libations

And on the following day, we came to a certain village where Aristoclianus dwelt. He being a leper, had been cleansed in Antioch, whom also Paul and Barnabas sealed to be a bishop, and sent to his village in Cyprus, because there were many Greeks there. And we were entertained in the cave by him in the mountain, and there we remained one day. And thence we came to Amathus and there was a great multitude of Greeks in the temple in the mountain, low women and men pouring libations. There also Barjesus, getting the start of us, gained over the nation of the Jews, and did not allow us to enter into the city; but a certain widow woman, eighty years old, being outside of the city, and she also not worshipping the idols, coming forward to us, took us into her house one hour. And when we came out we shook the dust off our feet over against that temple where the libation of the abominable took place.

And having set sail in a ship from Citium, we came to Salamis, and landed in the so-called islands, where there was a place full of idols; and there there took place high festivals and libations. And having found Heracleides there again, we instructed him to proclaim the Gospel of God, and to set up churches, and ministers in them. And having gone into Salamis, we came to the synagogue near the place called Biblia; and when we had gone into it, Barnabas, having unrolled the Gospel which he had received from Matthew his fellow-labourer, began to teach the Jews.

And when the devil had said these things and yet more the apostle said: Jesus commandeth thee and thy son by me to enter no more into the habitation of man: but go ye forth and depart and dwell wholly apart from the habitation of men. And the devils said unto him: Thou hast laid on us a harsh commandment: but what wilt thou do unto them that now are concealed from thee? for they that have wrought all the images rejoice in them more than thee: and many of them do the more part worship, and perform their will, sacrificing to them and bringing them food, by libations and by wine and water and offering with oblations. And the apostle said: They also shall now be abolished, with their works. And suddenly the devils vanished away: but the women lay cast upon the earth as it were dead, and without speech.

The blood of sacrifices in libations

Nor your libations, nor polluted smoke,

Nor pour libations to carved images,

This, however, to whom the people bring burnt-offerings and libations, is not God, but this is the power and work of the Seducer (Satan) by which he beguiles the people".

And he brought and gave unto him that which he had vowed to God, one hundred bulls, one hundred oxen, ten thousand sheep, ten thousand goats, and ten of every kind of animal that may be eaten, and ten of every kind of clean bird, so that he might offer libations and sacrifices to the God of Israel; and twenty silver sahal of fine white flour, each weighing twelve shekels, and forty baskets of bread.

And thus did king Agrippa depart this life. But he left behind him a son, Agrippa by name, a youth in the seventeenth year of his age, and three daughters; one of which, Bernice, was married to Herod, his father's brother, and was sixteen years old; the other two, Mariamne and Drusilla, were still virgins; the former was ten years old, and Drusilla six. Now these his daughters were thus espoused by their father; Marlatone to Julius Archelaus Epiphanes, the son of Antiochus, the son of Chelcias; and Drusilla to the king of Commagena. But when it was known that Agrippa was departed this life, the inhabitants of Cæsarea and of Sebaste forgot the kindnesses he had bestowed on them, and acted the part of the bitterest enemies; for they cast such reproaches upon the deceased as are not fit to be spoken of; and so many of them as were then soldiers, which were a great number, went to his house, and hastily carried off the statues of this king's daughters, and all at once carried them into the brothel-houses, and when they had set them on the tops of those houses, they abused them to the utmost of their power, and did such things to them as are too indecent to be related. They also laid themselves down in public places, and celebrated general feastings, with garlands on their heads, and with ointments and libations to Charon, and drinking to one another for joy that the king was expired. Nay, they were not only unmindful of Agrippa, who had extended his liberality to them in abundance, but of his grandfather Herod also, who had himself rebuilt their cities, and had raised them havens and temples at vast expenses.

According to Celsus, then, Apollo wished the Metapontines to treat Aristeas as a god. But as the Metapontines considered the evidence in favour of Aristeas being a man—and probably not a virtuous one—to be stronger than the declaration of the oracle to the effect that he was a god or worthy of divine honours, they for that reason would not obey Apollo, and consequently no one regarded Aristeas as a god. But with respect to Jesus we would say that, as it was of advantage to the human race to accept him as the Son of God—God come in a human soul and body—and as this did not seem to be advantageous to the gluttonous appetites of the demons which love bodies, and to those who deem them to be gods on that account, the demons that are on earth (which are supposed to be gods by those who are not instructed in the nature of demons), and also their worshippers, were desirous to prevent the spread of the doctrine of Jesus; for they saw that the libations and odours in which they greedily delighted were being swept away by the prevalence of the instructions of Jesus. But the God who sent Jesus dissipated all the conspiracies of the demons, and made the gospel of Jesus to prevail throughout the whole world for the conversion and reformation of men, and caused churches to be everywhere established in opposition to those of superstitious and licentious and wicked men; for such is the character of the multitudes who constitute the citizens in the assemblies of the various cities. Whereas the churches of God which are instructed by Christ, when carefully contrasted with the assemblies of the districts in which they are situated, are as beacons in the world; for who would not admit that even the inferior members of the church, and those who in comparison with the better are less worthy, are nevertheless more excellent than many of those who belong to the assemblies in the different districts?

What did they do with the appropriation? They bring with it the daily burnt-offerings (tamidim) and the additional burnt-offerings (musafim) and their libations, the omer and the two loaves and the showbread and all the other public offerings. Those who guard the aftergrowths of the seventh year take their wages out of the appropriation from the chamber. Rabbi Yose says: [if a man wished] he could volunteer to watch without payment. But they said to him: you too admit that they can only be offered out of public funds.

What was done with the surplus of the appropriation? [They would buy] plates of gold for covering the interior of the Holy of Holies. Rabbi Ishmael says: the surplus [from the sale] of the produce was used for the altar’s ‘dessert’, and the surplus of the appropriation was used for the ministering vessels. Rabbi Akiva says: the surplus of the appropriation was used for the altar’s ‘dessert’, and the surplus of the libations was used for the ministering vessels. Rabbi Hananiah the chief of the priests says: the surplus of the libations was used for the altar’s ‘dessert’, and the surplus of the appropriation was used for the ministering vessels. Neither of these [two sages] allowed [a profit from the sale of] the produce.

What was done with the surplus of the appropriation? [They would buy] plates of gold for covering the interior of the Holy of Holies. Rabbi Ishmael says: the surplus [from the sale] of the produce was used for the altar’s ‘dessert’, and the surplus of the appropriation was used for the ministering vessels. Rabbi Akiva says: the surplus of the appropriation was used for the altar’s ‘dessert’, and the surplus of the libations was used for the ministering vessels. Rabbi Hananiah the chief of the priests says: the surplus of the libations was used for the altar’s ‘dessert’, and the surplus of the appropriation was used for the ministering vessels. Neither of these [two sages] allowed [a profit from the sale of] the produce.

These were the officers in the Temple: Yohanan the son of Pinchas was over the seals. Ahiyah over the libations. Mattityah the son of Shmuel over the lots. Petahiah over the bird-offering. (Petahiah was Mordecai. Why was his name called Petahiah? Because he ‘opened’ matters and expounded them, and he understood the seventy tongues). The son of Ahijah over the sickness of the bowels. Nehuniah, the digger of ditches. Gevini, the crier. The son of Gever over the locking of the gates. The son of Bevai over the strips [for lighting the menorah]. The son of Arza over the cymbal. Hugras the son of Levi over the song. The house of Garmu over the making of the showbread. The house of Avtinas over the preparing of the frankincense. Elazar over the curtains. And Pinchas over the priestly vestments.

There were four seals in the Temple, and on them was inscribed [respectively]: ‘calf’, ‘ram’, ‘kid’, ‘sinner’. Ben Azzai says: there were five and on them was inscribed in Aramaic [respectively]” ‘calf’, ‘ram’, ‘kid’, ‘poor sinner’, and ‘rich sinner’. [The seal inscribed] ‘calf’ served for the libations of cattle, both large and small, male and female. [The seal inscribed] ‘kid’ served for the libations of flock animals, both large and small, male and female, with the exception of rams. [The one inscribed] ‘ram’ served for the libations of rams alone. [The one inscribed] ‘sinner’ served for the libations of the three animals [offered] by lepers.

There were four seals in the Temple, and on them was inscribed [respectively]: ‘calf’, ‘ram’, ‘kid’, ‘sinner’. Ben Azzai says: there were five and on them was inscribed in Aramaic [respectively]” ‘calf’, ‘ram’, ‘kid’, ‘poor sinner’, and ‘rich sinner’. [The seal inscribed] ‘calf’ served for the libations of cattle, both large and small, male and female. [The seal inscribed] ‘kid’ served for the libations of flock animals, both large and small, male and female, with the exception of rams. [The one inscribed] ‘ram’ served for the libations of rams alone. [The one inscribed] ‘sinner’ served for the libations of the three animals [offered] by lepers.

