Gittin 52

מתני׳ יתומין שסמכו אצל בעל הבית או שמינה להן אביהן אפוטרופוס חייב לעשר פירותיהם

MISHNA: With regard to orphans who are living with a homeowner who takes care of all their needs and affairs, even if neither their father nor the court officially appointed him to this task, or if their father appointed a steward [apotropos] for them, this person is obligated to tithe their produce.

אפוטרופוס שמינהו אבי יתומים ישבע מינוהו בית דין לא ישבע אבא שאול אומר חילוף הדברים

With regard to a steward who was appointed by the orphans’ father, when he returns all of the property to the orphans upon their reaching adulthood, he takes an oath that he took nothing of theirs for himself. By contrast, if the court appointed him to serve as a steward for them, then he is not required to take such an oath. Abba Shaul says: The matters are reversed. A steward appointed by the court takes an oath, but a steward appointed by the orphans’ father is not required to do so.

גמ׳ ורמינהו אתם ולא שותפין אתם ולא אריסין אתם ולא אפוטרופין ולא התורם את שאינו שלו

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that a steward is obligated to tithe the produce of the orphans in his charge. The Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita that expounds a verse dealing with the teruma of the tithe, given by a Levite to a priest: “Thus you, also you, shall offer a gift to the Lord” (Numbers 18:28). The emphasis placed on the word “you” teaches as follows: “You” separate teruma, but not partners, meaning that one partner may not separate teruma on behalf of the other. “You” separate teruma, but not sharecroppers. “You” separate teruma, but not stewards, and “you” separate teruma, but not one who separates teruma from produce that is not his. How, then, can the mishna say that a steward is able to, and is even required to, tithe the produce of the orphans in his charge, when that produce does not belong to him?

אמר רב חסדא לא קשיא כאן להאכיל כאן להניח

Rav Ḥisda said that this is not difficult: Here the mishna is dealing with a steward who tithes the orphans’ produce in order to feed it to them. Since he is not permitted to feed them untithed produce, the Sages allowed him to tithe that which he gives them to eat. There the baraita is referring to produce that is not needed for the orphans’ sustenance; rather, the steward wishes to put it aside in a tithed state. Since he is not the owner of the produce, he lacks the authority to tithe it.

והתניא האפוטרופין תורמין ומעשרין להאכיל ולא להניח ומוכרין להן בהמה עבדים ושפחות בתים שדות וכרמים להאכיל אבל לא להניח ומוכרין להן פירות יינות שמנים וסלתות להאכיל אבל לא להניח

And it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Terumot 1:10) that this distinction is made based on whether the steward intends to feed the produce to the orphans or store it: Stewards can separate teruma and tithes from the produce of the orphans in their charge in order to feed the produce to them, but not with the intention to put it aside. And stewards may sell the orphans’ possessions for them as follows: Cattle, male and female slaves, houses, fields, and vineyards, in order to feed the orphans, so that they will have something to eat immediately, but not with the intention to put aside the proceeds for future use. And they may also sell produce, wine, oil, and flour for them in order to feed them, but not with the intention to put aside the proceeds for a later date.

ועושין להן לולב וערבה וסוכה וציצית וכל דבר שיש לו קצבה לאיתויי שופר ולוקחין להם ספר תורה תפילין ומזוזות וכל דבר שיש לו קצבה לאתויי מגילה

The baraita continues: And stewards make the following items that are required for the fulfillment of a mitzva for the orphans, from their property: A lulav, a willow branch, a sukka, ritual fringes, and any item used for a mitzva that involves a fixed expense. The Gemara notes that the words: Any item used for a mitzva, serve to include a shofar. And they may purchase a Torah scroll, phylacteries, mezuzot, and any other item used for a mitzva that involves a fixed expense. The Gemara comments that these last words serve to include a Megilla, the Scroll of Esther, read on Purim.

ואין פוסקין עליהם צדקה ואין פודין עליהן את השבויין ולא כל דבר שאין לו קצבה לאתויי תנחומי אבלים

The baraita continues: But stewards may not undertake to give charity on behalf of orphans, and they may not redeem captives on their behalf with their property. Nor may they do anything with the orphans’ property that does not involve a fixed expense. The Gemara explains that this last phrase serves to include that which is brought to comfort mourners. A steward may not use property belonging to the orphans in his charge for this purpose.

