Menachot 20: To Salt Or Not To Salt

The Gemara discusses salting the korban, the meal-offering that is brought to the altar.  There is leniency regarding the timing of salting based on Torah instruction.  The meal offering is meant to be salted before it is placed the altar.  Salting is not repeated, and so our last Mishna states that salting is not required as part of the offering.

The Gemara notes that the rabbis did not agree about salting the korban.  Through a baraita, Rabbi Yehuda quotes a Torah passage that requires all sacrifices be salted.  The source might be Bamidbar (18.19) or, as Rabbeinu Tam (Tosafot) suggests, the source is Vayikra (2:13) which says that salt should not be left out when bringing a sacrifice.  Rabbi Shimon says that similar language is found in Bamidbar (25:12) regarding priests. He says that the korban must be brought with priests and with salt.

Rashi attempts to this difference.  He says that Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon have agree that the law that requires salt is found in all of the sources mentioned.  The Rambam states that their differences are significant - Rabbi Yehuda believes that only meal-offerings require salt, and Rabbi Shimon believes that salt is required on all sacrifices.

Steinsaltz notes that Rabbi Meir Simcha HaCohen of Dvinsk (in Meshech Chochma) offers a different explanation: Rabbi Yehuda would require salt when a meal offering is brought on a private altar, where Rabbi Shimon would say that priests and thus salt are not required when offering meat on a private altar.

It must be noted that salt would serve a secondary purpose: to enhance the flavour of a meal-offering.  

Menachot 17: The Sharp Ones of Pumbedita

Can one meal-offering make another meal-offering unfit through the priest's thoughts of offering the frankincense incorrectly while placing the kometz on the altar?  Today's daf speaks of the the sharp ones of Pumbedita.  They teach that even if the sacrifice does not become piggul unless the inappropriate thought referred to the entire process.  Perhaps this thought does contain the full essence of the sacrifice.  The kometz and the frankincense are placed together into the Temple vessel.

Steinsaltz teaches us that the sharp ones of Pumbedita refers to the sons of Rachava, Eifa and Avimi.  Rabbi Yehuda was Rachava's teacher.  Eifa and Avimi were recorded as debating with teach other about halachic arguments.  One of these was about Masechet Shevout: Eifa learned this masechet and Avimi and Rabba tested and questioned him.  They are quoted in the Yerushalmi Talmud even though they were associated with the Babilonian yeshiva.

Menachot 16: Timing of Inappropriate Thoughts

A new Mishna discusses inappropriate thoughts about eating the meal offering: will this disqualify the offering if it happened only when sacrificing one of the kometz, the handful of meal-offering, or the levona, the frankincense.  The Sages say that the inappropriate thoughts must happen during both so that the offering becomes piggul and the person who eats it is liable to receive karet.  Rabbi Meir rules against the rabbis: an inappropriate thought during either one of those sacrifices will make the offerings unfit.

The Mishna describes meal offerings that do not include levona:  

• that brought by a sinner who is obligated to bring sacrifices for each sin and who might bring a meal offering because s/he cannot afford a sin offering, and
• that brought by a sota, a woman suspected of having an affair

Those acts have only one element of sacrifice that permits one to consume the offering, and so the rabbis and Rabbi Meir agree.

Back in daf 13a, we learned about a debate between the Sages and Rabbi Yosei about whether or not inappropriate thoughts about frankincense would cause a problem if it happened when sacrificing the kometz, or vice versa.   This is different from today's debate.  Here, the rabbis consider whether thoughts about eating the offering are significant when they happen during one part of the sacrifice, or whether they must happen simultaneously.  Our Sages are that the offering cannot be consumed until both the frankincense and the the comet have been brought; to become piggul, the sacrifices must both have accompanied inappropriate thoughts.

Menachot 15: Exclusivity of Rendering Piggul; Cannibus

Daf 14 ended with the following Mishna: Rabbi Yehuda teaches that if one of the two shewbread arrangements or if one of the two loaves of Shevuot became ritually impure, it s disqualified. If either is imperfect in its equality than all are disqualified.  The rabbis say that the impure one stays in its state of impurity and the pure one may - and should - be eaten.

