Zevachim 111a (קיא.) — the Talmud in English

Rather,

they disagree concerning whether libations were offered in the wilderness.

The first tanna holds that libations were offered in the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness throughout all forty years. Consequently, the verse stated with regard to libations, “When you enter the land,” speaks of the fourteen years of conquest and apportionment, during which private altars were permitted. It comes to teach that even the private altar of an individual requires libations, since no verse is needed to obligate libations in the Tabernacle, as libations were brought there in the wilderness as well.

It follows that a private altar requires libations even though it has no service vessels. Therefore, one who offers outside the Temple at a time when private altars are prohibited is liable even without sanctification in a vessel. Accordingly, he is also liable for pouring the water, even though it was not sanctified in a vessel.

Rabbi Elazar, by contrast, holds that libations were not offered in the wilderness during all forty years. According to him, the “entry into the land” mentioned with regard to libations comes to obligate them only after the fourteen years of conquering, inheriting, and settling the land. They were obligated in libations only at the Tabernacle, at Shiloh, and in the permanent Temple, but not at private altars, where there were no service vessels. Therefore, if one burned libations outside before they had been sanctified in a service vessel, he is not liable for them.

Ravina said:

according to everyone, libations were offered in the wilderness during all forty years, and the “entry into the land” mentioned with regard to libations teaches that they were to be brought even at a private altar and without sanctification in a service vessel. However, specifically the pouring of wine applies at a private altar without sanctification in a vessel; but we find no pouring of water at a private altar, since it is a communal obligation, and it was offered only at a communal altar in a vessel. If so, this cannot be the reason of the first tanna for imposing liability.

Rather,

they disagree over whether the pouring of water is derived from the pouring of wine.

The first tanna holds that the pouring of wine is a source from which to impose liability for pouring water outside, even without a vessel. Rabbi Elazar holds that it is not a source from which to derive this law. One is liable outside without a vessel specifically for pouring wine; but with regard to pouring water, if it was not sanctified in a vessel, one is not liable for it outside.

The Sages taught: One who pours three log of wine outside is liable.

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: This applies

only

if they were first sanctified in a vessel

of service.

The Gemara asks:

What is the practical difference between them?

What do they disagree about? Does the first tanna not also hold that sanctification in a vessel is required, and what did Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, add?

Rav Adda, son of Rav Yitzḥak, said:

According to everyone, liability outside applies only after the wine has been sanctified with the sanctity of a vessel. But

they disagree with regard to the overflow of measures.

They disagree concerning the portion that rises above the rim of the vessel. The Sages hold that even the overflow of a liquid measure is sanctified, although it was not actually inside the vessel, and therefore if one pours it outside he is liable. Rabbi Elazar holds that the overflow of measures is not sanctified, since only what is inside the vessel sanctifies libations.

Rabba, son of Rava, said:

The first tanna imposes liability for burning libations outside even if they were not sanctified with the sanctity of a vessel. Their dispute is

whether libations were offered at a

small private altar.

This is the difference between them. And they

disagree

in the dispute between these tanna’im:

As it was taught: A private altar does not require

that they bring

libations

with the offering,

according to Rabbi.

And the Sages say: It requires libations.

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, follows Rabbi, who says that there are no libations at a small private altar. If so, we do not find pouring without sanctification in a vessel. The first tanna follows the Sages, who say that there are libations at a private altar, and it follows that some libations are brought even without sanctification in a vessel.

And

their dispute, that of

these tanna’im,

Rabbi and the Sages, is

like

the dispute of

these tanna’im.

As it was taught,

it is stated in the passage concerning libations [Numbers 15:2]:

“When you enter

the land of your dwelling places, and one who offers his offering to the Lord—‘and wine for pouring, a quarter of a hin,’”

to require libations,

with the offering;

the verse speaks of a large public altar.

It comes to teach you that libations were not offered in the wilderness, and that only once they entered the land did they become obligated in them at a public altar.

You say

only

at a large altar, or

perhaps

not

so,

but even at a small altar?

When it says, “To the land of your dwelling places that I give you,”

it is clear that

the verse speaks of an altar that applies to all of you,

that is, a large public altar, and not a small altar belonging to an individual.

These are the words of Rabbi Yishmael.

Rabbi Akiva says: “When you enter,” to require libations

even

at a small altar—the verse speaks!

For the verse is not needed for a large altar, since libations had already been offered there in the wilderness.

You say that it refers to a small altar, or

perhaps

it refers only to a large altar,

and this verse informs us that libations were in fact not offered in the wilderness.

When it says, “To the land of your dwelling places,” then

it is clear that

the verse speaks of an altar

belonging to an individual

that applies in every dwelling place ;

the verse speaks

of that, since a public altar exists only in one place!

It follows that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi follow Rabbi Yishmael, who says that libations are not brought at a small private altar, whereas the first tanna and the Sages who disagree with them follow Rabbi Akiva.

When you examine the matter,

and consider it carefully,

according to Rabbi Yishmael, libations were not offered in the wilderness,

and therefore the verse had to teach that in the land libations are brought at a large altar.

According to Rabbi Akiva, libations were offered in the wilderness

at a large altar, and therefore he interpreted the verse as introducing the obligation of libations in the land even at a private altar.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Neḥemya says: One who offers the remainder of the blood outside is liable.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The tanna,

who taught

Rabbi Neḥemya

in our Mishna, taught it

in accordance with the opinion [

above, 52a ]

that the remainder of the blood is indispensable

in a sin-offering. Therefore, offering it is considered a sacrificial service for which one is liable outside, like one who sprinkles the principal blood.

The Gemara raises an objection: Rabbi Neḥemya says: One who offers the remainder of the blood outside is liable.

Rabbi Akiva said to him: But the remainder of the blood is merely the remainder of a mitzva,

as it does not prevent atonement!

He said to him: The limbs and fats will prove this,

for even though

they are the remainder of a mitzva

and do not prevent atonement, since atonement is achieved only through the blood,

nevertheless

nevertheless

one who offers them outside is liable!

He said to him,

Rabbi Akiva:

No!

This is not a proof, for

if you say that with regard to the limbs and fats

one is liable for them outside because

they are the beginning of the service,

and this is their distinction,

can you say the same with regard to the remainder of the blood, which is the end of the service

and has no such distinction?!

And if it is so,

as Rabbi Yoḥanan says, that Rabbi Neḥemya’s reason is that he holds that the remainder is indispensable,

let Rabbi Neḥemya say to him,

Rabbi Akiva:

These

remnants

are also the beginning of the service,

since they are indispensable like the other applications of the blood!

The objection stands!

However, there is an answer to this objection:

And now that Rav Adda bar Ahava said [

above, 52a ]:

The dispute

between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva over whether the remnants are indispensable applies only

to the inner remnants

of the sin-offerings whose blood is presented inside, for all their applications are indispensable.

But with regard to the outer remnants, everyone agrees that they are not indispensable.

It is therefore possible to resolve the matter and say:

When Rabbi Neḥemya said

in our Mishna that one who pours the remnants outside is liable, he meant specifically

the inner remnants.

But

when that

baraita was taught, in which Rabbi Neḥemya concedes to Rabbi Akiva that the remnants are merely the remainder of a mitzva, it referred specifically to

the outer remnants. In truth, Rabbi Neḥemya concedes with regard to them that one is not liable for offering them outside, since the law of sprinkling applies only to the inner remnants.

.