ואין אפוטרופין רשאין לדון לחוב ולזכות בנכסי יתומים לזכות אמאי לא אלא לחוב על מנת לזכות בנכסי יתומים

The baraita continues: And stewards are not permitted to involve themselves in litigation, if the purpose is to accept an obligation or to secure gain for the property of the orphans. The Gemara asks: Why may they not enter into litigation to secure gain? The Gemara clarifies: Rather, this means that stewards are not permitted to involve themselves in litigation in which they will accept financial obligation upon the orphans’ estate, even if they do so in order to ultimately secure gain for the property of the orphan.

ואין אפוטרופין רשאין למכור ברחוק ולגאול בקרוב ברעה ולגאול ביפה מאי טעמא דדלמא משתדפין

The baraita continues: And stewards are not permitted to sell a field belonging to the orphans that is located in a distant place and use the proceeds to redeem a field that their father had sold in a nearby place, although this is ordinarily considered to be a favorable exchange. Similarly, stewards are not permitted to sell a bad field and use the proceeds to redeem a good one. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for this? The reason is that perhaps the bought fields will become blighted, and it will turn out that the steward has caused the orphans a loss with his purchase.

ואין אפוטרופין רשאין למכור שדות וליקח עבדים אבל מוכרין עבדים ולוקחין בהן שדות רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אף לא למכור עבדים וליקח שדות מאי טעמא דלמא לא משפיין

The baraita continues: And stewards are not permitted to sell fields belonging to the orphans and use the proceeds to purchase slaves. But they may sell the orphans’ slaves and use their proceeds to purchase fields, as land is considered to be a more stable asset. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Stewards may not even sell slaves and use the proceeds to purchase fields. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for this? Perhaps it will turn out that the property is not secure [meshappeyan], the ownership of the fields being contested by others, and consequently the steward will have made matters more complicated for the orphans as a result of his purchase.

ואין אפוטרופין רשאין להוציא עבדים לחירות אבל מוכרין אותן לאחרים ואחרים מוציאין אותן לחירות רבי אומר אומר אני אף הוא נותן דמי עצמו ויוצא מפני שהוא כמוכרו לו

The baraita continues: And stewards are not permitted to free slaves belonging to the orphans in their charge, even if it is necessary to do so for any reason. But they may sell them to others, and then those others may free them. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that even he, the slave himself, may give his own monetary value to the steward and thereby go free, due to the fact that it is as if the steward sold the slave to the slave himself. It is irrelevant whether it is some other person or the slave himself who pays his purchase price.

וצריך לחשב עמהן באחרונה רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אינו צריך אין עושין אפוטרופין נשים ועבדים וקטנים ואם מינן אבי יתומין הרשות בידו

The baraita continues: And the steward must calculate with the orphans in the end, when they reach adulthood and he hands over the property to them. At that time, he calculates of all the expenses and income generated by their property during the period that he served as steward. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He is not required do so, as the court relies on his integrity. The court does not appoint women, slaves, or minors as stewards, but if the father of the orphans appointed one of them as his orphans’ steward, he has permission to do so.

ההוא אפוטרופוס דהוה בשבבותיה דרבי מאיר דהוה קא מזבין ארעתא וזבין עבדי ולא שבקיה רבי מאיר אחוו ליה בחלמיה אני להרוס ואתה לבנות אפילו הכי לא אשגח אמר דברי חלומות לא מעלין ולא מורידין

It is related that there was a certain steward who was in Rabbi Meir’s neighborhood who was selling land belonging to the orphans and purchasing slaves with the proceeds, and Rabbi Meir did not allow him to do this, as the practice is contrary to halakha. They showed him in his dream the words: I wish to destroy and you build? He understood this as a sign that God wanted the orphans to suffer financial collapse, and therefore it would be preferable to allow the steward to continue his practice. Even so, Rabbi Meir paid no heed to his dream, and said: Words appearing in dreams do not bring up and do not take down; they should not be taken into consideration.

