1) The Rambam (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Karbanos 2:1), when he discusses Nesachim offered throughout the year, writes that they are poured on the Yesod, the base, of the Mizbe'ach, and they flowed down from there to the "Shitin," the foundations.

2) The Ra'avad (in Hasagos on the Rambam) writes that this is a mistake. The Ra'avad writes that they were not poured onto the Yesod, but rather they were poured into the Sefel for the wine, on the southwest corner of the Mizbe'ach next to the Sefel of water used for pouring the water-offering on the Chag of Sukos.

3) Hence, there is a dispute between the Rambam and the Ra'avad. According to the Rambam, all year round the Nesachim were not poured into the Sefalim at all, while according to Ra'avad they were poured into the wine Sefel all year round.

4) The Kesef Mishneh writes that the Rambam infers his ruling from the fact that the only time the Sefalim are mentioned in the Gemara is in connection with the Nesachim on Sukos. This suggests that the Sefalim were used only on Sukos, not all year round.

5) In addition to the fact that according to the Rambam the wine Nesachim all year round were not poured into the Sefalim, we also may point out that even according to the Ra'avad it appears that the wine was poured only into the Sefel of the wine, not into the Sefel of the water.

6) I am now going to attempt to answer your second question: if we say that the Sefalim were used all year round, was it permissible all year round to pour the wine into the water Sefel?

7) The Gemara on 48b implies that one should not do this. The Gemara there questions Rebbi Yehudah's statement in the Mishnah that the Sefalim were made of plaster but became blackened because of the wine poured into them. The Gemara asks that one can understand that the Sefel of wine became blackened, but why should the Sefel of water become darkened? The Gemara answers that since the Mishnah says that if one poured the wine into the Sefel intended for the water, this is sufficient b'Di'eved. Therefore, one may assume that this happened sometimes, and this is how the water Sefel also became blackened.

8) One sees from the Gemara that the only possible explanation that for how the water Sefel became black is that sometimes a mistake was made and the wine was poured there. This shows that even according to the Ra'avad -- who rules that all year round the Sefalim were used -- l'Chatchilah one should pour the wine into the wine Sefel, and only if a mistake was made is it valid b'Di'eved, but one should not do this in the first place.

9) This matter requires further study, but I will close here for the meantime and hope soon to return to this question and deal with it in more detail.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom

Yaakov, thank you for your kind comments. I am glad I was able to be of help.

1) It is not really surprising that the Rambam that you cited (in Temidin 10:7) writes that the Sefalim were silver because it is natural that he should rule according to the Chachomim in our Mishnah, since they are the majority opinion.

2) It seems from the Ra'avad that, at any rate l'Chatchilah, all year round the wine should be poured into the wine Sefel. In Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbonos 2:1 (that I cited above), he is discussing the procedure all year round, and writes that the wine is poured into the wine Sefel. When the Ra'avad continues to write that the wine Sefel was in the southwest corner together with the water Sefel into which the Nisuch ha'Mayim was poured on Sukos, this does not mean that l'Chatchilah he may also pour the wine into the water Sefel, but rather the Ra'avad is simply specifying for us the location of the wine Sefel.

3) I would just like to mention some background information about the dispute in the Mishnah concerning the material that the Sefalim were made of, and in turn the question of what color they were. I saw a beautiful insight, cited in the Mesivta edition here, in the name of Teshuvos Or ha'Me'ir (written by Rav Meir Shapira zt'l of Lublin, the founder of the Dafyomi cycle). He suggests that the root of the dispute between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Yehudah concerns the prohibition of the Torah (see Devarim 27:5) that one may not bring iron upon the Mizbe'ach. The question is, does this refer only to iron, or does it refer to all metals? The Tana Kama maintains that it applies only to iron, but the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah is that one may not put any metal on the Mizbe'ach. The Rambam (Hilchos Beis ha'Bechirah 1:15) writes that iron may not even touch the stones. This is why, according to Rebbi Yehudah, the Sefalim may not be made of silver -- because there must be no metal at all on the Mizbe'ach.

4) We now may understand that in the Mishnah, both the Chachamim and Rebbi Yehudah are trying to defend their respective opinions. It seems that it was known that the color of the Sefalim was slightly darker, but the question is why. The Chachamim say that the reason why the color was darker was that they were made of silver, and this proves that metals other than iron may be placed on the Mizbe'ach. Rebbi Yehudah rejoined that there is no proof from here; the Sefalim started off as white plaster but the reason they became darker is that sometimes wine was poured on them.

5) We will notice that Rebbi Yehudah does not say that the Sefalim were "Shechorin," black. Rather, he says that they were "Mush'charin," blackened. The color had turned somewhat darker. Rashi explains that they were similar to silver which is darker than plaster, but they were not necessarily so dark. All it was necessary for Rebbi Yehudah to do was to explain how the color became more similar to silver if they started off white. For this to happen, it sufficed for wine to be poured occasionally on them.

Many thanks for your very interesting ideas,

Dovid Bloom

I found that Rav Chaim Greinemann shlita, in Chidushim u'Biurim on Sukah 48a DH Sham Ella, goes in a similar direction to that which you are suggesting.

1) Rav Greinemann questions Rashi 48b DH Ati - that sometimes the water or wine was poured into the wrong sefel - because there is a principle "Kohanim Zerizim Hein" (see Gemara Shabbos 20a and many other places in Shas):- the Kohanim in the Beit Hamikdash are eager and efficient and therefore one would not expect them to pour the liquids in the wrong place.

R. Greineman also asks that just because a mistake was made on one occassion one would not expect the sefalim to turn black as a result.

2) Because of this difficulty, R Greimemann writes that if not for what Rashi writes, one could have given a different explanation. He cites the Gemara Zevachim near bottom 91b that according to Rabbi Akiva the wine was poured into sefalim. The plural form of the word sefalim suggests that the wine can be poured into either of the sefalim. [The Gemara there states that Rabbi Yehuda agrees with R. Akiva since otherwise the wine will extinguish the fire on the mizbeach, and R. Yehuda's opinion is that Davar She-ain Mitkavein is forbidden. This is what you argued, Yaakov - DB]. All year round it was only wine that was poured on and it could be Yisraelim, who are not so particular about the Halachot as the Kohanim are, who poured the wine on the mizbeach. This is how the sefalim turned black. On sukot it was only the Cohanim who poured the wine and they were careful lecatchilah to pour it into the correct sefel.

3) Rav Greinemann does not write explicitly that all your round one may lecatchilah pour the wine into the water sefel. However in practice the latter eventuality did occur quite often.

KOL TUV

Dovid Bloom