In this passage, the 1837 edition omitted the text from the first wine to the second one, thus deleting “yea they would not take of wine”, which is extant in 𝓞. Joseph Smith did not mark this deletion in 𝓟, so the 1837 reading is probably a simple typo resulting from the 1837 typesetter’s eye skipping from the first wine to the second one. The omitted text is not necessary for the meaning; on the other hand, there doesn’t seem to be any strong reason for deleting it either. The critical text will restore the longer reading since it is the reading of the original manuscript.
Two parts of this passage are not extant in the original manuscript: (1) “yea they would not parta” (the final ke of the main verb is extant at the beginning of a line in 𝓞); and (2) “save they had firstly given to some”. This brings up two possible emendations to the text. The first one deals with the use of the verb partake in the first yea-clause but take in the second one. The 1908 RLDS edition emended the text so that in both cases the verb is partake. This emendation seems appropriate since yea-clauses usually involve some repetition of words (see the discussion under Alma 12:12–14). But the original manuscript is extant for the take in the second yea-clause, so the RLDS emendation contradicts the manuscript evidence.
On the other hand, one might consider emending the partake in the first yea-clause to take. The original manuscript is not extant here, but the first part of the verb (either parta or ta) would have ended the line (as noted above, the beginning of the next line is extant and it reads -ke). Spacing between extant fragments suggests that ta fits best. If the word was originally partake in 𝓞, the initial par would have probably been supralinearly inserted. We also note that Oliver Cowdery frequently misread the ends of lines in the original manuscript when he copied from 𝓞 into 𝓟 (see the examples listed under Alma 11:21). Here in Alma 55:31, Oliver could have easily misread take as partake when he copied the text from 𝓞 into 𝓟.
Elsewhere in this chapter (Alma 55), we have three additional occurrences of “take of wine” with the meaning ‘drink of wine’, but none of “partake of wine”:
The phrase “partake of wine” does occur elsewhere, but only in reference to the sacrament:
Thus usage and spacing considerations in 𝓞 support the reading “take of wine” in both yea- clauses in Alma 55:31.
The second possible emendation has to do with whether a pronoun such as it, in reference to the wine, should follow given in “save they had firstly given to some of the Lamanite prisoners”. The original manuscript is not extant for this part of the sentence, but spacing between extant fragments favors the shorter text without any it. In English, we normally expect a direct object for the verb give, but under certain conditions it may be omitted. Some examples of this omission are found later in 3 Nephi when Christ administers the sacrament:
These examples show quite clearly that give does not need to have a direct object pronominal it, especially when it refers to food and drink. Thus there is no need to emend the text in Alma 55:31 so that it would read “save they had firstly given it to some of the Lamanite prisoners”.
Summary: Restore in Alma 55:31 the beginning of the second yea-clause that was accidentally omitted in the 1837 edition; in accord with the spacing between extant fragments of 𝓞, emend partake (in the first yea-clause) to take (thus “they would not take of their wine”), which is consistent with four other occurrences of the phraseology “take of wine” in this chapter, including the take in the second yea-clause in this verse (“yea they would not take of wine”); do not add the direct object pronoun it after the verb give near the end of the verse (thus maintaining “save they had firstly given to some of the Lamanite prisoners”) since elsewhere the text typically omits the pronoun it after give when referring to food and drink.