הנהו בי תרי דאיגרי בהו שטן דכל בי שמשי הוו קא מינצו בהדי הדדי איקלע רבי מאיר להתם עכבינהו תלתא בי שמשי עד דעבד להו שלמא שמעיה דקאמר ווי דאפקיה רבי מאיר לההוא גברא מביתיה

Apropos an incident involving Rabbi Meir, the Gemara relates another story about him: There were two people who, incited by Satan, would argue with each other every Friday afternoon at twilight. Rabbi Meir happened to come to the place where they argued. He stopped them from fighting three Friday afternoons at twilight, until finally he made peace between them. He then heard Satan say: Woe, that Rabbi Meir removed that man, Satan, from his house. This indicates that Satan himself lives among those who have discord.

ההוא אפוטרופוס דהוה בשבבותיה דרבי יהושע בן לוי דהוה קא מזבין ארעא וזבין תורי ולא אמר ליה ולא מידי סבר לה כרבי יוסי דתניא אמר רבי יוסי מימי לא קריתי לאשתי אשתי ולשורי שורי אלא לאשתי ביתי ולשורי שדי

It is related that there was a certain steward of orphans who was in the neighborhood of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi who was selling land and buying oxen on behalf of the orphans, and he did not say anything to the steward to the effect that he was acting improperly. The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei said: In all my days, I did not call my wife: My wife, nor my ox: My ox. Rather, I called my wife: My home, because she is the essence of my home, and I called my ox: My field, because the primary force behind enhancements to the field is the ox that plows it. Similarly, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi maintains that purchasing oxen to work the land is considered like purchasing land itself and that consequently a protest should not be raised against the steward, who sold land belonging to the orphans in order to purchase oxen with the proceeds.

הנהו יתמי דהוו סמיכי גבי ההיא סבתא הוה להו תורתא שקלה וזבינתה ניהלייהו אתו קרובים לקמיה דרב נחמן אמרו ליה מאי עבידתה דזבנא אמר להו יתומים שסמכו אצל בעל הבית תנן

It is further related that certain orphans who lived with an old woman had an ox, and she took it and sold it on their behalf. Relatives of those orphans came before Rav Naḥman and said to him: What is she doing selling the orphans’ property? Who authorized her to do so? Rav Naḥman said to them: We learned from the phrase in the mishna: If orphans are living with a homeowner, that official appointment as a steward is not necessary. The fact that the orphans lived with the woman and she took care of them sufficed to bestow upon her the authority of a steward.

והא אייקר ברשותא דלוקח אייקר והא לא נקיטי דמי

The relatives continued with their objection to the sale: But didn’t the animal afterward increase in value, which is reason to invalidate the transaction? Rav Naḥman answered: The animal increased in value while in the possession of the buyer, and this is not considered as a loss suffered by the orphans. The relatives said to him: But they did not yet receive the money, and consequently the sale was incomplete.

אמר להו אם כן היינו דרב חנילאי בר אידי אמר שמואל דאמר רב חנילאי בר אידי אמר שמואל נכסי יתומין הרי הן כהקדש ולא מקני אלא בכספא

Rav Naḥman said to them: If so, this is what Rav Ḥanilai bar Idi says that Shmuel says, as Rav Ḥanilai bar Idi says that Shmuel says: Orphans’ property is like consecrated property and is fully acquired only with the transfer of money. Since they did not yet receive the money, they can raise the purchase price or renege on the entire sale.

חמריה דרבנא עוקבא יתמא משכוה בארבעה ארבעה ואייקר וקם בשיתא שיתא אתו לקמיה דרב נחמן אמר להו היינו דרב חנילאי בר אידי דאמר רב חנילאי בר אידי אמר שמואל נכסי יתומין הרי הן כהקדש ולא מקני אלא בכספא

Similarly, it is related that those who came to buy the wine of Rabbana Ukva the orphan pulled it into their possession after having agreed on a purchase price of four dinars per barrel. But before the buyers actually paid for the wine, it increased in value and its price stood at six dinars per barrel. The parties came before Rav Naḥman for a ruling on the matter. He said to them: This is subject to what Rav Ḥanilai bar Idi said, as Rav Ḥanilai bar Idi says that Shmuel says: Orphans’ property is like consecrated property, and is fully acquired only with the transfer of money. Consequently, the buyers pay the current, higher price or the sale can be rendered void.