Daf 15 continues the discussion on that Mishna.  Most of that conversation focuses on what renders a sacrifice piggul, one offered with improper intentions.  A new Mishna is introduced.  It teaches that Loaves offered with a thanks offering are piggul but the thanks offering itself is not piggul.  This is because of one slaughtered the thanks offering, which must be eaten during the day, with the intention to eat the loaves the following day, only the loaves are piggul.  

Similarly, if the lambs sacrificed with two loaves/meal offering on Shavout render the accompanying loaves piggul, the loaves do not render the lambs piggul.  This is because the lambs must be consumed during the day and they are slaughtered that day and in the night with the intention of consuming them the following day - and if this was done with the intent to eat the loaves the following day, the loaves are piggul while the lambs are not piggul.

It is notable that one of the rabbis' conversations turns to crops that might become disqualified because of kilayim, forbidden mixtures.  We learn that a field growing cannabis or luf, arum, cannot also grow other types of plants because cannabis and luf yield only once every three years.  Rashi says that because of their long lives they are thought to be significant and cannot be planted with grapevines.  The Keseff Mishna says that the Rambam says they are forbidden because grapevines also last for three years.  The Ramban says that they might become intertwined with other vines.  As well, the Raavan says that they should not be planted together because they are cultivated, which means that they are planted with the intention of keeping them.

Steinsaltz explains that cannabis was used to create fibres for weaving, to produce oil for industrial use, and to create hashish for medical purposes.  Luf, on the other hand, is more dangerous as a drug as it causes pain and rash to one who touches it.  Humans can consume it once it has been cooked or roasted, however.

Menachot 13: Meal and Animal Offerings; Combining Ritual Acts

We are introduced to two new Mishnaot in today's daf.

The first states that when a priest takes a handful of the meal-offering intending to to eat the remainder or burn the handful the next day, Rabbi Yosei agrees that this is a case of piggul and he is liable to receive karet.  If the priest's intent was to burn the frankincense the next day, Rabbi Yosei says that the meal offering is unfit but eating it does not make him liable to receive karet.  The rabbis say that this is piggul with its punishment of karet.  

The rabbis ask how this is different from an animal offering when one intends to sacrifice the portions eaten on the altar the next day - is that piggul? Rabbi Yosei says that the difference is the blood and flesh and portions eaten of an animal sacrifice are all one thing.  Thus improper intent about one of those parts affects the entire offering.  Frankincense, however, is not part of the meal offering and so piggul is not automatically assumed with improper intent.

The second Mishna says that 

• when one slaughters two lambs along with the two meal-offering loaves that are sacrificed on Shavuot with the intent to partake of one of the two loaves the next day, or
• if one burned the two bowls of frankincense along with the shewbread with the intent to eat one of the shrewbreads the following day, 
• Rabbi Yosei says that both loaves (that one and the arrangement he would eat from the following day) are piggul and one is liable to receive karet for eating them
• further, the second loaf and the arrangement are unfit but there is no liability to receive karet 
• The rabbis respond by saying that both loaves and both arrangements are piggul and one is liable to receive karet in both cases

Today's conversation considers the ways that ritual acts might combine.  The performance of one might have implications on others.  Or not.  This is part of a larger consideration of boundaries and limits; how we understand what is this and what is that.

