Which Tanid is "ve'Nisko" referring to?
Yoma, 34a: It is referring to the Tamid shel bein ha'Arbayim - the last mentioned in Pasuk 4 - and we learn the Tamid shel Shachar from the Tamid shel bein ha'Arbayim.
What are the connotations of "ba'Kodesh Hasech"?
Rashi: It means that the wine must be poured on to the Mizbe'ach. 1
Ramban (citing the Sifri): The wine must be both poured and absorbed (drained) 2 in a holy location.
Targum Yonasan: It means that the wine must be poured from a K'li Shareis - and not from an earthenware vessel. 3
Sukah, 49a & b: We learn via a Gezeirah Shavah "ba'KOdesh" "ki Kodesh hu" from Nosar - Tetzaveh Shemos, 29:33 that the congealed wine of Korbanos is burned in a holy location. 4
Yerushalmi Megilah, 1:11: It teaches us that also after Yisrael entered Eretz Yisrael, the Nesachim could only be brought on the Mizbe'ach in the Ohel Mo'ed and not on a Bamah.
What are the implications of the double Lashon "Hasech Nesech"?
Ta'anis, 3a: It implies two libation offerings, one of wine and one of water. 1
Ta'anis (Ibid.): Not both of wine, since the Torah does not write "Hasech Hasech" or "Nesech Nesech".
What are the implications of "Nesech Sheichar"?
Rashi #1 and Targum Yonasan: It implies that the wine must be strong enough to intoxicate 1 ? and not straight from the vat (grape juice). 2
Ramban (citing the Sifri) and Moshav Zekenim: It implies that the wine must be undiluted.
Sukah 49b: "Sheichar" is an expression of drinking, satiation and intoxication. Therefore, at the time of pouring the wine libation, the outlet to the base of the Mizbeach must be plugged. 3
Which is at least forty days old (Targum Yonasan).
Refer to 28:7:151:1. According to the Ramban, it is in fact, only mi'de'Rabbanan.
Rashi (in Zevachim, 91b): So that the wine should appear on top of the Mizbe'ach. See also Torah Temimah, note 24.
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes that "Sheichar" refers to wine that can intoxicate, and not grape juice. But that is only mi'de'Rabanan, since if one brought grape-juice, it is Kosher Bedi'eved, as the Gemara states in Bava Basra 97a?
Refer to 28:7:2:1**.
Mizrachi (based on the Rashbam in Bava Basra 97a) #1: There is no second Pasuk to disqualify Bedi'eved - and in the realm of Kodshim, something is Me'akev only if it is repeated.
Mizrachi (based on the Rashbam in Bava Basra 97a) #2:, "Hasech Nesech" is Machshir Bedi'eved min ha'Torah.