There were four seals in the Temple, and on them was inscribed [respectively]: ‘calf’, ‘ram’, ‘kid’, ‘sinner’. Ben Azzai says: there were five and on them was inscribed in Aramaic [respectively]” ‘calf’, ‘ram’, ‘kid’, ‘poor sinner’, and ‘rich sinner’. [The seal inscribed] ‘calf’ served for the libations of cattle, both large and small, male and female. [The seal inscribed] ‘kid’ served for the libations of flock animals, both large and small, male and female, with the exception of rams. [The one inscribed] ‘ram’ served for the libations of rams alone. [The one inscribed] ‘sinner’ served for the libations of the three animals [offered] by lepers.

There were four seals in the Temple, and on them was inscribed [respectively]: ‘calf’, ‘ram’, ‘kid’, ‘sinner’. Ben Azzai says: there were five and on them was inscribed in Aramaic [respectively]” ‘calf’, ‘ram’, ‘kid’, ‘poor sinner’, and ‘rich sinner’. [The seal inscribed] ‘calf’ served for the libations of cattle, both large and small, male and female. [The seal inscribed] ‘kid’ served for the libations of flock animals, both large and small, male and female, with the exception of rams. [The one inscribed] ‘ram’ served for the libations of rams alone. [The one inscribed] ‘sinner’ served for the libations of the three animals [offered] by lepers.

If one required libations he would go to Yohanan who was the officer over the seals, and give him money and receive from him a seal. Then he would go to Ahiyah who was the officer over the libations, and give him the seal, and receive from him the libations. And in the evening these two [officers] would come together, and Ahiyah would bring out the seals and receive money for their value. And if there was more [than their value] the surplus belonged to the sanctuary, but if there was less [than their value] Yohanan would pay [the loss] out of his own pocket; for the Temple has the upper hand.

If one required libations he would go to Yohanan who was the officer over the seals, and give him money and receive from him a seal. Then he would go to Ahiyah who was the officer over the libations, and give him the seal, and receive from him the libations. And in the evening these two [officers] would come together, and Ahiyah would bring out the seals and receive money for their value. And if there was more [than their value] the surplus belonged to the sanctuary, but if there was less [than their value] Yohanan would pay [the loss] out of his own pocket; for the Temple has the upper hand.

If one required libations he would go to Yohanan who was the officer over the seals, and give him money and receive from him a seal. Then he would go to Ahiyah who was the officer over the libations, and give him the seal, and receive from him the libations. And in the evening these two [officers] would come together, and Ahiyah would bring out the seals and receive money for their value. And if there was more [than their value] the surplus belonged to the sanctuary, but if there was less [than their value] Yohanan would pay [the loss] out of his own pocket; for the Temple has the upper hand.

He who engages in idol-worship [is executed]. This includes the one who serves it, sacrifices, offers incense, makes libations, bows to it, accepts it as a god, or says to it, “You are my god.” But he who embraces, kisses it, sweeps or sprinkles the ground before it, washes it, anoints it, clothes it, or puts shoes on it, he transgresses a negative commandment [but is not executed]. He who vows or swears by its name, violates a negative commandment. He who uncovers himself before Baal-Peor [is guilty and is to be stoned for] this is how it is worshipped. He who casts a stone on Merculis [is guilty and is to be stoned for] this is how it is worshipped.

One who incites [individuals to idolatry] -- this refers to an ordinary person who incites an individual who said, “There is an idol in such and such a place; it eats thus, it drinks thus, it does good [to those who worship it] and harm [to those who do not].” For all who are liable for the death penalty according to the Torah no witnesses are hidden to entrap them, excepting for this one. If he said [these things] to two, they themselves are witnesses against him, and he is brought to court and stoned. But if he said [these things] to one, he should reply, “I have friends who wish to do so likewise [come and propose it to them too].” But if he was cunning and declined to speak before them, witnesses are hidden behind a partition, while he [who was incited] says to him, make your proposal to me now in private. When the inciter says to him (repeats to him what he had already said), the other replies, “How can we abandon our God in heaven to go and serve wood and stones?” Should he retract, it is well. But if he answers, “It is our duty [to worship idols], and is seemly for us”, then the witnesses stationed behind the partition take him to court, and have him stoned. He who incites [individuals to idolatry is one who] is one who says, “I will worship it”, or, “I will go and worship”, or, “let us go and worship”; or, “I will sacrifice [to it]”, “I will go and sacrifice”, “let us go and sacrifice”; “I will burn incense, “I will go and burn incense”; “let us go and burn incense”; or “I will make libations to it”, “I will go and make libations to it”, “let us go and make libations”; “I will prostrate myself before it”, “I will go and prostrate myself”, “let us go and prostrate ourselves”. One who seduces [a whole town to idolatry] is one who says, “Let us go and serve idols”.

One who incites [individuals to idolatry] -- this refers to an ordinary person who incites an individual who said, “There is an idol in such and such a place; it eats thus, it drinks thus, it does good [to those who worship it] and harm [to those who do not].” For all who are liable for the death penalty according to the Torah no witnesses are hidden to entrap them, excepting for this one. If he said [these things] to two, they themselves are witnesses against him, and he is brought to court and stoned. But if he said [these things] to one, he should reply, “I have friends who wish to do so likewise [come and propose it to them too].” But if he was cunning and declined to speak before them, witnesses are hidden behind a partition, while he [who was incited] says to him, make your proposal to me now in private. When the inciter says to him (repeats to him what he had already said), the other replies, “How can we abandon our God in heaven to go and serve wood and stones?” Should he retract, it is well. But if he answers, “It is our duty [to worship idols], and is seemly for us”, then the witnesses stationed behind the partition take him to court, and have him stoned. He who incites [individuals to idolatry is one who] is one who says, “I will worship it”, or, “I will go and worship”, or, “let us go and worship”; or, “I will sacrifice [to it]”, “I will go and sacrifice”, “let us go and sacrifice”; “I will burn incense, “I will go and burn incense”; “let us go and burn incense”; or “I will make libations to it”, “I will go and make libations to it”, “let us go and make libations”; “I will prostrate myself before it”, “I will go and prostrate myself”, “let us go and prostrate ourselves”. One who seduces [a whole town to idolatry] is one who says, “Let us go and serve idols”.

One who incites [individuals to idolatry] -- this refers to an ordinary person who incites an individual who said, “There is an idol in such and such a place; it eats thus, it drinks thus, it does good [to those who worship it] and harm [to those who do not].” For all who are liable for the death penalty according to the Torah no witnesses are hidden to entrap them, excepting for this one. If he said [these things] to two, they themselves are witnesses against him, and he is brought to court and stoned. But if he said [these things] to one, he should reply, “I have friends who wish to do so likewise [come and propose it to them too].” But if he was cunning and declined to speak before them, witnesses are hidden behind a partition, while he [who was incited] says to him, make your proposal to me now in private. When the inciter says to him (repeats to him what he had already said), the other replies, “How can we abandon our God in heaven to go and serve wood and stones?” Should he retract, it is well. But if he answers, “It is our duty [to worship idols], and is seemly for us”, then the witnesses stationed behind the partition take him to court, and have him stoned. He who incites [individuals to idolatry is one who] is one who says, “I will worship it”, or, “I will go and worship”, or, “let us go and worship”; or, “I will sacrifice [to it]”, “I will go and sacrifice”, “let us go and sacrifice”; “I will burn incense, “I will go and burn incense”; “let us go and burn incense”; or “I will make libations to it”, “I will go and make libations to it”, “let us go and make libations”; “I will prostrate myself before it”, “I will go and prostrate myself”, “let us go and prostrate ourselves”. One who seduces [a whole town to idolatry] is one who says, “Let us go and serve idols”.

If a band of non-Jewish marauders entered a city in a time of peace, the open casks are prohibited and the sealed are permitted; In a time of war both are permitted because they do not have the leisure to offer libations.

These are the things for which one is not liable on account of piggul: The fistful, The incense, The frankincense, The priests’ meal-offering, The anointed priest's meal-offering, The minhah with libation The blood, The libations that are brought separately, the words of Rabbi Meir. The sages say: also those that are brought with an animal [sacrifice]. The log of oil brought by the metzora: Rabbi Shimon says: one is not liable on account of piggul; But Rabbi Meir says: one is liable on account of piggul, because the blood of the asham makes it permitted and whatever has something else that makes it permitted, whether for man or for the altar, one is liable on its account for piggul.