Menachot 12: Inappropriate Thoughts at Specific Times Will Invalidate Offerings

• the Mishna continues:
• meal offerings of a sinner: jealousy due to a sota where the handful has been removed not for its own sake 
• a handful that was offered at an inappropriate time
• performing these rites with intent to partake of an olive-bulk or more outside of the designated area
• consuming that olive bulk at different times outside of the designated 
• these are invalid but not punishable by karet, death at the hand of heaven
• Rabbi Yehuda announces the principle:
• if the intent regarding time preceded the intent regarding the area, the offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet
• if the intent regarding the area preceded the intent regarding time, the offering is until because there is no liability for karet
• the rabbis say the in both of these cases, the offering is unfit but there is no liability for karet
• A second Mishna discusses limitations regarding small measures in unfit places
• Inappropriate thoughts at particular times during preparation of a sacrifice can invalidate the sacrifice
• Notar, left over thoughts about where the sacrifice might be eaten/sacrificed make the sacrifice piggul, unfit, and punishable by karet
• Each of those moments in time are similar to key moments in animal sacrifice
• The following thoughts of notar/piggul affect the validity of meal offerings:
• kemitza is like shechita
• placing the kometz in the Temple is like collecting the blood in the Temple vessel
• carrying the kometz to the altar parallels carrying the blood to the altar
• burning the kometz on the altar is like sprinkling the blood on the altar

Menachot 11: Fingers, Consequences re:Place and Time

The rabbis consider how the kemitza, meal-offering, is in fact carried out.  The kemitza is the name of the fourth finger, and so the rabbis are certain that this act did not require all five fingers.  They discuss how the scoop might have been taken, the difficulty of that task, what might disqualify the kemitza, and other related issues.  

A new Mishna teaches us that the priest performs kemitza by extending his fingers onto the palm of his hand.  If the priest uses too much or too little oil or too little frankincense, the offering is disqualified.  The Gemara explains that the finger and thumb are used to remove any extra flour, but some rabbis believe that all five fingers could be used.  The difficulty of this task - when it was to be done with such precision - resulted in arguments about how, in fact, it could be done at all.

We end with the very beginning of a new Mishna.  It teaches the following:

• when one removes a handful from the meal offering with the intent to consume the remainder 
• outside of the Temple courtyard 
• or to burn its handful or an olive bulk of its handful outside of the Temple courtyard
• or to burn its frankincense outside of the Temple courtyard
• in all of those cases the offering is unfit but there is no liability for karet if one does consume it
• if one intends to consume the remainder of the meal-offering
•  on the next day
• or to eat an olive bulk of its remainder on the next day
• or to burn its handful on the next day 
• or to burn an olive-bulk of its handful the next day
• or to burn its frankincense on the next day
• in these cases the offering is piggul, disqualified due to errors regarding time, liability includes karet

Menachot 10: The Right Hand and the Meal Offering

The rabbis continue to discuss the kemitza, the handful of meal-offering.  The handful was taken with the priest's right hand.  The Gemara considers a number of examples that attempt to prove that we should emulate that valuing of the right hand in other contexts.  

• mezora, 'leprosy', is treated by the priest placing the sacrifice's blood and oil on the right ear, right thumb, and right big toe
• Rava suggests further cases: 
• because it is the right hand, we learn the law of kemitza
• because it is the right food we learn the laws of chalitza (when the brother of a deceased man with no children does not marry the man's widow, the two partake in these laws which include removing a shoe and spitting)
• because the right ear is mentioned, we learn about the experience of a slave choosing continued servitude after seven years

This preference of right over left in a number of contexts suggests a cultural preference for the one part of the body over the other. 

Menachot 9: Mixing the Meal Offering: in the Temple? By a Priest?

Based on our last Mishna, Masechet Menachot considered the handling of the lechem ha'panim, translated as the shewbread.  Daf 8 described what what flexibility there might be regarding the ingredients of the meal offering (fine wheat flour, oil, frankincense).  

Today's daf considers where the holiest items should be consumed, in the Sanctuary on in the Temple courtyard.  At the end of today's daf, the conversation turns to the rabbinical thoughts on removing the meal offering with one's right hand only.

In one case, Rabbi Yochanan declares that a meal-offering prepared with less than perfect precision is invalid and Reish Lakish disagrees.  He notes that in Vayikra (2:2) the oil and frankincense are added to the flour before the priest takes the handful to be sacrificed on the altar.  Thus the preparation does not require a priest and it need not take place by the Temple.  Rabbi Yochanan counters that we know that the meal-offering must be mixed by a kohen in the Temple because it was placed in a vessel only used in the Temple.