משוך פירי מיתמי אייקור היינו דרב חנילאי בר אידי זול לא יהא כח הדיוט חמור מהקדש

The Gemara records several additional laws relating to this topic: If the buyers pulled into their possession produce belonging to orphans but did not yet pay for it, and afterward the produce increased in value, this is subject to what Rav Ḥanilai bar Idi said: Orphans’ property is fully acquired only with the transfer of money, and until payment is made the transaction can still be rendered void. But if the produce decreased in value, and the buyers wish to renege on the sale, one can argue: Just as it is said that the power of an ordinary person should not be greater than that of the Temple treasury, so too, the power of orphans should not be less than that of other people. Since the buyers pulled the orphans’ property into their possession, thereby performing an act of acquisition, the sale is valid and the buyers cannot retract.

אמשיכו להו פירי ליתמי אייקר לא יהא כח הדיוט חמור מהקדש זול סבור מינה היינו דרב חנילאי בר אידי

If the steward pulled produce into his possession on behalf of the orphans, but did not yet pay for it, and afterward it increased in value, then just as the power of an ordinary person should not be greater than that of the Temple treasury, so too, the power of orphans should not be less than that of other people. Therefore, the orphans acquire the produce based on its price at the time the steward pulled it into their possession. But if the produce decreased in value, and now the steward wishes to cancel the sale, the students in the study hall understood from here that this is included in what Rav Ḥanilai bar Idi said, that transactions involving orphans are completed only with the transfer of money, and therefore the steward can renege on the sale and acquire the produce at the lower price.

אמר להו רב שישא בריה דרב אידי הא רעה היא לדידהו דזמנין דמצטרכי לפירי וליכא דיהיב להו עד דיהבי זוזי

Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said to them: This would be bad for the orphans were they treated in this manner, as they might at times need produce and nobody will give it to them before they actually pay the money. It is preferable for them to be treated like other buyers, who finalize their acquisition when they pull the produce into their possession.

יהבי יתמי זוזי אפירי זול לא יהא כח הדיוט חמור מן הקדש אייקר סבור מינה היינו דרב חנילאי בר אידי

If the orphans gave money for the purchase of produce but did not yet physically transfer it into their possession, and afterward the produce decreased in value, then one applies the principle that the power of an ordinary person, the seller, should not be greater than the Temple treasury. Therefore, the orphans can renege on the purchase, as an act of acquisition has not yet been performed. But if the produce increased in value, and the orphans wish to uphold the sale, the students in the study hall understood from here that this is included in what Rav Ḥanilai bar Idi said, that transactions involving orphans are completed with the transfer of money, and therefore the orphans acquire the produce at the lower price.

אמר להו רב שישא בריה דרב אידי הא רעה היא לדידהו

Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said to them: This would be bad for the orphans were they treated this way,

דאתו למימר להו נשרפו חיטכם בעלייה

as the sellers will come to say to them: Your wheat was burned in the upper story of my house, and you have lost everything. If a fire breaks out, the sellers will not attempt to save the produce because they already received payment for it and it now belongs to the orphans.

יהבי להו זוזי ליתמי אפירי אייקר לא יהא כח הדיוט חמור מהקדש זול סבור מינה היינו דרב חנילאי בר אידי

If buyers gave the orphans money for the purchase of produce, but did not yet physically transfer it into their possession, and afterward the produce increased in value, then one applies the principle that the power of an ordinary person should not be greater than that of the Temple treasury, and therefore the orphans can renege on the sale, as a valid act of acquisition had not yet been performed. If the produce decreased in value, and the orphans wish to uphold the sale, the students understood from here that this is subject to what Rav Ḥanilai bar Idi said, that transactions involving orphans are finalized with the transfer of money, and therefore the orphans should acquire the produce at the lower price.

אמר להו רב שישא בריה דרב אידי הא רעה הוא לדידהו דזמנין דמצטרכי לזוזי וליכא דיהיב להו עד דיהבי להו פירי

Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said to them: This would be bad for the orphans were they treated this way, as there may be times that the orphans need money and no one will give it to them before they actually give them the produce. Consequently, it is preferable for them to be treated like other sellers, who finalize their sales only once the merchandise is pulled by the buyers.

