libation

Rav Huna in the name of Rav: The jet is like the cistern. Rebbi Ze`ira asked: Everywhere you do not say that flow is connection, but here you are treating flow as connection? Rav Huna is of the opinion that if the cistern became libation wine, the flow became libation wine; if the flow became libation wine the cistern did not become libation wine. Rebbi Abba did not say so, but if the cistern became libation wine, the flow did not become libation wine; if the flow became libation wine the cistern became libation wine. What Rav Huna said in the name of Rav, the jet is like the cistern, for Rav Huna is of the opinion, just as the cistern becomes libation wine so the jet becomes libation wine. There, they say in the name of Rav, the touch of a Gentile makes libation wine. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob said, only when it is flowing.

Rav Huna in the name of Rav: The jet is like the cistern. Rebbi Ze`ira asked: Everywhere you do not say that flow is connection, but here you are treating flow as connection? Rav Huna is of the opinion that if the cistern became libation wine, the flow became libation wine; if the flow became libation wine the cistern did not become libation wine. Rebbi Abba did not say so, but if the cistern became libation wine, the flow did not become libation wine; if the flow became libation wine the cistern became libation wine. What Rav Huna said in the name of Rav, the jet is like the cistern, for Rav Huna is of the opinion, just as the cistern becomes libation wine so the jet becomes libation wine. There, they say in the name of Rav, the touch of a Gentile makes libation wine. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob said, only when it is flowing.

Rav Huna in the name of Rav: The jet is like the cistern. Rebbi Ze`ira asked: Everywhere you do not say that flow is connection, but here you are treating flow as connection? Rav Huna is of the opinion that if the cistern became libation wine, the flow became libation wine; if the flow became libation wine the cistern did not become libation wine. Rebbi Abba did not say so, but if the cistern became libation wine, the flow did not become libation wine; if the flow became libation wine the cistern became libation wine. What Rav Huna said in the name of Rav, the jet is like the cistern, for Rav Huna is of the opinion, just as the cistern becomes libation wine so the jet becomes libation wine. There, they say in the name of Rav, the touch of a Gentile makes libation wine. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob said, only when it is flowing.

Rav Huna in the name of Rav: The jet is like the cistern. Rebbi Ze`ira asked: Everywhere you do not say that flow is connection, but here you are treating flow as connection? Rav Huna is of the opinion that if the cistern became libation wine, the flow became libation wine; if the flow became libation wine the cistern did not become libation wine. Rebbi Abba did not say so, but if the cistern became libation wine, the flow did not become libation wine; if the flow became libation wine the cistern became libation wine. What Rav Huna said in the name of Rav, the jet is like the cistern, for Rav Huna is of the opinion, just as the cistern becomes libation wine so the jet becomes libation wine. There, they say in the name of Rav, the touch of a Gentile makes libation wine. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob said, only when it is flowing.

Rav Huna in the name of Rav: The jet is like the cistern. Rebbi Ze`ira asked: Everywhere you do not say that flow is connection, but here you are treating flow as connection? Rav Huna is of the opinion that if the cistern became libation wine, the flow became libation wine; if the flow became libation wine the cistern did not become libation wine. Rebbi Abba did not say so, but if the cistern became libation wine, the flow did not become libation wine; if the flow became libation wine the cistern became libation wine. What Rav Huna said in the name of Rav, the jet is like the cistern, for Rav Huna is of the opinion, just as the cistern becomes libation wine so the jet becomes libation wine. There, they say in the name of Rav, the touch of a Gentile makes libation wine. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob said, only when it is flowing.

Simeon bar Ḥiyya was instructing Ḥiyya bar Rav. Starting when does a Gentile make libation wine? He told him, from when he knows the nature of idol worship. (Rav Joshia left) [Rav put out his head] from the curtain and told him, you may say this if one buys grapes from the Gentile. But the Gentile proper makes libation wine when he is one day old.

Simeon bar Ḥiyya was instructing Ḥiyya bar Rav. Starting when does a Gentile make libation wine? He told him, from when he knows the nature of idol worship. (Rav Joshia left) [Rav put out his head] from the curtain and told him, you may say this if one buys grapes from the Gentile. But the Gentile proper makes libation wine when he is one day old.

May a Gentile make libation wine with his mouth? Rebbi Ada in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: A Gentile cannot make libation wine with his mouth. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: A Gentile can make libation wine with his mouth. And we have stated thus: “If a market supervisor tasted from a cup or from a suction pipe and returned to the amphora it is forbidden.” In the opinion of Rebbi Ada in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, only if the Gentile returned it. In the opinion of Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, even if a Jew returned.

May a Gentile make libation wine with his mouth? Rebbi Ada in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: A Gentile cannot make libation wine with his mouth. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: A Gentile can make libation wine with his mouth. And we have stated thus: “If a market supervisor tasted from a cup or from a suction pipe and returned to the amphora it is forbidden.” In the opinion of Rebbi Ada in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, only if the Gentile returned it. In the opinion of Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, even if a Jew returned.