Tosafot argue: based on the later Gemara conversation (daf 18a), if the meal offering are placed in the keli sharet, the Temple vessel without having been mixed, the offering is still valid.  So how could Rabbi Yochanan argue that improper mixing is more problematic than no mixing?

Reish Lakis says that there is an argument against the statement that because a priest needs not prepare the offering, then it need not be done in the Temple. Shechita, general slaughtering, can be done by anyone but it must be done within the Temple courtyard.  In the writing the Chazon Ish, we learn the basic difference between shechita and mixing the meal-offering.  Mixing the meal-offering is less important than shechita.  It is only considered to be significant if it were part of the priestly service.  This proves that mixing need not be done by a priest nor need it be done in the Temple. 

Menachot 6: Limitations on the Kometz, the Handful of Meal-Offering

The rabbis consider whether an animal that becomes a treifa after being sanctified might be disqualified after the fact.  They wonder about different cases and how those might compare with the case in question:

• treifa animals in other situations
• fat and blood improperly prepared
• pinching done improperly
• an animal born by cesarian section
• a blemished animal

A new Mishna teaches us that the meal-offering is unfit if the kometz is taken under the following circumstances:

• a sinner,
• a non-priest
• or a priest who was an acute mourner
• a priest who was ritually impure and immersed but was waiting for night
• or a priest without the proper vestments
• a priest who did not yet atone
• a priest who did not wash his hands/feet in the basin before leading the Temple service
• a priest who removed the handful while sitting
• a priest who removed the handful while standing on anything other than the Temple floor, including vessels, an animal, or another's feet
• an uncircumcised priest

The rabbis say that the offering is unfit if the priest removed the flour from with his left hand.  Ben Beteira says that the handful is returned to the vessel containing the meal offering and then the kometz is taken again but with his right hand.  

We also learn that if the priest removed the kometz and a stone and a grain of salt or a pinch of frankincense, the offering is unfit.  This is because those items would force the kometz to be the wrong size, which is not permitted.  A handful cannot be overflowing, it must be contained well by the priest's fingers, and it cannot be taken by only the tips of the priest's fingers.

Steinsaltz shares information about the origins of frankincense.  It is the hardened resin that comes from a particular African tree.  We learn about different origins and processing processes.

Menachot 5: Disagreements with Rav, the Minchat Ha'Omer is Valid

Rav commented on the minchat ha'omer, the special meal-offering brought the day after Pesach to begin the use of the new harvest's grain.  Rav said that if this offering was made sh'lo lishma, with improper intentions, that the offering is totally invalid.  This is because  the purpose of the offering was to permit the new harvest grain and it was not permitted.  Today's daf considers the reaction to Rav's ruling.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish (Reish Lakish) rules against Rav; the the offering is valid.  The flour can be offered on the altar, but the remainder of the flour is off-limits to the priests until a second offering is brought, successfully allowing consumption of the new harvest.

Rav Pappa suggests that Reish Lakish believes that the new grain will be automatically allowed in the morning of the 16th of Nissan (Vayikra 23:14).  Bringing the special minchat ha'omer offering is required.

Rava agrees with neither Rav nor Reish Lakish.  He asserts that the minchat ha'omer is unique because it is taken from barley and not wheat, like the other offerings.  Thus different rules are in place regarding its sacrifice.

Menachot 4: The Omer as an Involuntary Meal Offering

The Gemara continues to discuss the kometz that was brought to the altar.  If this offering was completed sh'lo lishma, for its own sake, it is valid.  It is not credited to the owner, though, and a replacement offering is required.

Today Rav tells us that this is totally invalid because the purpose of the offering was to permit the new harvest; the new harvest was not permitted through the process.  Rav did not provide any biblical proofs for his ideas and so they were easy to dispute. 