The altar sanctifies whatever is eligible for it. Rabbi Joshua says: whatever is eligible for the altar fire does not descend once it has ascended, as it is said, “The olah itself shall remain where it is burned upon the altar [all night until morning, while the fire of the altar is kept going on it]” (Leviticus 6:: just as the olah, which is eligible for the altar fire, does not descend once it has ascended, so whatever is eligible for the altar fire does not descend once it ascended. Rabban Gamaliel said: whatever is eligible for the altar does not descend once it ascended, as it is said: “The olah itself shall remain where it is burned upon the altar [all night until morning, while the fire of the altar is kept going on it]” (Leviticus 6:2): just as the olah, which is eligible for the altar, does not descend once it ascended, so whatever is eligible for the altar does not descend once it ascended. The only difference between Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua is in respect of the blood and libations, for Rabban Gamaliel says that they cannot descend, while Rabbi Joshua says that they can descend. Rabbi Shimon says: if the sacrifice is fit while the libations [which accompanied it] are unfit; or if the libations are fit while the sacrifice is unfit; or even if both are unfit, the sacrifice does not descend, while the libations do descend.

The altar sanctifies whatever is eligible for it. Rabbi Joshua says: whatever is eligible for the altar fire does not descend once it has ascended, as it is said, “The olah itself shall remain where it is burned upon the altar [all night until morning, while the fire of the altar is kept going on it]” (Leviticus 6:: just as the olah, which is eligible for the altar fire, does not descend once it has ascended, so whatever is eligible for the altar fire does not descend once it ascended. Rabban Gamaliel said: whatever is eligible for the altar does not descend once it ascended, as it is said: “The olah itself shall remain where it is burned upon the altar [all night until morning, while the fire of the altar is kept going on it]” (Leviticus 6:2): just as the olah, which is eligible for the altar, does not descend once it ascended, so whatever is eligible for the altar does not descend once it ascended. The only difference between Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua is in respect of the blood and libations, for Rabban Gamaliel says that they cannot descend, while Rabbi Joshua says that they can descend. Rabbi Shimon says: if the sacrifice is fit while the libations [which accompanied it] are unfit; or if the libations are fit while the sacrifice is unfit; or even if both are unfit, the sacrifice does not descend, while the libations do descend.

The altar sanctifies whatever is eligible for it. Rabbi Joshua says: whatever is eligible for the altar fire does not descend once it has ascended, as it is said, “The olah itself shall remain where it is burned upon the altar [all night until morning, while the fire of the altar is kept going on it]” (Leviticus 6:: just as the olah, which is eligible for the altar fire, does not descend once it has ascended, so whatever is eligible for the altar fire does not descend once it ascended. Rabban Gamaliel said: whatever is eligible for the altar does not descend once it ascended, as it is said: “The olah itself shall remain where it is burned upon the altar [all night until morning, while the fire of the altar is kept going on it]” (Leviticus 6:2): just as the olah, which is eligible for the altar, does not descend once it ascended, so whatever is eligible for the altar does not descend once it ascended. The only difference between Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua is in respect of the blood and libations, for Rabban Gamaliel says that they cannot descend, while Rabbi Joshua says that they can descend. Rabbi Shimon says: if the sacrifice is fit while the libations [which accompanied it] are unfit; or if the libations are fit while the sacrifice is unfit; or even if both are unfit, the sacrifice does not descend, while the libations do descend.

The altar sanctifies whatever is eligible for it. Rabbi Joshua says: whatever is eligible for the altar fire does not descend once it has ascended, as it is said, “The olah itself shall remain where it is burned upon the altar [all night until morning, while the fire of the altar is kept going on it]” (Leviticus 6:: just as the olah, which is eligible for the altar fire, does not descend once it has ascended, so whatever is eligible for the altar fire does not descend once it ascended. Rabban Gamaliel said: whatever is eligible for the altar does not descend once it ascended, as it is said: “The olah itself shall remain where it is burned upon the altar [all night until morning, while the fire of the altar is kept going on it]” (Leviticus 6:2): just as the olah, which is eligible for the altar, does not descend once it ascended, so whatever is eligible for the altar does not descend once it ascended. The only difference between Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua is in respect of the blood and libations, for Rabban Gamaliel says that they cannot descend, while Rabbi Joshua says that they can descend. Rabbi Shimon says: if the sacrifice is fit while the libations [which accompanied it] are unfit; or if the libations are fit while the sacrifice is unfit; or even if both are unfit, the sacrifice does not descend, while the libations do descend.

Whatever is more sacred than another precedes the other. The blood of a hatat precedes the blood of a olah, because it propitiates. The limbs of a olah precede the innards of a hatat, because it [the former] is entirely for the fires [of the altar]. A hatat precedes an asham, because its blood is sprinkled on the four horns and on the base. An asham precedes a today and a nazirite’s ram, because it is a most holy sacrifice. A todah and a nazirite's ram precede a shelamim, because they are eaten one day [only] and require [the accompaniment of] loaves. A shelamim precedes a firstling, because it requires four [blood] applications and laying [of hands], libations, and the waving of the breast and the thigh.

In regard to both valid sacrifices or invalid sacrifices which had become unfit within [the Temple]: if one offers them outside, he is liable. If one offers up outside [the Temple] as much as an olive’s worth of an olah and its innards [combined], he is liable. As for the fistful [of flour], the frankincense, the incense, the priests’ meal-offering, the anointed priest’s meal-offering, and the meal offering of libations, if [one] offered up as much as an olive of one of these outside, he is liable. But Rabbi Elazar exempts him unless he offers up the whole of them. In all of these cases, if they offered them within, and left over an olive’s worth and one offered it outside, he is liable. In all of these cases, if they became lacking something, and one offered them outside, he is not liable.

The animal-offering can render the libations piggul after they have been sanctified in the vessel, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the libations cannot render the animal-offering piggul. Thus, if he slaughtered an animal-offering intending to eat part of it on the next day, both it and the libations are piggul; if he intended to offer the libations the next day, the libations are piggul but the animal-offering is not.

The animal-offering can render the libations piggul after they have been sanctified in the vessel, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the libations cannot render the animal-offering piggul. Thus, if he slaughtered an animal-offering intending to eat part of it on the next day, both it and the libations are piggul; if he intended to offer the libations the next day, the libations are piggul but the animal-offering is not.

The animal-offering can render the libations piggul after they have been sanctified in the vessel, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the libations cannot render the animal-offering piggul. Thus, if he slaughtered an animal-offering intending to eat part of it on the next day, both it and the libations are piggul; if he intended to offer the libations the next day, the libations are piggul but the animal-offering is not.

The animal-offering can render the libations piggul after they have been sanctified in the vessel, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the libations cannot render the animal-offering piggul. Thus, if he slaughtered an animal-offering intending to eat part of it on the next day, both it and the libations are piggul; if he intended to offer the libations the next day, the libations are piggul but the animal-offering is not.

The animal-offering can render the libations piggul after they have been sanctified in the vessel, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the libations cannot render the animal-offering piggul. Thus, if he slaughtered an animal-offering intending to eat part of it on the next day, both it and the libations are piggul; if he intended to offer the libations the next day, the libations are piggul but the animal-offering is not.

If he did not pour in [the oil], or if he did not mix it, or if he did not break up [the minhah] into pieces, or if he did not salt it, or wave it, or if he did not draw it near, or if he broke it up into large pieces, or if he did not anoint it [with oil], it is valid. If the handful of one minhah was mixed with the handful of another, or with a priest’s minhah, or with the minhah of the anointed [high] priest, or with the minhah offered with the libations, it is valid. Rabbi Judah says: if [it was mixed] with the minhah of the anointed [high] priest or with the minhah offered with libations, it is invalid, for since the consistency of the one is thick and the consistency of the other is thin, each absorbs from the other.

If he did not pour in [the oil], or if he did not mix it, or if he did not break up [the minhah] into pieces, or if he did not salt it, or wave it, or if he did not draw it near, or if he broke it up into large pieces, or if he did not anoint it [with oil], it is valid. If the handful of one minhah was mixed with the handful of another, or with a priest’s minhah, or with the minhah of the anointed [high] priest, or with the minhah offered with the libations, it is valid. Rabbi Judah says: if [it was mixed] with the minhah of the anointed [high] priest or with the minhah offered with libations, it is invalid, for since the consistency of the one is thick and the consistency of the other is thin, each absorbs from the other.

These require waving but not bringing near: The log of oil of the leper and his guilt-offering, The first fruits, according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, The innards of an individual’s shelamim and its breast and thigh, whether they are the offerings of men or of women, by Israelites but not by others; The two loaves and the two lambs of Shavuot. How does he perform [the waving]? He places the two loaves upon the two lambs and puts his two hands beneath them and waves them forward and backward and upward and downward, for it is written, “which is waved and which is lifted up” (Exodus 29:27). The waving was performed on the east side [of the altar] and the bringing near on the west side. The ceremony of waving comes before that of bringing near. The minhah of the omer and the minhah of jealousy require bringing near and waving. The showbread and the minhah with the libations require neither bringing near nor waving.