May a Gentile make libation wine with his mouth? Rebbi Ada in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: A Gentile cannot make libation wine with his mouth. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: A Gentile can make libation wine with his mouth. And we have stated thus: “If a market supervisor tasted from a cup or from a suction pipe and returned to the amphora it is forbidden.” In the opinion of Rebbi Ada in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, only if the Gentile returned it. In the opinion of Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, even if a Jew returned.

HALAKHAH: “One may stamp with a Non-Jew in the wine press,” etc. Rebbi Jonah said, that is, you say only if they walked over it crosswise. But if they did not walk over it crosswise, it does not apply. Rebbi Yose asked, if they walked over it crosswise, even following the earlier teaching? As it was stated: “Originally they were saying that one harvests grapes with the Non-Jew and stamps with a Jew who works in impurity. They changed and said, one does not harvest grapes with the Non-Jew nor stamp with a Jew who works in impurity, but one stamps with a Gentile and helps him as long as it did not disappear from sight. Once it disappeared from sight it became libation wine”.

HALAKHAH: “A Non-Jew who was found standing,” etc. Rab Sheshet in the name of Rav: Only if he has a lien on this particular cistern. But if he has no lien on this particular cistern, it is the way of creditors to stand near wine presses and threshing floors. They wanted to say, he who says, only if he has a lien on this particular cistern, within his outstretched arms, but he who says, even if he has no lien on this particular cistern, even outside his outstretched arms. But did not Rebbi Abba say in the name of Rav Sheshet, just as they gave outstretched arms for purity so they gave it for libation wine? But it must be so: He who says, only if he has a lien on this particular cistern, within his outstretched arms, but he who says, even if he has no lien on this particular cistern, only outside his outstretched arms.

“One who makes a Non-Jew’s wine in purity,” etc. Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Samuel, practice follows Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Abin in the name of Samuel. I am atoning for Rebbi Simeon, either permit to drink or forbid for usufruct. Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Abbahu. There was a case and they permitted for drinking following Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: A Gentile does not make libation wine by throwing. Does a Gentile make libation wine in his rage? Let us hear from the following: An Aramean had boxes in a wine press. There came a Jew and sprinkled wine on them. The Aramean came [with] a pitcher and poured it out into the cistern. The case came before the rabbis who said, a Gentile does not make libation wine in his rage.

“One who makes a Non-Jew’s wine in purity,” etc. Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Samuel, practice follows Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Abin in the name of Samuel. I am atoning for Rebbi Simeon, either permit to drink or forbid for usufruct. Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Abbahu. There was a case and they permitted for drinking following Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: A Gentile does not make libation wine by throwing. Does a Gentile make libation wine in his rage? Let us hear from the following: An Aramean had boxes in a wine press. There came a Jew and sprinkled wine on them. The Aramean came [with] a pitcher and poured it out into the cistern. The case came before the rabbis who said, a Gentile does not make libation wine in his rage.

“One who makes a Non-Jew’s wine in purity,” etc. Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Samuel, practice follows Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Abin in the name of Samuel. I am atoning for Rebbi Simeon, either permit to drink or forbid for usufruct. Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Abbahu. There was a case and they permitted for drinking following Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: A Gentile does not make libation wine by throwing. Does a Gentile make libation wine in his rage? Let us hear from the following: An Aramean had boxes in a wine press. There came a Jew and sprinkled wine on them. The Aramean came [with] a pitcher and poured it out into the cistern. The case came before the rabbis who said, a Gentile does not make libation wine in his rage.

It was stated “A Jew and a Gentile who brought their wine into the surroundings of the city, even if the watchmen are Gentile, even if the amphoras are open, they are permitted since one does not make a libation in this way.”

MISHNAH: If somebody hires a worker to work for him on libation wine, his wages are forbidden. If he hired him for other work, even though he told him, transport an amphora of libation wine for me from one place to another, his wages are permitted.

MISHNAH: If somebody hires a worker to work for him on libation wine, his wages are forbidden. If he hired him for other work, even though he told him, transport an amphora of libation wine for me from one place to another, his wages are permitted.

It was stated: “The wages of donkey drivers, carriers, and all those working with Sabbatical produce are sabbatical.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, this baraita deals with permitted produce. And what Rebbi Joḥanan taught those of the House of Rebbi Yannai that they should not accept in their hands wine as wages but money, he taught them following Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah. Rebbi Ilai said, this baraita deals with idolatrous produce. As Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, in matters of libation wine they fined him a fine.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked, if he hired him to break amphoras of libation wine; is it forbidden anyhow?

Assi said, the proceeds of libation wine in the hands of a Gentile are prohibited. The proceeds of an idol in the hand of a Gentile, Rebbi Jonathan said it is permitted, Rebbi Joḥanan said it is prohibited. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “A Gentile who owed money to a Jew should not tell him, wait until I sell libation wine, until I sell an idol, and I shall give it to you. I am saying, maybe he exchanged.” A baraita supports Rebbi Jonathan: “A Gentile who owes money to a Jew may sell libation wine and give to him, an idol and give to him. Because of the bad impression?”