Rav discussed the omer, a unit used to measure barley offered in the Temple on the 16th of Nissan (the day after Pesach ends).*  He believed that the omer were the same as other meal offerings.  The rabbis disagreed because unlike other meal-offerings, the omer cannot be voluntary offerings. The grain was roasted and crushed into a flour.  A handful was offered on the altar (burned) and the priests consumed the rest of the flour. Once the omer was brought, the community could eat the grain from the new harvest.  Because the omer offering was required to allow the people to eat from the new harvest, it cannot be voluntary like the other meal offerings.  It must become invalid if not used for its stated purpose.

* The omer was harvested beginning on the night after the first day of Pesach (even if it was Shabbat).  

Menachot 3: When the Kometz is Taken Without Proper Intentions

We have begun to examine what it means when a kometz, a fistful of flour is taken from the meal offering sh'lo lishma, without proper intentions.  In these cases the meal-offering continues to be valid but it is not credited to the owner and a replacement offering is necessary.  

Rabbi Shimon claims that a meal-offering offered sh'lo lishma would in fact be credited to the owner.  It is unlike an animal sacrifice, where all offerings share the slaughter ritual, the collection of blood, etc.  A meal-offering's preparation may or may not use oil, may or may not be pan fried or cooked in a pot.  

In another baraita, Rabbi Shimon contradicts himself.  The Gemara focuses on possible reasons for these seemingly disparate opinions.  Rava believes that we must consider the kohen who takes the kometz with the stated intention that it be brought as a different type of offering.  Rabbi Shimon states that in such a case it is valid and credited to the owner, unless of course the offering was for an animal sacrifice.  The Rashba sees this as a case where a kohen has announced that he is taking the kometz from the meal-offering with the intention to offer atonement to someone who is:

• obligated to bring a korban chatat, a sin offering
• obliged to bring a burnt offering 
• obliged to bring a peace offering 

Rabbi Shimon agrees that this would not be credited to the owner because no meal-offering actually serves these purposes.

Menachot 2: Meal Offerings For Their Own Sake

Masechet Menachot focuses on sacrifices that are not animal-based.  Plant-based and other sacrifices come in many, many different versions.  We begin with a new Mishna.  It teaches that a priest must remove a handful of meal and put it into a service vessel, bring it to the altar, and burn it.  After that, the priest may eat the remainder; the owner has met his requirements.  The handful was not removed for their sake.  They were removed for the sake of others who will offer.  In these cases, the owner must bring an additional offering.  

Regarding a sinner's offering and the meal offering made because of jealousy (sota, when a husband suspects his wife of adultery).  In these cases, the priest must remove the handful for its own sake or disqualify the offering.  Further, every action must be done for its own sake (putting the handful into the vessel, bringing it to the altar, burning the offering, etc.) or the offering is disqualified.

The Mishna questions how rites can be performed for their sake but also not for their sake, which was one of the restrictions listed for the sinner's offering and the meal offering due to jealousy.  It explains that a priest could remove the handful with two intentions: for the sake of a sinner's meal offering and for the sake of a voluntary meal offering.

The Gemara considers a number of these points:

• the inclusion of seemingly superfluous words
• the limitations of vows that were spoken aloud
• whether the meal offering was taken from a shallow pan or a deep pan (where it was mixed with oil)
• the differences between guilt offerings and voluntary offerings
• the differences between a bird burnt offering and a bird sin offering

A chart would be a helpful tool toward understanding the differences between these menachot.  

Zevachim 118: Private Altars; the Shechina

The rabbis continue to discuss the public altars that were used until the Temple was built.  Our last Mishna described Rav Dimi's reference to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi's understanding about the Shechina. The Shechina is commonly understood as the more 'feminine' aspect of G-d.  It was described as resting on the Jewish people, in Shiloh, where the public altar stood, in Nov and Given, and in the permanent Temple in Jerusalem.