The minhah of the priests, The minhah of the anointed high priest, And the minhah that is offered with the libations are [wholly] for the altar and the priests have no share in them; with these the altar is more privileged than the priests. The two loaves and the showbread are eaten by the priests and the altar has no share in them; with these the priests are more privileged than the altar.

If a [minhah that is accompanied by] the libations had already been sanctified in a vessel when the animal-offering was found to be invalid: If there is another animal-offering, they may be offered with it; But if not, they are left to become invalid by remaining overnight. The offspring of a todah, its substitute, and the animal which was set apart in the place of the todah which was set apart and was lost, do not require the [accompanying] bread, as it says, “And he shall offer [them] with the sacrifice of thanksgiving (todah)” (Leviticus 7:1; the todah requires the accompanying bread, but its young, what is brought in its place, and its substitute, do not require the accompanying bread.

From where [is it derived] that if one says, “I take upon myself to bring a todah,” he can bring it only from hullin? As it is said, “And you shall sacrifice the pesah to the Lord your God, from the flock or the herd” (Deuteronomy 16:. But is not the pesah sacrifice brought only from the lambs and from the goats? Why then is it written, “from the flock or the herd”? It is to compare whatever is brought from the flock and the herd with the pesah: just as the pesah is obligatory and offered only from what is hullin, so everything that is obligatory may be offered only from what is hullin. Therefore if a man says, “I take upon myself to bring a todah,” or “I take upon myself [to offer] a shelamim,” since [in these cases] these are obligatory they may be offered only from what is hullin. The libations in every case may be offered only from what is hullin.

They did not put [the wine] in large casks but in small barrels. And one did not fill the barrels to the brim so that its scent might spread. One may not take the wine at the mouth of the barrel because of the scum, nor that at the bottom because of the lees; but one should take it only from the third or the middle of the barrel. How was it tested? The temple-treasurer used to sit nearby with his stick in his hand; when the froth burst forth he would knock with his stick. Rabbi Yose bar Judah says: wine on which there is a scum is invalid, for it is written, “They shall be for you without blemish, and their minhah,” and “They shall be for you without blemish, and their libations” (Numbers 28:19-20,.

All the offerings of the congregation and of the individual require libations except the first-born animal, the cattle tithe of cattle, the pesah, the hatat and the asham; But the hatat and the asham of the one with skin disease do require libations.

All the offerings of the congregation and of the individual require libations except the first-born animal, the cattle tithe of cattle, the pesah, the hatat and the asham; But the hatat and the asham of the one with skin disease do require libations.

None of the communal offerings require the laying on of hands except the bull that is offered for [the transgression by the congregation] of any of the commandments, and the scapegoat. Rabbi Shimon says: also the he-goat offered for [the sin] of idol worship. All the offerings of an individual require the laying on of hands except the first-born, the cattle tithe, and the pesah. And an heir may lay his hands [on his father’s offering], and he may bring the libations for it, and can substitute [another animal for it].

There are [laws relating] to the sacrifices of an individual which do not apply to congregational sacrifices and [laws relating] to congregational sacrifices which do not apply to the sacrifices of individuals. For sacrifices of an individual can make a substitute whereas congregational sacrifices cannot make a substitute; Sacrifices of an individual can be either males or females, whereas congregational sacrifices can be only males. For sacrifices of an individual the owner is responsible for them and their libations, whereas for congregational sacrifices they are not liable for them or for their libations, although they are liable for their libations once the sacrifice has been offered. There are [laws relating] to congregational sacrifices which do not apply to the sacrifices of individuals: For congregational sacrifices override Shabbat and [the laws] of ritual impurity, whereas sacrifices of individuals do not override the Shabbat or [the laws] of ritual impurity. Rabbi Meir said: but do not the griddle cakes of a high priest and the bull for Yom Hakippurim which are sacrifices of individuals and yet override the Shabbat and [the laws] of ritual impurity? The matter therefore depends on [whether] the time [for the offering up] is fixed.

There are [laws relating] to the sacrifices of an individual which do not apply to congregational sacrifices and [laws relating] to congregational sacrifices which do not apply to the sacrifices of individuals. For sacrifices of an individual can make a substitute whereas congregational sacrifices cannot make a substitute; Sacrifices of an individual can be either males or females, whereas congregational sacrifices can be only males. For sacrifices of an individual the owner is responsible for them and their libations, whereas for congregational sacrifices they are not liable for them or for their libations, although they are liable for their libations once the sacrifice has been offered. There are [laws relating] to congregational sacrifices which do not apply to the sacrifices of individuals: For congregational sacrifices override Shabbat and [the laws] of ritual impurity, whereas sacrifices of individuals do not override the Shabbat or [the laws] of ritual impurity. Rabbi Meir said: but do not the griddle cakes of a high priest and the bull for Yom Hakippurim which are sacrifices of individuals and yet override the Shabbat and [the laws] of ritual impurity? The matter therefore depends on [whether] the time [for the offering up] is fixed.

There are [laws relating] to the sacrifices of an individual which do not apply to congregational sacrifices and [laws relating] to congregational sacrifices which do not apply to the sacrifices of individuals. For sacrifices of an individual can make a substitute whereas congregational sacrifices cannot make a substitute; Sacrifices of an individual can be either males or females, whereas congregational sacrifices can be only males. For sacrifices of an individual the owner is responsible for them and their libations, whereas for congregational sacrifices they are not liable for them or for their libations, although they are liable for their libations once the sacrifice has been offered. There are [laws relating] to congregational sacrifices which do not apply to the sacrifices of individuals: For congregational sacrifices override Shabbat and [the laws] of ritual impurity, whereas sacrifices of individuals do not override the Shabbat or [the laws] of ritual impurity. Rabbi Meir said: but do not the griddle cakes of a high priest and the bull for Yom Hakippurim which are sacrifices of individuals and yet override the Shabbat and [the laws] of ritual impurity? The matter therefore depends on [whether] the time [for the offering up] is fixed.

The following are sacrifices whose offspring and substitutes are the same as them: The offspring of shelamim and their substitutes, their offspring and the offspring of their offspring, till the end of time, are regarded as shelamim, and they require the laying on of hands, libations and the waving of the breast and shoulder. Rabbi Eliezer says: the offspring of a shelamim must not be offered as a shelamim. The sages say: it is offered. Rabbi Shimon said: there is no dispute between them as regards the offspring of the offspring of a shelamim or the offspring of the offspring of a substitute that they are not offered. What did they dispute? The offspring [of a shelamim]: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is not offered, But the sages say: it is offered. Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Papias testified regarding the offspring of a shelamim that it is offered as a shelamim. Rabbi Papias said: I testify that we had a cow of a shelamim and we ate it on Pesah and we ate its offspring as a shelamim on the festival [of Sukkot].

But cannot a nedavah [freewill-offering] also be an olah? What then is the difference between the opinion of Rabbi Elazar and that of the sages? Only in that when the offering comes as an obligation, he lays his hands on it and he brings libations and the libations must be from him; and if he is a priest, the privilege of officiating and its hide belong to him. Whereas when he brings it as a freewill-offering, he does not lay his hands [on it], he does not bring libations with it, the libations are provided by the congregation, and although he is a priest, the privilege of officiating and its hide belong to the men of the division [officiating that particular week].

But cannot a nedavah [freewill-offering] also be an olah? What then is the difference between the opinion of Rabbi Elazar and that of the sages? Only in that when the offering comes as an obligation, he lays his hands on it and he brings libations and the libations must be from him; and if he is a priest, the privilege of officiating and its hide belong to him. Whereas when he brings it as a freewill-offering, he does not lay his hands [on it], he does not bring libations with it, the libations are provided by the congregation, and although he is a priest, the privilege of officiating and its hide belong to the men of the division [officiating that particular week].

But cannot a nedavah [freewill-offering] also be an olah? What then is the difference between the opinion of Rabbi Elazar and that of the sages? Only in that when the offering comes as an obligation, he lays his hands on it and he brings libations and the libations must be from him; and if he is a priest, the privilege of officiating and its hide belong to him. Whereas when he brings it as a freewill-offering, he does not lay his hands [on it], he does not bring libations with it, the libations are provided by the congregation, and although he is a priest, the privilege of officiating and its hide belong to the men of the division [officiating that particular week].