Assi said, the proceeds of libation wine in the hands of a Gentile are prohibited. The proceeds of an idol in the hand of a Gentile, Rebbi Jonathan said it is permitted, Rebbi Joḥanan said it is prohibited. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “A Gentile who owed money to a Jew should not tell him, wait until I sell libation wine, until I sell an idol, and I shall give it to you. I am saying, maybe he exchanged.” A baraita supports Rebbi Jonathan: “A Gentile who owes money to a Jew may sell libation wine and give to him, an idol and give to him. Because of the bad impression?”

Assi said, the proceeds of libation wine in the hands of a Gentile are prohibited. The proceeds of an idol in the hand of a Gentile, Rebbi Jonathan said it is permitted, Rebbi Joḥanan said it is prohibited. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “A Gentile who owed money to a Jew should not tell him, wait until I sell libation wine, until I sell an idol, and I shall give it to you. I am saying, maybe he exchanged.” A baraita supports Rebbi Jonathan: “A Gentile who owes money to a Jew may sell libation wine and give to him, an idol and give to him. Because of the bad impression?”

MISHNAH: If somebody hires a donkey to transport libation wine, its wages are forbidden. If he hired it to sit on it, even though he put his barrel on it, its wages are permitted.

MISHNAH: If libation wine fell on grapes, one should wash it off and they are permitted; but if they were split they are forbidden. If happened that Boetius ben Zenon brought dried figs in a boat when amphoras of libation wine broke over them. The case came before the Sages and they permitted. This is the principle: Anything where the taste improves the use is forbidden; anything where the taste does not improve its use is permitted, such as vinegar on broken beans.

MISHNAH: If libation wine fell on grapes, one should wash it off and they are permitted; but if they were split they are forbidden. If happened that Boetius ben Zenon brought dried figs in a boat when amphoras of libation wine broke over them. The case came before the Sages and they permitted. This is the principle: Anything where the taste improves the use is forbidden; anything where the taste does not improve its use is permitted, such as vinegar on broken beans.

HALAKHAH: “If libation wine fell on grapes,” etc. Our Mishnah if their seal is not loosened. But if their seal was loosened they are as injured.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody leaves a Gentile in charge of his store,,” etc. Following Rebbi Meïr? Did not Rebbi Meïr say, “in any case the house is impure?” Rebbi Ḥama in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: If a courtyard is subdivided by a low wall, for purities it is impure, in matters of libation wine it is pure, since Rebbi Meïr is restrictive for purities but lenient for libation wine; also the rabbis are restrictive for purities but lenient for libation wine.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody leaves a Gentile in charge of his store,,” etc. Following Rebbi Meïr? Did not Rebbi Meïr say, “in any case the house is impure?” Rebbi Ḥama in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: If a courtyard is subdivided by a low wall, for purities it is impure, in matters of libation wine it is pure, since Rebbi Meïr is restrictive for purities but lenient for libation wine; also the rabbis are restrictive for purities but lenient for libation wine.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody leaves a Gentile in charge of his store,,” etc. Following Rebbi Meïr? Did not Rebbi Meïr say, “in any case the house is impure?” Rebbi Ḥama in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: If a courtyard is subdivided by a low wall, for purities it is impure, in matters of libation wine it is pure, since Rebbi Meïr is restrictive for purities but lenient for libation wine; also the rabbis are restrictive for purities but lenient for libation wine.

HALAKHAH: “f he was eating with him,” etc. They wanted to say, “anything on the table is forbidden,” within reach of his outstretched arms; “on the Delphic table is permitted,” out of the reach of his outstretched arms. But did not Rebbi Abba say in the name of Rav Sheshet, just as they gave outstretched arms for purity so they gave it for libation wine? But it must be the following. He who said, “anything on the table is forbidden,” within reach of his outstretched arms; “on the Delphic table is permitted,” only if out of the reach of his outstretched arms.

MISHNAH: Jewish craftsmen whom a Gentile sent an amphora of libation wine as their wages are permitted to tell him, give us its worth. After it came to their possession it is forbidden.

HALAKHAH: “Jewish craftsmen,” etc. Is it not forbidden because of libation wine? Bar Qappara stated, if he sends it to houses.

MISHNAH: Libation wine is forbidden and makes forbidden in the most minute amount. Wine mixed with wine or water mixed with water in the most minute amount. Wine in water or water in wine, if it gives taste. This is the principle, kind in the same kind in the most minute amount, kind in another kind if it gives taste.

HALAKHAH: “Libation wine is forbidden,” etc. Ḥizqiah said, that is at a place where water is not sold by measure. But at a place where water is sold by measure it is like wine in wine.

Ḥizqiah said, if somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], if the forbidden fell in [last] it makes it forbidden, permitted [last] makes it permitted. Rebbi Samuel [bar Rav Isaac] said, this follows Rebbi Eliezer, as Rebbi Eliezer said, I am going after the last one. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is a stringency about libation wine. Rebbi Yose asked, if it were a stringency about libation wine, even if the permitted fell in last it should be forbidden! Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: if somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rebbi Hoshaia said, only if the permitted fell in last. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it does not make any difference whether the forbidden fell in first and the permitted last or the permitted first and the forbidden last, even water and wine, even if it was mixed perfectly from permitted, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rebbi Ze`ira said, this has been said about the preceding; how can it be? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if a flask of libation wine fell into an amphora of (water) and then it fell into a water cistern, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted.

