Rav Huna, son of Rav Naḥman, happened to come to Meḥoza. Rava said to his attendant, Rav Elyakim: Close, close the gates, so that people who might disturb us should not come, and we may focus on clarifying the matter.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Naḥman, entered into Rava’s presence. Rav Huna, son of Rav Naḥman, said to Rava: What is the halakha in a case like this where a gentile stirred the wine without intending to offer it as an idolatrous libation? Rava said to Rav Huna, son of Rav Naḥman: It is prohibited even to derive benefit from it. Rav Huna, son of Rav Naḥman, asked him: But wasn’t it you, Master, who said: If a gentile stirs the wine, he does not thereby render it wine used for a libation, as Rava permitted the sale of the wine in the barrel to gentiles? Rava answered: Say that I said that it is permitted to sell the wine that was in the barrel and benefit from all the proceeds except for the monetary value of that prohibited wine that was poured into the barrel of wine. Did I say that it is permitted to derive benefit from the monetary value of that prohibited wine?

Rava said: When I arrived at Pumbedita, Naḥmani, i.e., Abaye, surrounded us with amoraic traditions and with tannaitic sources cited in a baraita that indicate that in the case of wine that was stirred by a gentile it is prohibited even to derive benefit from the wine.

Rava explains: Abaye cited amoraic traditions, as there was a certain incident in Neharde’a in which a gentile stirred the wine, and Shmuel deemed the wine prohibited, and there was a similar incident in Tiberias and Rabbi Yoḥanan deemed the wine prohibited. Rava recounts his reply: And I said to Abaye: Shmuel and Rabbi Yoḥanan deemed the wine prohibited only because the people in those towns were not people well-versed in Torah, and it was necessary to distance them from transgression. And Abaye said to me: Are you saying that the people of Tiberias and Neharde’a are not people well-versed in Torah whereas the people of Meḥoza are people well-versed in Torah? This is obviously not the case, and therefore you should not have permitted the sale of the wine in Meḥoza, even according to your reasoning.

Abaye cited a baraita that teaches as follows: In the case of a gentile market inspector [de’agardamim] who was in charge of measures and prices in the marketplace, who drilled a hole in a barrel with a tube and drew wine from the barrel through the tube in order to taste it, or who tasted the wine from the cup that was poured for him and then returned the residue to the barrel, what is the halakha? This was an incident that occurred, and the Sages prohibited the wine. Abaye said: What does this mean? Is the baraita not prohibiting one from deriving benefit from the wine? Rava replied: No, it is prohibiting one only from drinking it.

Abaye said: If so, let the baraita teach that the wine may be sold, as the latter clause of the baraita teaches: In the case of a gentile confiscator who extended his hand into a barrel of wine, thinking it was a barrel of oil, and it was found to be a barrel of wine, what is the halakha? This was an incident that occurred, and the Sages said: It may be sold, as the gentile had no intention of touching wine. The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Rava is indeed a conclusive refutation.

§ The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Arza and Rabbi Yosei ben Nehorai were sitting and drinking wine. A certain man came and they said to him: Come, serve us drinks. After he poured the wine into the cup, it was revealed that the person was a gentile. One of those Sages prohibited one from even deriving benefit from the wine, and one of them permitted the wine even for drinking. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The one who prohibited the wine properly deemed it prohibited, and the one who permitted it properly deemed it permitted, as both opinions are viable. The one who prohibited the wine holds that