אמר רב אשי אנא ורב כהנא חתמינן אשטרא דאימיה דזעירא יתמא דמזבנא ארעא לכרגא בלא אכרזתא דאמרי נהרדעי לכרגא ולמזוני ולקבורה מזבנינן בלא אכרזתא

§ Rav Ashi said: Rav Kahana and I signed a deed of sale for the mother of Ze’eira the orphan, who, as the child’s steward, sold land without first making a public announcement in order to pay the head tax [karga]. It was permitted for her to act in this manner due to what the Sages of Neharde’a said: When an orphan’s property is sold, a public announcement of the sale is first made in order to ensure that the seller will receive the highest price. But when the property is sold to raise money for the payment of the head tax, or to provide for sustenance for orphans, or to pay for burial of the deceased, the money is needed immediately, so the property may be sold even without a public announcement.

עמרם צבעא אפוטרופא דיתמי הוה אתו קרובים לקמיה דרב נחמן אמרי ליה קא לביש ומכסי מיתמי אמר להו כי היכי דלישתמען מיליה

The Gemara relates: Amram the dyer was a steward for orphans, and the orphans’ relatives once came before Rav Naḥman and said to him: He dresses and covers himself with clothing purchased from the property of the orphans. Rav Naḥman said to them: Perhaps he does this in order that his words be heard, meaning that he dresses himself in finery at the orphans’ expense in order to better manage their property, as he will be ignored if he appears to be a poor person.

קאכיל ושתי מדידהו ולא אמוד אימור מציאה אשכח והא קא מפסיד אמר להו אייתו לי סהדי דמפסיד ואיסלקיניה דאמר רב הונא חברין משמיה דרב אפוטרופוס דמפסיד מסלקינן ליה דאיתמר אפוטרופא דמפסיד רב הונא אמר רב מסלקינן ליה דבי רבי שילא אמרי לא מסלקינן ליה והלכתא מסלקינן ליה

They said to him: He eats and drinks lavishly from the orphan’s property and is not known to be rich enough to be able to afford such large expenditures from his own money. Rav Naḥman said to them: Say that perhaps he found a lost item, with the help of which he can allow himself to maintain a high standard of living. They said to him: But he is damaging the orphans’ property and thereby causing them financial loss. Rav Naḥman said to them: Bring me witnesses that he is damaging their property and I will remove him from his stewardship, as our colleague Rav Huna said in the name of Rav that in the case of a steward who damages the property of the orphans, the court removes him. As it was stated: With regard to a steward who damages orphans’ property, Rav Huna says that Rav says: The court removes him. In the school of Rabbi Sheila they say: The court does not remove him. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that the court removes him.

אפוטרופוס שמינהו אבי יתומים ישבע מאי טעמא אי לאו דאית ליה הנאה מיניה לא הוה ליה אפוטרופוס ומשום שבועה לא אתי לאמנועי

§ The mishna teaches: With regard to a steward who was appointed by the orphans’ father, when he returns all of the property to the orphans upon their reaching adulthood, he takes an oath that he took nothing of theirs for himself. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for this? If the steward had not received some benefit from the father during his life, he would not have agreed to become a steward for his children. And he will not come to avoid becoming a steward merely because of an oath that the court will impose upon him some time in the future

מינוהו בית דין לא ישבע מלתא בעלמא הוא דעביד לבי דינא ואי רמית עליה שבועה אתי לאמנועי

The mishna then teaches: By contrast, if the court appointed him to serve as a steward for them, then he is not required to take such an oath. The Gemara explains: The reason for this is that it is merely a favor that the steward does for the court, as he derives no benefit from accepting the position. And if you also cast an obligation upon him to take an oath, he will come to avoid becoming a steward, and the orphans will suffer a loss, as people will not be willing to administer their affairs.

אבא שאול אומר חילוף הדברים מאי טעמא מינוהו בית דין ישבע בההיא הנאה דקא נפיק עליה קלא דאיניש מהימנא הוא דהא סמיך עליה בי דינא משום שבועה לא אתי לאמנועי

The mishna then teaches: Abba Shaul says: The matters are reversed; it is not a steward appointed by the orphans’ father but a steward appointed by the court who takes an oath. The Gemara clarifies Abba Shaul’s opinion: What is the reason that if the court appointed the steward, he takes an oath? Since he derives a certain benefit from his appointment, that publicity is generated about him that he is a trustworthy man, as is demonstrated by the fact that the court relies upon him and appoints him to a position of responsibility, he will not come to avoid becoming a steward merely because of an oath that the court will impose upon him.