But cannot a nedavah [freewill-offering] also be an olah? What then is the difference between the opinion of Rabbi Elazar and that of the sages? Only in that when the offering comes as an obligation, he lays his hands on it and he brings libations and the libations must be from him; and if he is a priest, the privilege of officiating and its hide belong to him. Whereas when he brings it as a freewill-offering, he does not lay his hands [on it], he does not bring libations with it, the libations are provided by the congregation, and although he is a priest, the privilege of officiating and its hide belong to the men of the division [officiating that particular week].

Rabbi Ishmael says: [the law relating to] blood is lenient at the beginning [before it is offered] and stringent at the end; [the law relating to] libations is stringent at the beginning and lenient at the end. Blood at the beginning is not subject to the law of sacrilege, but is subject to it after it has flowed away to the Wadi Kidron. Libations at the beginning are subject to the law of sacrilege, but are exempted from it after they flowed down into the shitin.

Rabbi Ishmael says: [the law relating to] blood is lenient at the beginning [before it is offered] and stringent at the end; [the law relating to] libations is stringent at the beginning and lenient at the end. Blood at the beginning is not subject to the law of sacrilege, but is subject to it after it has flowed away to the Wadi Kidron. Libations at the beginning are subject to the law of sacrilege, but are exempted from it after they flowed down into the shitin.

MISHNAH: If a proselyte and a Gentile inherited from their Gentile father, the proselyte may say, take the idols and I shall take money, take the wine for libations and I shall take produce. After they came into the proselyte’s possession, this is forbidden. He who sells produce in Syria and says: ‘They are from the Land of Israel,’ must tithe them. ‘They are tithed,’ one believes him because the mouth that forbade is the mouth that permits. ‘They are from my field,’ he must tithe them. ‘They are tithed,’ one believes him because the mouth that forbade is the mouth that permits. If it is known that he has a field in Syria, he must tithe.

HALAKHAH: a Jew and a Gentile bought a Gentile’s house and found there idols, libation wine, and coins, he should not tell him, take the idols and libation wine, and I shall take the coins.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, not only idols, libation wine, and coins, but even if there were two idols, one shaped as a tripod and one not shaped as a tripod, he should not tell him, take the one that is not shaped as a tripod and I shall take the one shaped like a tripod. Rebbi Zeïra said, that is correct, since even in the case of a ḥaver and an am haäreẓ who inherited from their am haäreẓ father and found there produce which might become impure and produce which might not, may he say to him, you take the produce which might become impure and I shall take that which might not? But our Mishnah disagrees: “Take the idols and I shall take money, take the wine for libations and I shall take produce.” But the end shows that there is no disagreement: “After they came into the possession of the proselyte, this is forbidden;” here, from the moment he acquired it it is as if it entered into his possession.

It was stated: “One may say to his worker: Here you have a denar, use it for food, here you have a denar, use it for drink, and not be worried about either the Sabbatical year, tithes, or wine for libations. But if he told him, go and buy yourself a loaf and I shall give you the money, go and buy yourself a reviït of wine and I shall give you the money, he has to worry because of the Sabbatical year, tithes, and wine used for libations.” Rebbi Zeïra said, the grocer becomes the plenipotentiary of the employer to let the worker acquire. Rebbi Hila said, the worker acquired for the employer from the grocer and then acquires it himself. What is the difference between them? If the grocer was deaf-mute. According to Rebbi Zeïra, he does not have to worry because a deaf-mute cannot become a plenipotentiary; according to Rebbi Hila, he has to worry.

It was stated: “One may say to his worker: Here you have a denar, use it for food, here you have a denar, use it for drink, and not be worried about either the Sabbatical year, tithes, or wine for libations. But if he told him, go and buy yourself a loaf and I shall give you the money, go and buy yourself a reviït of wine and I shall give you the money, he has to worry because of the Sabbatical year, tithes, and wine used for libations.” Rebbi Zeïra said, the grocer becomes the plenipotentiary of the employer to let the worker acquire. Rebbi Hila said, the worker acquired for the employer from the grocer and then acquires it himself. What is the difference between them? If the grocer was deaf-mute. According to Rebbi Zeïra, he does not have to worry because a deaf-mute cannot become a plenipotentiary; according to Rebbi Hila, he has to worry.

HALAKHAH: “Ten saplings, etc.“Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi La, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The “willow” is practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai. This is against Abba Shaul, since Abba Shaul said the willow is a word of the Torah (Lev. 23:40): “Brook willows,” two. One willow for the lulab, the other willow for the Temple. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, willow and pouring of water are practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai. This is against Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said the pouring of water is a word of the Torah. On the second day, (Num. 29:19) “and their libations.” On the sixth day, (Num. 29:31) “and its libations.” On the seventh day, (Num. 29:33) “and its rules.” מ י מ spells “water”. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, why does one now plough because of old trees? He said to him, when the practice was established it was given so that when they desired to plough they might plough.

HALAKHAH: “Ten saplings, etc.“Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi La, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The “willow” is practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai. This is against Abba Shaul, since Abba Shaul said the willow is a word of the Torah (Lev. 23:40): “Brook willows,” two. One willow for the lulab, the other willow for the Temple. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, willow and pouring of water are practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai. This is against Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said the pouring of water is a word of the Torah. On the second day, (Num. 29:19) “and their libations.” On the sixth day, (Num. 29:31) “and its libations.” On the seventh day, (Num. 29:33) “and its rules.” מ י מ spells “water”. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, why does one now plough because of old trees? He said to him, when the practice was established it was given so that when they desired to plough they might plough.

It was stated: “The wages of donkey drivers, carriers, and all those working with Sabbatical produce are Sabbatical.” Rebbi Zeïra said, this baraita deals with permitted produce. What is the meaning of “the wages are Sabbatical”? That they may take their wages in the form of Sabbatical produce. Then it must be that, when Rebbi Joḥanan taught those of [the House of] Rebbi Yannai not to take the wages of their oil presses in wine but in money, he taught them following Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah. Rebbi Hila: the baraita deals with those who carry forbidden produce. What is the meaning of “the wages are Sabbatical”? As Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Joḥanan said, they fined him with wine of libations; here also, they fined him.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Saplings of heave that had become impure he may plant and make them heave but if they were heave from before they already were pushed aside. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Water that became impure is made to touch and may be used as water for Tabernacles but if it was water for Tabernacles from before it already is pushed aside. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Figs and grapes that had become impure one may squeeze and make them heave but if they were heave from before they already were pushed aside. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Assi, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, one squeezes less than the volume of olives and his wine is good even for libations. They said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagrees. Both about leniency and restriction? If you say about leniency, this is understandable. If you say about restriction, did we not state: “Until he removes what is edible?”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Hila said, at the start they made wine in purity for Temple libations and grapes were rare. They decreed that it had to be brought to Jerusalem from a distance up to a day’s march. They used to distribute it to relatives, neighbors, and acquaintances, and a small quantity adorned the market.

Proselyte, as it was stated: If a proselyte converted while he had wines, and said, it is clear to me that no libations were made from it, if he made it by himself it is pure for him but impure for others, by others it is impure both for him and for others. Rebbi Aqiba said, if they are pure for him they should be pure for others; if impure for others they should be impure for him. Rebbi Joḥanan said, restrictive, impure for him and for others. Vulgar, as it was stated: If a vulgar person who was inducted as a fellow has food made in purity and he said, it is clear to me that it was prepared in purity, if he made it by himself it is pure for him but impure for others, by others it is impure both for him and for others. Rebbi Aqiba said, if they are pure for him they should be pure for others; if impure for others they should be impure for him. Rebbi Joḥanan said, restrictive, impure for him and for others.

“Edomite vinegar,” Southern aromatic. In earlier times, when one made wine in purity for libations, wine did not turn sour. One had to spike it with barley to make it sour; one did call it “Southern aromatic.”

It was stated: “The blood of the daily sacrifice and its limbs precede the Pesaḥ, and the Pesaḥ the incense, and the incense the trimming of the lights.” There are Tannaim who state: “The blood of the daily sacrifice and its limbs precede the incense, and the incense the Pesaḥ, and the Pesaḥ the trimming of the lights, so that the libations of the daily sacrifice should be accompanying it.” There is nothing preceding the daily morning sacrifice and nothing later than the daily evening sacrifice except Pesaḥ and incense on Passover Eve. “ From where that nothing should precede the daily morning sacrifice? The verse says, on it ˋolah. And from where that nothing should invalidate the daily evening sacrifice? The verse says, on it šelamim. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, it is not written here he arranges on it ˋolah but he arranges on it the ˋolah, that no elevation offering precede the daily morning sacrifice. It was stated: Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, people lacking expiation bring their expiatory sacrifices after the daily evening sacrifice to enable them to immerse themselves and eat their Pesaḥ in the evening. Rebbi Yudan said, that is, for a rich sufferer from skin disease. But a poor sufferer from skin disease, does he not bring a bird? Said Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon, does he not bring a reparation sacrifice?

