of maidservants, it is only the adults who render the wine that they touch wine used for a libation, but minors do not render the wine they touch wine used for a libation, so too in the case of slaves, the adults render the wine that they touch wine used for a libation, but minors do not render the wine they touch wine used for a libation.

לְאַפּוּקֵי מִדְּרַב, דְּאָמַר רַב: תִּינוֹק בֶּן יוֹמוֹ עוֹשֶׂה יֵין נֶסֶךְ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן דְּלָא.

This halakha is to the exclusion of that which Rav says, as Rav says: If a gentile baby who is one day old touches wine, he renders it wine used for a libation. The baraita teaches us that this is not the case.

הַהוּא עוּבְדָּא דַּהֲוָה בִּמְחוֹזָא, אֲתָא גּוֹי עֲיַיל לַחֲנוּתָא דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, אֲמַר לְהוּ: אִית לְכוּ חַמְרָא לְזַבּוּנֵי? אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: לָא. הֲוָה יָתֵיב חַמְרָא בְּדַוְולָא, שָׁדֵי בֵּיהּ יְדֵיהּ שִׁיכְשֵׁךְ בֵּיהּ, אֲמַר לְהוּ: הַאי לָאו חַמְרָא הוּא? שָׁקְלֵיהּ הָאֵיךְ בְּרִיתְחֵיהּ שָׁדְיֵיהּ לְדַנָּא.

§ The Gemara relates: There was a certain incident in Meḥoza in which a gentile came and entered the store of a Jew. The gentile said to the owners: Do you have any wine to sell? They said to him: No. There was wine sitting in a bucket. The gentile put his hand in it and stirred the wine around. The gentile said to them: This, is it not wine? The other person, i.e., the storeowner, took the bucket and, in his anger, threw its contents into a barrel of wine.

שָׁרְיֵיהּ רָבָא לְזַבּוּנֵי לְגוֹיִם. אִיפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בַּר חִינָּנָא וְרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן. נָפְקִי שִׁיפּוּרֵי דְּרָבָא וְשָׁרוּ, וְנָפְקִי שִׁיפּוּרֵי דְּרַב הוּנָא בַּר חִינָּנָא וְרַב הוּנָא בַּר רַב נַחְמָן וְאָסְרִי.

This incident raised a dilemma with regard to the status of the wine in the barrel. Rava permitted the owner to sell the wine to gentiles, as he held that it is permitted to derive benefit from the wine. Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana and Rav Huna, son of Rav Naḥman, disagreed with him. Blasts of shofarot went out from the court of Rava promulgating his ruling, and they permitted the sale. And blasts of shofarot went out from the court of Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana and Rav Huna, son of Rav Naḥman, promulgating their ruling, and they prohibited the sale.