Zevachim 110b — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

One who throws some of the blood

of the offering

outside,

such as one application,

is liable,

even if they are the blood of the inner sin-offerings, all of whose applications are indispensable. And even Rabbi Elazar, who holds one liable only in a case where he offered all of the permitting factor, concedes with regard to throwing blood outside that he is liable even for some of it, as we say in the Gemara.

Rabbi Elazar says: Even one who pours the festival water

of the water-pouring

outside during the festival

of Sukkot

is liable.

Rabbi Nehemiah says: Even the remainder of the blood

of sin-offerings, which require pouring at the base of the altar,

if they were offered outside, he is liable.

For according to his view, pouring the remainder is indispensable for the offering, and it follows that they are “accepted inside” and are considered a complete throwing.

Gemara:

Rava said: And Rabbi Elazar concedes with regard to blood 133 ,

even that of the internal sin-offerings, that if he threw some of it outside, he is liable.

For we learned

in tractate Yoma (60b): If the blood was spilled after he gave one application [the view of the first tanna is that he brings other blood and begins from the start, since he did not complete that atonement],

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say:

the first application has served him, and

from the place where he stopped,

from there

he begins.

It is demonstrated that although all the applications in an internal sin-offering constitute one service insofar as being indispensable, nevertheless each application in itself is “accepted inside,” for it is counted in the number of applications.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Elazar says: Even one who pours the festival water during the festival outside is liable:

Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Menahem of Yodfah:

This halakha that

Rabbi Elazar stated, he stated according to the method of his teacher, Rabbi Akiva! For

Rabbi Akiva said:

The water-pouring

during the festival

is from the Torah,

and therefore one is liable for it outside.

For it was taught in a beraita, Rabbi Akiva says:

It is stated concerning the additional offering of the festival (Numbers 29:31), “In addition to the continual burnt-offering

and its libations,”

in the plural.

The verse speaks of two libations: one, the water-pouring, and one, the wine-pouring.

Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yohanan: If

this is Rabbi Elazar’s source for the water-pouring, then let us derive from it:

Just as there

with the wine-pouring of the continual burnt-offering, one must pour

three log, so here

with the water-pouring outside, one must pour

three log.

But Rabbi Elazar said “the festival water,”

which implies that one is liable for any pouring outside, even less than three log!

And likewise let us reason and derive:

If just as there

with the wine-pouring, it is performed even

during the other days of the year, so here

one should be liable for water-pouring outside even

during the other days of the year.

But

if

Rabbi Elazar

said specifically

during the festival!

And we answer:

It escaped

Rabbi Menahem of Yodfah

that which Rav Asi said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan.

For Rav Asi said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan in the name of Rabbi Neḥunya, a man of the valley of Beit Ḥortan: Ten saplings

(this is a mishna in tractate Sheviit, chapter 1, mishna 6),

the willow

[in the Temple],

and the water-pouring

of the festival—all three are

a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai.

It is demonstrated that according to everyone the water-pouring is from the Torah, and not only according to Rabbi Akiva; there is no need for an analogy between the wine-pouring and the water-pouring. It is possible that Rabbi Elazar in our Mishna follows the one who says that the measure of the water-pouring is one log, or that it has no measure.

The Sages taught: One who pours three log of water during the festival outside is liable. Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon says: This is so when he filled them for the sake of the festival.

And we raise a difficulty:

What is the difference between them,

what did Rabbi Elazar add to the words of the first tanna, and in what did they disagree?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: They disagree

concerning whether there is a measure for the water

of the pouring.

The first tanna said “three log,” and his intention is three and more, for he held that there is no upper measure for the festival water. If he filled a vessel larger than three log, the vessel sanctified all of it, and he is liable for it outside. Rabbi Elazar held that he is liable specifically if he filled them “for the sake of the festival,” in the manner of their proper filling, namely, three log. But if it was a large vessel and he filled it with more than three log of water, the vessel did not sanctify it, since service vessels sanctify only what is fit for them.

Rav Pappa said:

Both according to the first tanna and according to Rabbi Elazar there is a measure for the water, and if he filled more than the measure of three log, he did not sanctify it.