Ḥizqiah said, if somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], if the forbidden fell in [last] it makes it forbidden, permitted [last] makes it permitted. Rebbi Samuel [bar Rav Isaac] said, this follows Rebbi Eliezer, as Rebbi Eliezer said, I am going after the last one. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is a stringency about libation wine. Rebbi Yose asked, if it were a stringency about libation wine, even if the permitted fell in last it should be forbidden! Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: if somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rebbi Hoshaia said, only if the permitted fell in last. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it does not make any difference whether the forbidden fell in first and the permitted last or the permitted first and the forbidden last, even water and wine, even if it was mixed perfectly from permitted, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rebbi Ze`ira said, this has been said about the preceding; how can it be? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if a flask of libation wine fell into an amphora of (water) and then it fell into a water cistern, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted.

Ḥizqiah said, if somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], if the forbidden fell in [last] it makes it forbidden, permitted [last] makes it permitted. Rebbi Samuel [bar Rav Isaac] said, this follows Rebbi Eliezer, as Rebbi Eliezer said, I am going after the last one. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is a stringency about libation wine. Rebbi Yose asked, if it were a stringency about libation wine, even if the permitted fell in last it should be forbidden! Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: if somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rebbi Hoshaia said, only if the permitted fell in last. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it does not make any difference whether the forbidden fell in first and the permitted last or the permitted first and the forbidden last, even water and wine, even if it was mixed perfectly from permitted, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rebbi Ze`ira said, this has been said about the preceding; how can it be? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if a flask of libation wine fell into an amphora of (water) and then it fell into a water cistern, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted.

MISHNAH: The following are forbidden and they forbid in the most minute amount: Libation wine, idols, heart-removed skins, and an ox which was stoned, and the calf whose neck was broken, and the birds of the sufferer from skin disease, and the nazir’s hair, and the firstborn donkey, and meat in milk, and profane animals slaughtered in the Temple precinct. These are forbidden and they forbid in the most minute amount.

HALAKHAH: “The following are forbidden and they forbid in the most minute amount,” etc. Libation wine, idols, heart-removed skins, because nothing of the taboo should cling to your hand.

MISHNAH: If libation wine fell into a cistern, the entire cistern is forbidden for usufruct. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, all of it shall be sold to a Gentile except for the value of libation wine contained in it.

MISHNAH: If libation wine fell into a cistern, the entire cistern is forbidden for usufruct. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, all of it shall be sold to a Gentile except for the value of libation wine contained in it.

HALAKHAH: “If libation wine fell into a cistern,” etc. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of ben Bathyra: If libation wine fell into a cistern, all of it shall be sold to a Gentile except for the value of libation wine. Rebbi Samuel bar Nathan in the name of Rebbi Ḥama: practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Yasa said, one of the rabbis came out from the house of assembly and said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. One said, practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, and one said, practice does not follow Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel agrees that as wine for cooking it is forbidden. Rebbi Bun in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel if it was an amphora among amphoras that all of it shall be sold to a Gentile except for the value of libation wine. Rebbi Ze`ira said before Rebbi Immi: Before this was said did we not know that it was so? Was it said that the Sages agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, or perhaps was only said that Rabban Gamliel agrees with the Sages? Rebbi Yudan said, Rebbi Ze`ira knew that it was so, but he is like a person who hears something and objects to it.

HALAKHAH: “If libation wine fell into a cistern,” etc. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of ben Bathyra: If libation wine fell into a cistern, all of it shall be sold to a Gentile except for the value of libation wine. Rebbi Samuel bar Nathan in the name of Rebbi Ḥama: practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Yasa said, one of the rabbis came out from the house of assembly and said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. One said, practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, and one said, practice does not follow Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel agrees that as wine for cooking it is forbidden. Rebbi Bun in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel if it was an amphora among amphoras that all of it shall be sold to a Gentile except for the value of libation wine. Rebbi Ze`ira said before Rebbi Immi: Before this was said did we not know that it was so? Was it said that the Sages agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, or perhaps was only said that Rabban Gamliel agrees with the Sages? Rebbi Yudan said, Rebbi Ze`ira knew that it was so, but he is like a person who hears something and objects to it.

HALAKHAH: “If libation wine fell into a cistern,” etc. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of ben Bathyra: If libation wine fell into a cistern, all of it shall be sold to a Gentile except for the value of libation wine. Rebbi Samuel bar Nathan in the name of Rebbi Ḥama: practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Yasa said, one of the rabbis came out from the house of assembly and said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. One said, practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, and one said, practice does not follow Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel agrees that as wine for cooking it is forbidden. Rebbi Bun in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel if it was an amphora among amphoras that all of it shall be sold to a Gentile except for the value of libation wine. Rebbi Ze`ira said before Rebbi Immi: Before this was said did we not know that it was so? Was it said that the Sages agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, or perhaps was only said that Rabban Gamliel agrees with the Sages? Rebbi Yudan said, Rebbi Ze`ira knew that it was so, but he is like a person who hears something and objects to it.