But perhaps those four places are not accurate.  Instead, Rashi says that Nov and Given are actually just one period when private altars were allowed.  The other two periods, Shiloh and the Temple, forbade private altars.  We learn from Steinsaltz about the Maharsha's suggestion that the Tabernacle stood in other places as well - in the desert for 39 years, and in Gilgal for 14 years while the land was being taken and distributed.  In fact, the Shechina might rest only in the land of Israel.  It was only when the aron kodesh, the Holy Ark, was placed within the Tabernacle that the Shechina could rest upon the people.

It is noted that Shiloh was 22 miles north of Jerusalem and 10 miles south of Shechem.  Today, evidence of the Tabernacle have been found in Shiloh.  A synagogue has been built to commemorate this ancient city.

Zevachim 117: Different Camps for those who are Ostracized, Different Offerings

We begin today's daf with a conversation about zavim.  These people were categorized as ritually impure and they left the primary community to live in a separate camp.  Different groups of people and their placement in different camps is outlined.  

The rabbis discuss the establishment of the Tabernacle in Shiloh and how that may have changed the community.  Private altars were permitted when the mishkan was in Gilgal.  The sacrifices had to be only certain offerings.  Rabbi Meir asserted that any voluntary sacrifice could be brought on a private altar.  A nazarite could make his/her offering on a private altar, for example.

We are reminded about the korban pesach, that very unique offering that was brought on the altar in Gilgal immediately after the Jewish people crossed over the Jordan River (Yehoshua: 5).  As we have learned, every person is responsible for bringing this particular offering.  It is brought by individuals at the same time, however, and it is consumed in groups.

Understanding the distinctions between different offerings, different altars, different circumstances, and different guidelines is a confusing and challenging matter.  This could be interpreted as akin to our different prayers, our different prayer rituals, our different obligations regarding prayer, and our different need for prayers depending on the circumstances. 

Zevachim 116: Tereifa on the Ark?, King David's Payments for the Site of the Altar

Some very brief notes on today's daf:

• what disqualified an animal from being on Noah's ark?
• the rabbis question disabilities from birth and disabilities that are acquired 
• could Noah himself be a tereifa?
• the rabbis find proof texts attesting to Noah's likely 'perfection'
• the conversation about ritual impurity, disqualification from sacrifice, and what could be a tereifa suggests that the rabbi
• because King David counted the Jewish people, there was a plague
• King David built an altar on a hilltop that became the site of the Temple years later
• The hilltop belonged to Aravnah the Jebusite who offered his cattle as sacrifices
• There is a debate about how many silver/gold shekalim were collected and shared with the twelve tribes

Zevachim 115: The Firstborn and the Priests in the Evolving Sacrificial Rites

The bechorim, firstborn, performed the sacrifices on private altars.  Once the Tabernacle was built, sacrifices were brought there the rites were performed by the priests who descended from Aaron.  Our last Mishna (112) taught that sanctification of the firstborn was given at the exodus (Shmot 13:2).  Firstborns redeemed themselves from the Temple service later (Bamidbar 3:12).  The Jerusalem Talmud suggests that the tribe of Levi did not participate in the incident of the Golden Calf, which is why they were given the honour of sacrificing.

A baraita is taught by Rabbi Asi: the firstborn sacrificed for one day.  Like at Sinai, the sacrifices were brought in one, two years and three months after the exodus.  Once the Tabernacle was built (two years and one month after the exodus), Nadav and Avihu were the priests.  They died tragically, and it was only after that time that Aaron's other descendants took over the sacrificial services in the Temple.

Rashi reads this differently: the "young men" described in Shmot (24:5) did not bring the sacrifices themselves.  Instead they represented the people as witnesses to the service. Rashi suggests that the firstborn never did have a role in bringing sacrifices.

Zevachim 114: Voluntary/Obligatory Sacrifices Outside of the Temple Courtyard

The Gemara looks back to our last Mishna and examines on of its points: what was the status of the sacrifices brought to the Temple when the Israelites first entered the land?  