It was stated: For the daily sacrifice, which is accompanied by libations, one blows the trumpets for the libations. For the Pesaḥ, which has no libations, one blows the trumpets for its slaughter.

It was stated: For the daily sacrifice, which is accompanied by libations, one blows the trumpets for the libations. For the Pesaḥ, which has no libations, one blows the trumpets for its slaughter.

It was stated: For the daily sacrifice, which is accompanied by libations, one blows the trumpets for the libations. For the Pesaḥ, which has no libations, one blows the trumpets for its slaughter.

A non-Cohen who removed. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is liable. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is not liable. What is Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s reason? Service of bringing. This excludes what is a removal. What is Rebbi Joḥanan ’s reason? Anything concerning the altar. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: The four kinds of service for which a Cohen would be liable if done outside, the non-Cohen is liable for inside. What are these? Burning incense, and pouring blood, and making libations of water and wine. This follows Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Levi said, even removal of the ashes; this follows Rebbi Joḥanan. If he stirred the coals, the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. If he removed the remainder of the ashes, the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, following him who said, others, of lesser value than these. But for him who said others, to include people with bodily defects, there is no difference between a Cohen with a bodily defect and a non-Cohen. Everybody agreed that the non-Cohen who arranged the woods is liable. Rebbi Zeˋira said, but only for the two logs on which the verse insists that they are Cohen’s service: Aaron’s the priest’s sons shall put fire on the altar and arrange woods.

He shall bring it, before the additional sacrifices, but when he repeats you shall sacrifice even after the libations. There are Tannaim who state, before the libations. He who says before the libations, before the wine libations. He who says after the libations, after the libations of fine flour. The fine flour precedes the pan-baked breads; even though this is for the fire and that is for the fire, this is a private sacrifice and the other a public sacrifice. The pan-baked bread precede the cups; even though this is a private sacrifice and the other a public sacrifice, this is frequent but the other is not frequent. The pan-baked breads precede the wine since this is for the fire but that is for the bowls. Cups and wine, which one has precedence? Is that not the Mishnah, incense before the wine? Here for a private offering, there for public offering.

He shall bring it, before the additional sacrifices, but when he repeats you shall sacrifice even after the libations. There are Tannaim who state, before the libations. He who says before the libations, before the wine libations. He who says after the libations, after the libations of fine flour. The fine flour precedes the pan-baked breads; even though this is for the fire and that is for the fire, this is a private sacrifice and the other a public sacrifice. The pan-baked bread precede the cups; even though this is a private sacrifice and the other a public sacrifice, this is frequent but the other is not frequent. The pan-baked breads precede the wine since this is for the fire but that is for the bowls. Cups and wine, which one has precedence? Is that not the Mishnah, incense before the wine? Here for a private offering, there for public offering.

He shall bring it, before the additional sacrifices, but when he repeats you shall sacrifice even after the libations. There are Tannaim who state, before the libations. He who says before the libations, before the wine libations. He who says after the libations, after the libations of fine flour. The fine flour precedes the pan-baked breads; even though this is for the fire and that is for the fire, this is a private sacrifice and the other a public sacrifice. The pan-baked bread precede the cups; even though this is a private sacrifice and the other a public sacrifice, this is frequent but the other is not frequent. The pan-baked breads precede the wine since this is for the fire but that is for the bowls. Cups and wine, which one has precedence? Is that not the Mishnah, incense before the wine? Here for a private offering, there for public offering.

He shall bring it, before the additional sacrifices, but when he repeats you shall sacrifice even after the libations. There are Tannaim who state, before the libations. He who says before the libations, before the wine libations. He who says after the libations, after the libations of fine flour. The fine flour precedes the pan-baked breads; even though this is for the fire and that is for the fire, this is a private sacrifice and the other a public sacrifice. The pan-baked bread precede the cups; even though this is a private sacrifice and the other a public sacrifice, this is frequent but the other is not frequent. The pan-baked breads precede the wine since this is for the fire but that is for the bowls. Cups and wine, which one has precedence? Is that not the Mishnah, incense before the wine? Here for a private offering, there for public offering.

He shall bring it, before the additional sacrifices, but when he repeats you shall sacrifice even after the libations. There are Tannaim who state, before the libations. He who says before the libations, before the wine libations. He who says after the libations, after the libations of fine flour. The fine flour precedes the pan-baked breads; even though this is for the fire and that is for the fire, this is a private sacrifice and the other a public sacrifice. The pan-baked bread precede the cups; even though this is a private sacrifice and the other a public sacrifice, this is frequent but the other is not frequent. The pan-baked breads precede the wine since this is for the fire but that is for the bowls. Cups and wine, which one has precedence? Is that not the Mishnah, incense before the wine? Here for a private offering, there for public offering.

He shall bring it, before the additional sacrifices, but when he repeats you shall sacrifice even after the libations. There are Tannaim who state, before the libations. He who says before the libations, before the wine libations. He who says after the libations, after the libations of fine flour. The fine flour precedes the pan-baked breads; even though this is for the fire and that is for the fire, this is a private sacrifice and the other a public sacrifice. The pan-baked bread precede the cups; even though this is a private sacrifice and the other a public sacrifice, this is frequent but the other is not frequent. The pan-baked breads precede the wine since this is for the fire but that is for the bowls. Cups and wine, which one has precedence? Is that not the Mishnah, incense before the wine? Here for a private offering, there for public offering.

MISHNAH: The incense in the morning was brought between blood and limbs; in the evening it was brought between limbs and libations. If the High Priest was old or asthenic, one heats water for him and pours into the cold water to mitigate its coldness.

It says for the afternoon daily sacrifice, in the evening, and it says about incense, in the evening, close to the lights. (Not) [You say] about the lights, from evening to morning(?)[.] A matter where it is said in the evening close to the lights shall be delayed after a matter where only in the evening is said. Then even after the libations? Rebbi Hila said, you shall do, delayed action for it. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Hila: Here you are saying, “you shall do, preceded action for it”, and there you are saying, “you shall do, delayed action for it”? Rebbi Hila said, each one according to its subject. The daily morning sacrifice was shown to be later; you shall do, preceded action for it. The daily evening sacrifice was shown to be earlier, the verse says you shall do, delayed action for it. Rebbi Zeˋira acclaimed him and called him “son of the Torah.”

Rebbi Joḥanan said, at the start one accepts from them neither definite objects nor non-definite objects, and at the end one accepts from them definite objects but not non-definite objects. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, both at the beginning and at the end one accepts from them neither definite objects nor non-definite objects. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “One does not accept from them voluntary gifts for Temple property for the upkeep of the Temple.” He explains it, both at the start and at the end, if it is for non-definite objects. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Everybody agrees that they make vows and are objects of vows. He explains it for elevation offerings. One understands that he makes a vow to bring an elevation offering. Can he be the object of a vow for an elevation offering? No, if an Israel says, I undertake to bring an elevation offering, when a Gentile hears him and says, I am undertaking what he says. Does he not bring libations with it? Is not the excess money given for libations used for vessels of Service? Then it turns out that he brought {money for} a definite object! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun objected, did we not state that they may offer their value? Are offerings of one’s value not for the upkeep of the Temple? It is as you are saying there, his intent was for Heaven; automatically it will be used for the upkeep of the Temple; so here you are saying, his intent was for Heaven; automatically it will be used for vessels of Service. How does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish treat this? He explains, it is not upon you and us to build our God’s House. Rebbi Ḥilkiah said, Rebbi Simon asked: Does this imply that one does not accept from them for an aqueduct, or the city walls, or its towers, because of you have no part, nor rightful claim, nor memorial, in Jerusalem.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, at the start one accepts from them neither definite objects nor non-definite objects, and at the end one accepts from them definite objects but not non-definite objects. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, both at the beginning and at the end one accepts from them neither definite objects nor non-definite objects. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “One does not accept from them voluntary gifts for Temple property for the upkeep of the Temple.” He explains it, both at the start and at the end, if it is for non-definite objects. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Everybody agrees that they make vows and are objects of vows. He explains it for elevation offerings. One understands that he makes a vow to bring an elevation offering. Can he be the object of a vow for an elevation offering? No, if an Israel says, I undertake to bring an elevation offering, when a Gentile hears him and says, I am undertaking what he says. Does he not bring libations with it? Is not the excess money given for libations used for vessels of Service? Then it turns out that he brought {money for} a definite object! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun objected, did we not state that they may offer their value? Are offerings of one’s value not for the upkeep of the Temple? It is as you are saying there, his intent was for Heaven; automatically it will be used for the upkeep of the Temple; so here you are saying, his intent was for Heaven; automatically it will be used for vessels of Service. How does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish treat this? He explains, it is not upon you and us to build our God’s House. Rebbi Ḥilkiah said, Rebbi Simon asked: Does this imply that one does not accept from them for an aqueduct, or the city walls, or its towers, because of you have no part, nor rightful claim, nor memorial, in Jerusalem.