HALAKHAH: “If libation wine fell into a cistern,” etc. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of ben Bathyra: If libation wine fell into a cistern, all of it shall be sold to a Gentile except for the value of libation wine. Rebbi Samuel bar Nathan in the name of Rebbi Ḥama: practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Yasa said, one of the rabbis came out from the house of assembly and said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. One said, practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, and one said, practice does not follow Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel agrees that as wine for cooking it is forbidden. Rebbi Bun in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel if it was an amphora among amphoras that all of it shall be sold to a Gentile except for the value of libation wine. Rebbi Ze`ira said before Rebbi Immi: Before this was said did we not know that it was so? Was it said that the Sages agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, or perhaps was only said that Rabban Gamliel agrees with the Sages? Rebbi Yudan said, Rebbi Ze`ira knew that it was so, but he is like a person who hears something and objects to it.

HALAKHAH: “A wine press of stone which a Gentile had pitched,” etc. Our Mishnah is Rebbi’s. “One of wood, Rebbi said he shall wipe it dry but the Sages say he must remove the pitch.” For pottery it is not following Rebbi, as it was stated: A Gentile’s wine-press, bucket, and funnel, Rebbi permits but the Sa (say). Rebbi agrees that pitchers are forbidden. Why are these forbidden and those permitted? These one fills with it, the others one does not fill with it. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: practice follows Rebbi. If a Gentile pitched a papyrus vessel. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel, practice follows Rebbi. It is the disagreement of Rebbi and the Sages, as we have stated: “If somebody’s wine-press was impure and he wants to purify it, the brooms, the planks, and the lentil one rubs dry and they are pure. The wicker-work of wood splinters, or of hemp, or of wood, or of bark, of threads, of bast, one lets age a full twelve months; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, from one olive pressing to the next, from one wine pressing to the next. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, if he wants to purify it immediately, he puts it for a period in a pipe where water streams, or in a brook whose water flows. Just as one wipes dry for purity so one wipes dry for libation wine.” How much is a period? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, half a day or half a night. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, either a day or a night. Do they disagree? But one when day and night are equal, the other when day and night are unequal.

HALAKHAH: “Anything which is more frequent than another,” etc. [“If the bull of the Anointed and the bull of the community are standing, the Anointed’s bull precedes the community’s bull”,] for one is atoning, the other is being atoned for. It is preferable that the atoner precede the atoned for, as it is written, he shall atone for himself, and for his house, and for all the congregation of Israel. Between a voluntary gift of the Anointed and a voluntary gift of the prince, the voluntary gift of the Anointed has precedence. Between a voluntary gift of the community and a voluntary gift of the prince, the voluntary gift of the prince has precedence. Between a voluntary gift of the Anointed and a voluntary gift of the community, which one has precedence? Let us hear from the following: A voluntary gift of the Anointed and rams of idolatry were standing. The rams of idolatry have precedence since their blood enters inside. He only said “since their blood enters inside;” this implies that between a voluntary gift of the Anointed and a voluntary gift of the community, the voluntary gift of the Anointed has precedence. If there were standing the bull of idolatry, the ram which accompanies it, and another purification sacrifice. The bull precedes the ram, the ram precedes the other purification sacrifice, and the other purification sacrifice precedes the bull. How is this done? Rebbi Yose said, since the ram is dependent in time on the bull, it is as if the bull preceded it, and the other purification sacrifice precedes the bull. The bull of idolatry precedes the ram because it precedes in Scripture. Rebbi Samuel the brother of Rebbi Berekhiah asked: But then that of the New Moon should precede the ram which comes with it because it precedes [in Scripture.] Rebbi Abba Mari said, you cannot do this; its purification sacrifice is defective: After the permanent elevation offering it shall be made, with its libation; it made it lean on the permanent elevation offering. Between the sacrifice of a man and the sacrifice of a woman, the man’s sacrifice has precedence. That is, if both were equal. But if one was a bull and the other a lamb, it is what Rebbi Phineas said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: A slave brings a bull and his master brings a bull, the slave’s precedes the master’s, as we have stated there: “If the bull of the Anointed and the bull of the community are standing, the Anointed’s bull precedes the community’s bull in all its ceremonies.”

And the rabbis from where to they derive [the law of the willow] for the Temple? They learned a received tradition; for R. Asi said in the name of R. Yohanan, the laws of ten plants, the aravah and the water libation—are all a halakhah from Moses from Sinai.

1) [The rituals of] the lulav and the aravah are for six or seven [days]; 2) The Hallel and the rejoicing are for eight [days]; 3) The sukkah and the water libation are for seven [days]; 4) The flute is for five or six [days].