We learned that people were not liable if they brought sacrifices at the wrong time - turtledoves that were too young; pigeons that were already too grown.  But Rabbi Shimon argues that a sacrifice brought at the wrong time should receive malkot, lashes.

Rabbi Shimon boosts his argument by explaining that the Torah forbids bringing sacrifices in the same way  that they were brought in the desert once the people reach Israel.  The people could only bring volunarty and not communal offerings once entering the land.   Voluntary sacrifices could be brought in the Tabernacle erected in Gilgal.  Once the people arrived at Shiloh and Jerusalem, the the obligatory sacrifices could be brought again as they were in the desert.

Thus it was argued that we learn mechusar zeman, the principle that a sacrifice whose time had not yet arrived cannot be brought outside of the Tabernacle.  It was also forbidden to bring sacrifices outside of the Temple if they could be brought to the Altar at a later date. The Gemara suggests that we have to put our best effort into our offerings.

Zevachim 113: The Para Aduma's Preparation Outside of the Temple, Liability

Very brief thoughts on today (and yesterday's) daf:

• Yesterday's daf introduced perek XIV
• we learned about when an animal is sacrificed unusually and thus it must be prepared to be used in the Temple but not as a sacrifice
• we learned earlier about the para aduma, red heifer, which was killed and burned near the special pit near the Mount of Olives without implicating the person doing this for performing this service in an inappropriate place
• The service leader isn't liable because it only applies to animals as sacrifices in the Temple
• The Gemara focuses on the place where the red heifer was prepared
• Why was this used if it was not mentioned in the Torah? Was it pure of any defilement?  But all of the land was pure of defilement
• The Gemara points to how the different Sages understood the great flood
• Rabbi Yochanan says that HaAretz was not affected by the flood and so there is no reason to assume that bones might be buried randomly beneath them
• Reish Lakish says that the water of the flood did affect Israel and so the land had to be checked carefully to ensure that it was ritually pure

Zevachim 111: Where and When Did We Change Nesachim (Wine Libations)?

The Gemara continues its discussion of where a sacrificial service is permitted to take place.  Some of the ideas shared, discussed, etc:

• in the desert sacrifices were brought to the mishkan, the tabernacle
• when in Israel but without an altar at the Temple, there were private altars
• when the tabernacle stood in Shiloh, it served as an altar and other altars were prohibited
• on entering Israel, nesachim, wine libations were introduced (Bamidbar 15:2)
• a baraita suggests that only when the people were comfortably settled on the land did nesachim begin
• Rabbi Akiva says that as soon as the people entered the land, all sacrifices required nesachim
• Rabbi Yishmael said that no nesachim were brought to the mishkan and so this was a new requirement once the people entered the land
• Rabbi Akiva believed that wine libations were in fact brought in the mishkan, and thus the pasuk that required them to happen in Israel must refer to sacrifices brought on private altars which were prohibited in the desert

Zevachim 110: Water Libation Origins

We learn a new Mishna again regarding prohibitions on services performed outside of the Temple courtyard.  Rabbi Elazar states that one who pours a water libation on the holiday of Sukkot outside of the Temple courtyard is liable for performing a Temple service incorrectly.

Steinsaltz teaches us more about the water libation services mentioned in Massechet Sukka (48). Water was taken from the Shiloach spring to the Temple accompanied by celebration.  The kohen would take the water up the ramp to the altar.  He would turn left and raise his hand while he poured the water into one of two bowls.  The second bowl was designated for the wine libation which happened with sacrifices other than those for Sukkot.  We are told that the priest raises his hand to prove that he poured the water properly and not on his feet, as one priest was pelted with etrogim for doing. 

The Gemara discusses where this tradition came from. Some believe that it was an interpretation of Bamidbar (29:31).  The Gemara suggests that the water libation practices were received at Mount Sinai, instructed through Moshe.  The rabbis argue about whether one method of learning the mitzvot is more valid than another.  Some believe that Torah law takes precedence, while others believe that even later rabbinic halacha is a form of G-d's word.