MISHNAH: For what was the disbursement used? One buys from it daily and musaf sacrifices and their libations, the `omer, and the Two Breads, and the shew-bread, and all public offerings. The watchmen for aftergrowth in the sabbatical year take their wages from the disbursement from the lodge. Rebbi Yose says, he also may volunteer as unpaid trustee. They told him, would you not also say that they only come from the public?

MISHNAH: The Cow, the he-goat which is sent away, and the shiny strip come from the money disbursed from the lodge. The ramp for the Cow, the ramp for the he-goat which is sent away, the strip bound on its horns, the water canal, the city wall and its towers, and all needs of the city, come from the leftovers in the lodge. Abba Shaul says, the High Priests build the ramp for the Cow at their own expense. What did one do with the leftover in the lodge? One buys with it wine, oil, and fine flour, and the gain is the Temple’s, the words of Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Aqiba says, one gains neither for the Temple nor funds for the poor. What did they use the leftover of the disbursement for? Gold sheets coating for the Holiest of Holies. Rebbi Ismael said, the leftover of produce is for adornment of the altar, the leftover of the disbursement is for Service vessels. Rebbi Aqiba says, the leftover of the disbursement is for adornment of the altar, the leftover of the libations is for Service vessels. Rebbi Ḥanania the executive officer of the Cohanim says, the leftover of the libations is for adornment of the altar, the leftover of the disbursement is for Service vessels. Neither of them did agree about produce.

MISHNAH: The Cow, the he-goat which is sent away, and the shiny strip come from the money disbursed from the lodge. The ramp for the Cow, the ramp for the he-goat which is sent away, the strip bound on its horns, the water canal, the city wall and its towers, and all needs of the city, come from the leftovers in the lodge. Abba Shaul says, the High Priests build the ramp for the Cow at their own expense. What did one do with the leftover in the lodge? One buys with it wine, oil, and fine flour, and the gain is the Temple’s, the words of Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Aqiba says, one gains neither for the Temple nor funds for the poor. What did they use the leftover of the disbursement for? Gold sheets coating for the Holiest of Holies. Rebbi Ismael said, the leftover of produce is for adornment of the altar, the leftover of the disbursement is for Service vessels. Rebbi Aqiba says, the leftover of the disbursement is for adornment of the altar, the leftover of the libations is for Service vessels. Rebbi Ḥanania the executive officer of the Cohanim says, the leftover of the libations is for adornment of the altar, the leftover of the disbursement is for Service vessels. Neither of them did agree about produce.

Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: The scholars who teach the priests the rules of slaughter, rules of receiving, rules of sprinkling, take their wages from the disbursement from the lodge. Rebbi Isaac bar Redifa in the name of Immi: The inspectors of defects of sancta take their wages from the disbursement from the lodge. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simlai: Those who correct the scroll of the Temple courtyard take their wages from the disbursement from the lodge. Giddul bar Benjamin in the name of Assi: The two judges of robberies take their wages from the disbursement from the lodge. Samuel said, women who are weaving the gobelins take their wages from the disbursement from the lodge; Rav Ḥuna said, from disbursements for repair of the House. How do they disagree? Samuel makes it a sacrifice, Rav Huna makes it part of the building. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said that Rebbi Jehudah Dried Figs stated: The incense and all public sacrifices come from the disbursement from the lodge. The golden altar and vessels for the Service come from the excess of libations. The altar for elevation sacrifices, the building, and the courtyards come from the leftover in the lodge. The outside of the courtyards come from the lodge for maintenance of the House. But was it not stated: One commits me`ilah with stones of the Temple or the courtyards. How can one commit me`ilah with leftovers? But it must follow Rebbi Meïr, for Rebbi Meïr said, one commits me`ilah with leftovers. Rebbi Ḥinena said, Rebbi Meïr said this only during its year. But here we are after its year.

It is all Rebbi Ismael’s. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph explains the Mishnah: The leftover of produce is the gain of the Temple; the leftover of libations is the fourth seah. Rebbi Joḥanan explains the Mishnah, The leftover of produce is the fourth seah; the leftover of libations is the overflow. Does Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph not have overflow? Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, what is counted for the fourth seah is overflow. The opinion of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph is understandable. “one does not gain neither for the Temple nor funds for the poor,” therefore “neither of them did agree about produce.” The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is difficult. We have stated: “if the going rate was three, he has to deliver for four” and we have stated, “neither of them did agree about produce.” They did not agree about produce to adorn the altar; they did agree for Service vessels. So far overflow of public {sacrifices}. Even overflow for private {sacrifices}. Would then not Service vessels come from private donations? It is as it was stated, “a woman who made a coat for her son has to surrender it to the public.” So far the overflow of fluids; even the overflow of dry goods; as that which we stated, “in case libations were sanctified in a vessel when the sacrifice was found disqualified, if there is another sacrifice they should be brought with it; otherwise they will become disqualified by staying overnight.”

It is all Rebbi Ismael’s. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph explains the Mishnah: The leftover of produce is the gain of the Temple; the leftover of libations is the fourth seah. Rebbi Joḥanan explains the Mishnah, The leftover of produce is the fourth seah; the leftover of libations is the overflow. Does Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph not have overflow? Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, what is counted for the fourth seah is overflow. The opinion of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph is understandable. “one does not gain neither for the Temple nor funds for the poor,” therefore “neither of them did agree about produce.” The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is difficult. We have stated: “if the going rate was three, he has to deliver for four” and we have stated, “neither of them did agree about produce.” They did not agree about produce to adorn the altar; they did agree for Service vessels. So far overflow of public {sacrifices}. Even overflow for private {sacrifices}. Would then not Service vessels come from private donations? It is as it was stated, “a woman who made a coat for her son has to surrender it to the public.” So far the overflow of fluids; even the overflow of dry goods; as that which we stated, “in case libations were sanctified in a vessel when the sacrifice was found disqualified, if there is another sacrifice they should be brought with it; otherwise they will become disqualified by staying overnight.”

It is all Rebbi Ismael’s. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph explains the Mishnah: The leftover of produce is the gain of the Temple; the leftover of libations is the fourth seah. Rebbi Joḥanan explains the Mishnah, The leftover of produce is the fourth seah; the leftover of libations is the overflow. Does Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph not have overflow? Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, what is counted for the fourth seah is overflow. The opinion of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph is understandable. “one does not gain neither for the Temple nor funds for the poor,” therefore “neither of them did agree about produce.” The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is difficult. We have stated: “if the going rate was three, he has to deliver for four” and we have stated, “neither of them did agree about produce.” They did not agree about produce to adorn the altar; they did agree for Service vessels. So far overflow of public {sacrifices}. Even overflow for private {sacrifices}. Would then not Service vessels come from private donations? It is as it was stated, “a woman who made a coat for her son has to surrender it to the public.” So far the overflow of fluids; even the overflow of dry goods; as that which we stated, “in case libations were sanctified in a vessel when the sacrifice was found disqualified, if there is another sacrifice they should be brought with it; otherwise they will become disqualified by staying overnight.”

MISHNAH: These are the appointees who were in the Sanctuary: Joḥanan ben Phineas of the seals, Aḥiyya of the libations, Mathew ben Samuel of the lotteries, Petaḥiah of the nests. Petaḥiah is Mordecai. Why was he called Petaḥiah? For he had original ideas and explained them, and he knew seventy languages. Ben Aḥiyyah for indigestion; Onias the digger of ditches, Gabinius the herald, Ben Gever for locking the doors, Ben Bevai for the oakum. Ben Arza for the cymbal, Hugdas ben Levi for the song. The family Garmu for the shew-bread, the family Eutinos for producing the incense. Eleazar for the gobelins, and Phineas the clothier.

MISHNAH: Four stamps were in the Temple; on them was written calf, ram, lamb, sinner. Ben Azzai says, there were five, and Aramaic was written on them, calf, ram, lamb, poor sinner, rich sinner. “Calf” serves for the libations of cattle, large or small, male or female. “Lamb” serves for the libations of sheep and goats, large or small, male or female, except for rams. “Ram” only serves for the libations with a ram. “Sinner” serves for the three animals of the sufferer from skin disease. If somebody needs libations he goes to Joḥanan who is overseeing the stamps, gives him the money, and receives a ticket from him. He goes to Aḥiyya who is overseeing the libations, gives him the ticket, and receives the libations from him. In the evening they come together, Aḥiyya produces the tickets and receives money correspondingly. If there was a deficit, it is his deficit and Joḥanan has to pay from his own. But if there was excess it belongs to the Temple since the hand of the Temple is privileged. If somebody lost his ticket, one lets him wait until the evening. If they find for him corresponding to his ticket one gives to him; otherwise one does not give to him. The date was written on it because of the tricksters.

