Zevachim 110b (קי:) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

One who throws some of the blood

of the offering

outside,

such as one placement , !(pamud.bmp " exact page location")

is liable,

even if it is the blood of the internal sin-offerings, all of whose placements are indispensable. And even Rabbi Elazar, who holds that one is liable only when he offers the entire permitting element, concedes that for throwing blood outside one is liable even for part of it, as we say in the Gemara.

Rabbi Elazar says: Even one who pours the festival water

for the water libation

during the festival

of Sukkot

outside is liable.

Rabbi Nehemya says: Even the remaining blood

of sin-offerings that require pouring onto the foundation of the altar,

if one offered it outside, he is liable.

In his view, pouring the remainder is indispensable for the offering; consequently, it is “accepted inside” and is considered a complete throwing.

Gemara:

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

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

As we learned

in tractate Yoma [60b]: If the blood was spilled after he had made one placement [the view of the first tanna is that he brings other blood and begins again, since he did not complete that atonement],

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say:

the first placement counts for him, and

from the place where he stopped,

from there

he begins.

This proves that although all the placements of an internal sin-offering constitute one service with regard to their being indispensable, each placement in itself is nevertheless “accepted inside,” since it is counted among the placements.

We learned in the Mishna:

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

Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Menaḥem of Yodfah:

This halakha stated by

Rabbi Elazar was stated in accordance with the view of Rabbi Akiva, his teacher, for Rabbi Akiva said:

Rabbi Akiva:

The water libation

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 daily burnt-offering

and its libations,”

in the plural.

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

Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: If so,

if this is Rabbi Elazar’s source for the water libation, let us derive from it:

Just as there

with regard to the wine libation of the daily burnt-offering, one must pour

three log, so too here

with regard to the water libation outside, one must pour

three log.

But Rabbi Elazar said “the festival water,”

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

And similarly we might derive:

If just as there

with regard to the wine libation, it applies even

during the rest of the days of the year, so too here

one should be liable for pouring the water outside even

during the rest of the days of the year.

And

if

Rabbi Elazar

said specifically

“during the festival”!

We answer:

It escaped

Rabbi Menahem of Yodfah’s notice

that which Rava said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan.

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

[this is a mishna in tractate Shevi'it, chapter 1, mishna 6],

the willow,

[in the Temple],

and the water libation

of the festival— all three are

a halakha given to Moses at Sinai.

It is proved that according to everyone the water libation is from the Torah, and not only according to Rabbi Akiva. There is no need for an analogy between the wine libation and the water libation. It is possible that Rabbi Elazar in our Mishna follows the view that the measure of the water libation 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.

We raise a question concerning this:

What is the difference between them,

what did Rabbi Elazar add to the first tanna’s statement, and in what do they disagree?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: They disagree concerning whether there is a measure for the water

of the libation;

that is the subject of their dispute.

The first tanna said “three log,” meaning three or more, because he holds that there is no upper limit for the festival water. If he filled a vessel with more than three log, the vessel sanctified all of it, and he is liable for offering it outside. Rabbi Elazar, however, holds that he is liable specifically when he filled it “for the sake of the festival,” in the manner in which it is ordinarily filled, namely, with 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 sacred vessels sanctify only that which is fit for them.

Rav Pappa said:

According to both the first tanna and 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.