According to whom? If you will say, According to Abba Shaul,did he not say: It is written, “willows of the brook” implying two, one referring to the [aravah in the] lulav and the other to [the aravah for use in] the Temple? If you will say it is according to the rabbis, did they not have it as an accepted tradition, since R. Assi said in the name of R. Yohanan who said it in the name of R. Nehunya of the Valley of Beth Hovartan: The laws of the ten plants, the aravah and water libation were given to Moses upon Mount Sinai.

Kohanim with physical blemishes enter between the Sanctuary and the altar in order to fulfil the mitzvah of the aravah. Rabbi Yohanan to him: ... Who said so? ‘Who said so?’ id he not himself say so, since R. Assi said in the name of R. Yohanan who said it in the name of R. Nehunya of the Valley of Beth Hovartan: The laws of the ten plants, the aravah and the water libation were given to Moses upon Mount Sinai?

R. Zera sad to R. Abbahu, Did R. Yohanan really say that? Did not R. Yohanan say in the name of R. Nehunya of the Valley of Beth Hovartan that ‘the law of the ten plants, the aravah ... and the water libation were given to Moses on Mount Sinai? He was silent for a while (Daniel 4:16), and then he answered: They were forgotten and the prophets re-instituted them.

And R. Levi b. Hama or, as some say, R. Hama b. Hanina said: Know [that this is so], since [the Eighth Day] is different [from the preceding days] in three things: ... In the Sukkah, lulav and water libation, And according to R. Judah who holds that with one log of water that they performed the water libation for eight days, it is different in two respects.

And R. Levi b. Hama or, as some say, R. Hama b. Hanina said: Know [that this is so], since [the Eighth Day] is different [from the preceding days] in three things: ... In the Sukkah, lulav and water libation, And according to R. Judah who holds that with one log of water that they performed the water libation for eight days, it is different in two respects.

How was the water libation [performed]? A golden flask holding three logs was filled from the Shiloah. When they arrived at the water gate, they sounded a teki’ah [long blast], a teru’ah [a staccato note] and again a teki’ah. [The priest then] went up the ascent [of the altar] and turned to his left where there were two silver bowls. Rabbi Judah says: they were of plaster [but they looked silver] because their surfaces were darkened from the wine They had each a hole

Rabbi Judah says: with one log he performed the ceremony of the water-libation all eight days. To [the priest] who performed the libation they used to say “Raise your hand”, for one time, a certain man poured out the water over his feet, and all the people pelted him with their etrogs.

Rabbi Judah says: with one log he performed the ceremony of the water-libation all eight days. To [the priest] who performed the libation they used to say “Raise your hand”, for one time, a certain man poured out the water over his feet, and all the people pelted him with their etrogs.

[The priest] went up the ascent [of the altar] and turned to his left etc. Our Rabbis taught: All who ascend the altar turned to the right, proceeded round and descended by the left, except for those ascending for the following three purposes, who ascended by the left, turned on their heel and returned [the same way]. These are the three: the water-libation and wine-libation, and the burnt-offering of a fowl when the altar was full on [its south] east side.

[The priest] went up the ascent [of the altar] and turned to his left etc. Our Rabbis taught: All who ascend the altar turned to the right, proceeded round and descended by the left, except for those ascending for the following three purposes, who ascended by the left, turned on their heel and returned [the same way]. These are the three: the water-libation and wine-libation, and the burnt-offering of a fowl when the altar was full on [its south] east side.

They had each a hole like a slender snout [one being wide and the other narrow so that both emptied at the same time]. Shall we say that our Mishnah agrees with R. Judah and not with the Rabbis as we have learned R. Judah stated, with one log he performed the ceremony of the water-libation all eight days; for if it agrees with the Rabbis, could they not both pour together?

The one on the west was for water. Our Rabbis taught: It once happened that a certain Sadducee who poured the water libation over his feet and all the people pelted him with their etrogs. On that day the horn of the altar became damaged, and they brought a handful of salt and stopped it up, not because the altar was thereby rendered valid for the service, but merely in order that it should not appear damaged.

just as its libation was done in sanctity, so too was its burning be done in sanctity. But what does [this midrash] mean? Ravina said: An analogy is made between two appearances of the word holy.” It is written here, ‘In the holy place your shall pour out a drink-offering of strong drink to the Lord’, and it is written elsewhere, “Then you shall burn the remainder with fire, it shall not be eaten, because it is holy” (Exodus 29:34).

There are some who say: Shall we say that it is that of the Rabbis, and not that of R. Eleazar b. Zadok, for if it were that of R. Elazar b. Zadok, [the objection would arise:] Are they not still in their state of holiness?... You may even say that it is that of R. Elazar, for sacrilege cannot apply to anything whose commandment has already been fulfilled. Resh Lakish said: When they pour the wine-libation on the altar, they would stop up the pits, in order to fulfill what is said, “In holiness you shall pour out a drink-offering of strong drink to the Lord.”