מינהו אבי יתומים לא ישבע מילתא בעלמא הוא דעבדי להדדי ואי רמית עליה שבועה אתי לאמנועי אמר רב חנן בר אמי אמר שמואל הלכתא כאבא שאול

By contrast, if the orphans’ father appointed him as a steward, he is not required to take an oath. Why so? It is merely a favor that these people do for each other. And if you cast an additional obligation upon the steward to take an oath, he will come to avoid accepting the position, and the orphans will suffer a loss, as people will not be willing to administer their affairs. Rav Ḥanan bar Ami says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul.

תניא רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר זה וזה ישבע והלכה כדבריו

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: Both this one, a steward appointed by the father, and that one, a court-appointed steward, take an oath, and the halakha is in accordance with his statement.

תני רב תחליפא בר מערבא קמיה דרבי אבהו אפוטרופוס שמינהו אבי יתומים ישבע מפני שהוא נושא שכר אמר ליה את אייתת קבא וכיילת ליה אלא אימא מפני שהוא כנושא שכר

Rav Taḥalifa, from the West, Eretz Yisrael, taught a baraita before Rabbi Abbahu: In the case of a steward who was appointed to that position by the father of the orphans, he takes an oath when the orphans reach adulthood and he returns the property to them, because he receives payment, i.e., he derives a certain benefit from managing the orphans’ property. Rabbi Abbahu said to him: Did you bring a kav and measure how much the steward earns from his efforts? Rather, say that he takes an oath because it is as if he received payment. Presumably he agreed to serve as the orphans’ steward because of a benefit that he derived from their father during his lifetime, and consequently it is as if he received payment for accepting the stewardship.

מתני׳ המטמא והמדמע והמנסך בשוגג פטור במזיד חייב

MISHNA: With regard to one who renders another’s food ritually impure, or one who mixes teruma with another’s non-sacred produce, or one who pours another’s wine as a libation before an idol, in each of these cases causing the other a monetary loss, if he acted unintentionally, he is exempt from paying for the damage. If he acted intentionally, he is liable to pay.

גמ׳ איתמר מנסך רב אמר מנסך ממש ושמואל אמר מערב

GEMARA: It was stated that the amora’im disagreed with regard to the meaning of the word pours mentioned in the mishna. Rav says: It means that he actually takes the wine and pours it as a libation before an idol. And Shmuel says: It means that he mixes together kosher wine with wine that had been used in rites of idolatry, so that now it is prohibited to drink or derive any other benefit from the mixture.

מאן דאמר מערב מאי טעמא לא אמר מנסך אמר לך מנסך קם ליה בדרבה מיניה

The Gemara asks: With regard to Shmuel, the one who says that it means mixing, what is the reason that he did not say that it means actually pouring? The Gemara answers: He could have said to you: One who has committed two or more transgressions with a single act is exempt from punishment for the less severe transgression. Consequently, one who committed an act warranting both court-imposed capital punishment and the payment of monetary compensation is put to death but is exempt from the monetary payment. Therefore, one who pours another’s wine as a libation before an idol receives the greater punishment, i.e., the death penalty for transgressing the prohibition against idol worship, but he is exempt from the less severe penalty of monetary payment for the financial loss he caused the other person.

ואידך כדרבי ירמיה דאמר רבי ירמיה משעת הגבהה הוא דקנה מתחייב בנפשו לא הוי עד שעת ניסוך

And the other Sage, Rav, holds in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yirmeya, as Rabbi Yirmeya says: One who pours another person’s wine as a libation acquires it as his own from the time that he lifts it in order to take it for himself, as does any thief, and at that moment he becomes liable for the payment of monetary compensation. But he does not become liable to receive the death penalty for violating the prohibition against idol worship until he actually pours the wine before the idol. Consequently, the monetary penalty takes effect first, and he also becomes liable to receive the death penalty afterward in a separate act.

ולמאן דאמר מנסך מאי טעמא לא אמר מערב אמר לך מערב

The Gemara asks: And according to Rav, the one who says that it means actually pouring, what is the reason that he did not say that it means mixing? The Gemara answers: He could have said to you: Mixing libation wine with kosher wine