MISHNAH: Four stamps were in the Temple; on them was written calf, ram, lamb, sinner. Ben Azzai says, there were five, and Aramaic was written on them, calf, ram, lamb, poor sinner, rich sinner. “Calf” serves for the libations of cattle, large or small, male or female. “Lamb” serves for the libations of sheep and goats, large or small, male or female, except for rams. “Ram” only serves for the libations with a ram. “Sinner” serves for the three animals of the sufferer from skin disease. If somebody needs libations he goes to Joḥanan who is overseeing the stamps, gives him the money, and receives a ticket from him. He goes to Aḥiyya who is overseeing the libations, gives him the ticket, and receives the libations from him. In the evening they come together, Aḥiyya produces the tickets and receives money correspondingly. If there was a deficit, it is his deficit and Joḥanan has to pay from his own. But if there was excess it belongs to the Temple since the hand of the Temple is privileged. If somebody lost his ticket, one lets him wait until the evening. If they find for him corresponding to his ticket one gives to him; otherwise one does not give to him. The date was written on it because of the tricksters.

MISHNAH: Four stamps were in the Temple; on them was written calf, ram, lamb, sinner. Ben Azzai says, there were five, and Aramaic was written on them, calf, ram, lamb, poor sinner, rich sinner. “Calf” serves for the libations of cattle, large or small, male or female. “Lamb” serves for the libations of sheep and goats, large or small, male or female, except for rams. “Ram” only serves for the libations with a ram. “Sinner” serves for the three animals of the sufferer from skin disease. If somebody needs libations he goes to Joḥanan who is overseeing the stamps, gives him the money, and receives a ticket from him. He goes to Aḥiyya who is overseeing the libations, gives him the ticket, and receives the libations from him. In the evening they come together, Aḥiyya produces the tickets and receives money correspondingly. If there was a deficit, it is his deficit and Joḥanan has to pay from his own. But if there was excess it belongs to the Temple since the hand of the Temple is privileged. If somebody lost his ticket, one lets him wait until the evening. If they find for him corresponding to his ticket one gives to him; otherwise one does not give to him. The date was written on it because of the tricksters.

MISHNAH: Four stamps were in the Temple; on them was written calf, ram, lamb, sinner. Ben Azzai says, there were five, and Aramaic was written on them, calf, ram, lamb, poor sinner, rich sinner. “Calf” serves for the libations of cattle, large or small, male or female. “Lamb” serves for the libations of sheep and goats, large or small, male or female, except for rams. “Ram” only serves for the libations with a ram. “Sinner” serves for the three animals of the sufferer from skin disease. If somebody needs libations he goes to Joḥanan who is overseeing the stamps, gives him the money, and receives a ticket from him. He goes to Aḥiyya who is overseeing the libations, gives him the ticket, and receives the libations from him. In the evening they come together, Aḥiyya produces the tickets and receives money correspondingly. If there was a deficit, it is his deficit and Joḥanan has to pay from his own. But if there was excess it belongs to the Temple since the hand of the Temple is privileged. If somebody lost his ticket, one lets him wait until the evening. If they find for him corresponding to his ticket one gives to him; otherwise one does not give to him. The date was written on it because of the tricksters.

MISHNAH: Four stamps were in the Temple; on them was written calf, ram, lamb, sinner. Ben Azzai says, there were five, and Aramaic was written on them, calf, ram, lamb, poor sinner, rich sinner. “Calf” serves for the libations of cattle, large or small, male or female. “Lamb” serves for the libations of sheep and goats, large or small, male or female, except for rams. “Ram” only serves for the libations with a ram. “Sinner” serves for the three animals of the sufferer from skin disease. If somebody needs libations he goes to Joḥanan who is overseeing the stamps, gives him the money, and receives a ticket from him. He goes to Aḥiyya who is overseeing the libations, gives him the ticket, and receives the libations from him. In the evening they come together, Aḥiyya produces the tickets and receives money correspondingly. If there was a deficit, it is his deficit and Joḥanan has to pay from his own. But if there was excess it belongs to the Temple since the hand of the Temple is privileged. If somebody lost his ticket, one lets him wait until the evening. If they find for him corresponding to his ticket one gives to him; otherwise one does not give to him. The date was written on it because of the tricksters.

MISHNAH: Four stamps were in the Temple; on them was written calf, ram, lamb, sinner. Ben Azzai says, there were five, and Aramaic was written on them, calf, ram, lamb, poor sinner, rich sinner. “Calf” serves for the libations of cattle, large or small, male or female. “Lamb” serves for the libations of sheep and goats, large or small, male or female, except for rams. “Ram” only serves for the libations with a ram. “Sinner” serves for the three animals of the sufferer from skin disease. If somebody needs libations he goes to Joḥanan who is overseeing the stamps, gives him the money, and receives a ticket from him. He goes to Aḥiyya who is overseeing the libations, gives him the ticket, and receives the libations from him. In the evening they come together, Aḥiyya produces the tickets and receives money correspondingly. If there was a deficit, it is his deficit and Joḥanan has to pay from his own. But if there was excess it belongs to the Temple since the hand of the Temple is privileged. If somebody lost his ticket, one lets him wait until the evening. If they find for him corresponding to his ticket one gives to him; otherwise one does not give to him. The date was written on it because of the tricksters.

HALAKHAH: And following Ben Azzai, why the [poor] sinner? He brought his log with him, and following the rabbis he brings a lamb. What are the libations for a mother sheep? Since we stated, “ ‘lamb’ serves for the libations of sheep and goats, large or small, male or female,” this implies that the libations of a mother sheep are like the libations of a lamb. It is written, so you shall do for one bull, or for one ram, or an animal from sheep or goats. This tells that He did not differentiate between libations for a calf and libations for a bull. Since one could argue, an animal from the flock needs libations, a bovine animal needs libations. Since we find that He distinguished between the libations for a sheep and the libations for a ram, so we should differentiate between libations for a calf and libations for a bull. The verse says, so you shall do for one bull; this implies that He did not distinguish between libations for a calf and libations for a bull. Why was it said, or for a ram? Since one could argue, if we find that He differentiated between libations for a yearling and libations for a two-year old, so we should differentiate between libations for a two-years old and a three-years old. The verse says, or for one ram. Why was it said, or for an animal from sheep? Since one could argue, if we find that He differentiated between libations for a sheep and libations for a ram, so we should differentiate between libations for a young female sheep and libations for a mother sheep. The verse says, or for an animal from sheep. Why was it said, or a goat? Since one could argue, if we find that He differentiated between libations for a sheep and libations for a ram, so we should differentiate between libations for a kid goat and libations for a bellwether. The verse says, or for a goat, it compared the smallest kid goat to the largest bellwether. Since one needs three log, so the other needs three log.

HALAKHAH: And following Ben Azzai, why the [poor] sinner? He brought his log with him, and following the rabbis he brings a lamb. What are the libations for a mother sheep? Since we stated, “ ‘lamb’ serves for the libations of sheep and goats, large or small, male or female,” this implies that the libations of a mother sheep are like the libations of a lamb. It is written, so you shall do for one bull, or for one ram, or an animal from sheep or goats. This tells that He did not differentiate between libations for a calf and libations for a bull. Since one could argue, an animal from the flock needs libations, a bovine animal needs libations. Since we find that He distinguished between the libations for a sheep and the libations for a ram, so we should differentiate between libations for a calf and libations for a bull. The verse says, so you shall do for one bull; this implies that He did not distinguish between libations for a calf and libations for a bull. Why was it said, or for a ram? Since one could argue, if we find that He differentiated between libations for a yearling and libations for a two-year old, so we should differentiate between libations for a two-years old and a three-years old. The verse says, or for one ram. Why was it said, or for an animal from sheep? Since one could argue, if we find that He differentiated between libations for a sheep and libations for a ram, so we should differentiate between libations for a young female sheep and libations for a mother sheep. The verse says, or for an animal from sheep. Why was it said, or a goat? Since one could argue, if we find that He differentiated between libations for a sheep and libations for a ram, so we should differentiate between libations for a kid goat and libations for a bellwether. The verse says, or for a goat, it compared the smallest kid goat to the largest bellwether. Since one needs three log, so the other needs three log.