As it was performed on weekdays, so was it was performed on Shabbat, [save that on the eve of Shabbat he would fill a non-sanctified golden barrel from the Shiloah, and place it in the chamber.] But why [bring the water in a non-sanctified vessel]? Let him bring it in a sanctified one? Zeiri said: [The author of our Mishnah] is of the opinion that no fixed amount has been prescribed for the water [of libation] and that the ministering vessels sanctify their contents even if there was no intention

R. Yannai said in the name of R. Zera: You may even say that there is a fixed amount for the water [of libation] and that ministering vessels of ministry do not sanctify their contents unless there was intention, [but the use of a sanctified vessel was nevertheless forbidden] as a preventive measure lest people will think that it was filled with the water for the purpose of using it for the washing of the hands and the feet [of the High Priest].

The question was raised: Did R. Eliezer derive his view from the lulab, or from the libation of water? If he derived it from the lulab, then just as the lulab comes into use on (the morning of) the first day of Tabernacles, so also the mentioning of the rain should begin on that day. Or, perhaps, did he derive it from the libation of water, and then, just as the latter may take place on the evening preceding the first day, so the mentioning of the rain will begin on that evening [for it has been taught (Temurah, 14a): The words: "And their meal offering and their drink offering" (Num., 29.18) should be interpreted to mean that drink offerings may be brought in the evening and even at a subsequent time]? Come and listen: R. Abahu said: R. Eliezer derived his view from the lulab exclusively.

The question was raised: Did R. Eliezer derive his view from the lulab, or from the libation of water? If he derived it from the lulab, then just as the lulab comes into use on (the morning of) the first day of Tabernacles, so also the mentioning of the rain should begin on that day. Or, perhaps, did he derive it from the libation of water, and then, just as the latter may take place on the evening preceding the first day, so the mentioning of the rain will begin on that evening [for it has been taught (Temurah, 14a): The words: "And their meal offering and their drink offering" (Num., 29.18) should be interpreted to mean that drink offerings may be brought in the evening and even at a subsequent time]? Come and listen: R. Abahu said: R. Eliezer derived his view from the lulab exclusively.

What is R. Judah's reason? It is as stated in the following Baraita: R. Judah b. Bathyra says: In prescribing the order of sacrifices for the second day, scripture says (Num., 29.18): "and their drink-offerings" (ונסכיהם), in the order for the sixth day (ib., 29.31), the expression is: "and its drink-offerings" (ונסכיה), while in the order for the seventh day (ib., 29.33) we read: "After their ordinance" (כמשפטם), thus obtaining the letters mem, yod, mem, which put together read mayim (מים = water). Here we have a biblical allusion to the institution of water libation.

What is R. 'Aḳiba's reason? It is as stated in the following Baraita: In the order of sacrifices of the sixth day the expression used is: "and its drink-offerings" (plural). Scripture, therefore, has reference to two libations, the one being the libation of water and the other that of wine. May not both be of wine? On that point R. 'Aḳiba agrees with R. Judah b. Bathyra, who says that in the quoted verse water is alluded to..

But if he agrees with R. Judah b. Bathyra, let him also have the rain mentioned on the second day! R. 'Aḳiba holds that the Scriptural allusion to an additional libation is found first in the verse referring to the sixth day.

Is it not possible that both libations are meant to be of wine? In that case the text should read either hassēk hassēk or nēsek nēsek, why hassēk nēsek? This change of expression implies both ideas. But if this be so, on whose authority will you base the Mishnah (Sukkah, iv, 1): The water libation was observed during the entire week of the festival? If this Mishnah follows R. Joshua, there was only one day of libation; if it follows R. 'Aḳiba, there were two days; and if R. Judah b. Bathyra, there were six days! The Mishnah certainly follows R. Judah b. Bathyra, who, however, agrees with R. Judah (b. 'Ila'i); for we read (ib., iv, 9): R. Judah (b. 'Ila'i) says: One log of water was used daily for libation during eight days; but R. Judah b. Bathyra excludes the first day and includes the eighth. Why does he exclude the first day? Is it not because the allusion to water is found in connection with the second day? If so, the eighth day too should be excluded, since Scripture speaks of the seventh only and not of the eighth day! The only solution, therefore, is that the seven days' libation is based on a tradition; for R. 'Asi said in the name of R. Johanan, who in turn said it in the name of R. Neḥunya of the Plain of Bet-Ḥawartan: The laws concerning the ten plants, the willow-branch, and the water libation are halakas given to Moses on Sinai.

Is it not possible that both libations are meant to be of wine? In that case the text should read either hassēk hassēk or nēsek nēsek, why hassēk nēsek? This change of expression implies both ideas. But if this be so, on whose authority will you base the Mishnah (Sukkah, iv, 1): The water libation was observed during the entire week of the festival? If this Mishnah follows R. Joshua, there was only one day of libation; if it follows R. 'Aḳiba, there were two days; and if R. Judah b. Bathyra, there were six days! The Mishnah certainly follows R. Judah b. Bathyra, who, however, agrees with R. Judah (b. 'Ila'i); for we read (ib., iv, 9): R. Judah (b. 'Ila'i) says: One log of water was used daily for libation during eight days; but R. Judah b. Bathyra excludes the first day and includes the eighth. Why does he exclude the first day? Is it not because the allusion to water is found in connection with the second day? If so, the eighth day too should be excluded, since Scripture speaks of the seventh only and not of the eighth day! The only solution, therefore, is that the seven days' libation is based on a tradition; for R. 'Asi said in the name of R. Johanan, who in turn said it in the name of R. Neḥunya of the Plain of Bet-Ḥawartan: The laws concerning the ten plants, the willow-branch, and the water libation are halakas given to Moses on Sinai.

Is it not possible that both libations are meant to be of wine? In that case the text should read either hassēk hassēk or nēsek nēsek, why hassēk nēsek? This change of expression implies both ideas. But if this be so, on whose authority will you base the Mishnah (Sukkah, iv, 1): The water libation was observed during the entire week of the festival? If this Mishnah follows R. Joshua, there was only one day of libation; if it follows R. 'Aḳiba, there were two days; and if R. Judah b. Bathyra, there were six days! The Mishnah certainly follows R. Judah b. Bathyra, who, however, agrees with R. Judah (b. 'Ila'i); for we read (ib., iv, 9): R. Judah (b. 'Ila'i) says: One log of water was used daily for libation during eight days; but R. Judah b. Bathyra excludes the first day and includes the eighth. Why does he exclude the first day? Is it not because the allusion to water is found in connection with the second day? If so, the eighth day too should be excluded, since Scripture speaks of the seventh only and not of the eighth day! The only solution, therefore, is that the seven days' libation is based on a tradition; for R. 'Asi said in the name of R. Johanan, who in turn said it in the name of R. Neḥunya of the Plain of Bet-Ḥawartan: The laws concerning the ten plants, the willow-branch, and the water libation are halakas given to Moses on Sinai.

Is it not possible that both libations are meant to be of wine? In that case the text should read either hassēk hassēk or nēsek nēsek, why hassēk nēsek? This change of expression implies both ideas. But if this be so, on whose authority will you base the Mishnah (Sukkah, iv, 1): The water libation was observed during the entire week of the festival? If this Mishnah follows R. Joshua, there was only one day of libation; if it follows R. 'Aḳiba, there were two days; and if R. Judah b. Bathyra, there were six days! The Mishnah certainly follows R. Judah b. Bathyra, who, however, agrees with R. Judah (b. 'Ila'i); for we read (ib., iv, 9): R. Judah (b. 'Ila'i) says: One log of water was used daily for libation during eight days; but R. Judah b. Bathyra excludes the first day and includes the eighth. Why does he exclude the first day? Is it not because the allusion to water is found in connection with the second day? If so, the eighth day too should be excluded, since Scripture speaks of the seventh only and not of the eighth day! The only solution, therefore, is that the seven days' libation is based on a tradition; for R. 'Asi said in the name of R. Johanan, who in turn said it in the name of R. Neḥunya of the Plain of Bet-Ḥawartan: The laws concerning the ten plants, the willow-branch, and the water libation are halakas given to Moses on Sinai.

Is it not possible that both libations are meant to be of wine? In that case the text should read either hassēk hassēk or nēsek nēsek, why hassēk nēsek? This change of expression implies both ideas. But if this be so, on whose authority will you base the Mishnah (Sukkah, iv, 1): The water libation was observed during the entire week of the festival? If this Mishnah follows R. Joshua, there was only one day of libation; if it follows R. 'Aḳiba, there were two days; and if R. Judah b. Bathyra, there were six days! The Mishnah certainly follows R. Judah b. Bathyra, who, however, agrees with R. Judah (b. 'Ila'i); for we read (ib., iv, 9): R. Judah (b. 'Ila'i) says: One log of water was used daily for libation during eight days; but R. Judah b. Bathyra excludes the first day and includes the eighth. Why does he exclude the first day? Is it not because the allusion to water is found in connection with the second day? If so, the eighth day too should be excluded, since Scripture speaks of the seventh only and not of the eighth day! The only solution, therefore, is that the seven days' libation is based on a tradition; for R. 'Asi said in the name of R. Johanan, who in turn said it in the name of R. Neḥunya of the Plain of Bet-Ḥawartan: The laws concerning the ten plants, the willow-branch, and the water libation are halakas given to Moses on Sinai.

R. Eleazar said: When the libation is offered during the Feast of Tabernacles, one deep says to the other: "Let thy water spring forth, I hear the voice of two comrades," for it is said (Ps., 42. 8): "Deep calleth unto deep at the voice of Thy cataracts." Said Rabbah bar Bar Ḥanah, I saw that Ridya; he resembles a heifer of three years old; his lip is split and he is stationed between the upper and the lower deep; to the upper deep he says: "Pour down thy water," and to the lower deep: "Let thy water spring up," as it is said (Cant., 2. 12): "The flowers appear on the earth; the time of the singing is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in our land."

And what is the stringency of Bechor over Todah and Shelamim? That [a Bechor] is sanctified from birth. But, to the contrary, Todah and Shelamim are more stringent, as they require leaning, libation, and the waving of the breast and thigh.