(Mishnah): How did they perform the Water Libations for seven days?

They would fill a three-Lug sized flask from the Shiluach spring.

When they reached the Shaar HaMayim (Water Gate), they would sound a Tekiyah, a Teru'ah and a Tekiyah on the trumpets.

He (the flask carrier) ascended the ramp and turned to his left and there were two silver bowls there.

R. Yehuda - They were made from lime, but they had blackened from the wine that was put there.

They had holes like two small nostrils with one wider than the other, in order that their pouring be completed at the same time - the western one contained water and the eastern one contained wine.

If he poured the water into the wine bowl or vice-versa, it is valid.

R. Yehuda: He would use a Lug for the libations all eight days. (He disagrees about the quantity and also requires the libations to be performed on the 8th day.)

They would say to the Kohen who was performing the libations - "Lift up your hand" - as it once happened that the Kohen (who was a Sadducee) poured the water on his feet (as they denied that there was a Mitzvah of water libations) and all of the people there pelted him with their Esrogs.

(Gemara - R. Yosi ben Chanina): They would sound the trumpets in order to publicize the performance of the water libations.

Yosi ben Chanina quoting Menachem of Yutfus: It is the opinion of R. Akiva who said that the Mitzvah of Nisuch HaMayim (water libations) has its source in the Written Torah.

The Mishnah (in Maseches Zevachim) teaches - R. Elazar says that even a person who performs the water libations outside of the Temple is liable (a Chatas offering).

R. Yochanan: All of the opinion of R. Elazar originates in the opinion of his teacher, R. Akiva - just as R. Akiva said that Nisuch HaMayim comes from the Written Torah, so R. Elazar says the same.

Beraisa #1: R. Elazar said that in order for him to be liable for performing the libations outside of the Temple, he needs to have filled up the flask for the sake of the libations.

Beraisa #2: R. Elazar said that he does not need to have filled it for that reason.

Question: What is the difference between these two Beraisos?

Answer: Beraisa #1 is R. Elazar speaking according to R. Akiva. Beraisa #2 is R. Elazar speaking according to Rabbanan.

Rebuttal: This cannot be said, as R. Yochanan said - All of R. Elazar's opinion comes from R. Akiva, that just as R. Akiva said that Nisuch HaMayim comes from the Written Torah, so R. Elazar says the same.

Beraisa #1: He may not use more than the quantity of three Lug.

Beraisa #2: He may use more than the quantity of three Lug.

Question: What is the difference between these two Beraisos?

Answer (R. Zeira): If he first used three Lug inside and then used three Lug outside - according to Beraisa #1, he is exempt; according to Beraisa #2, he is liable.

Yosi bar Asiyan quoting R. Shimon ben Lakish: The holes of the bowls should be blocked at the time of the libations.

Question: What is the reason? The Pasuk states (Bamidbar 28, 7), "on the Holy [place], a libation of a drink offering before Hash-m".

Beraisa (R. Yosi): The cavity of the 'Shis' (into which the liquids flowed) descended until the depths.

Question: What is the source for this? The Pasuk states (Yishayahu 5, 2), "He enclosed it, removed its stones planted vines and built a tower inside it". "He built a tower inside it" - this refers to the Heichal (the inner section of the Temple); "He...cut out a wine vat in it" - this refers to the Mizbeach. "He also cut out etc." - this refers to the Shis.

R. Shimon: They were formed from Heaven (rather than man-made).

If they were formed from Heaven, I might have thought that they were not as beautifully formed as the work of a craftsman - the Pasuk states (Shir Hashirim 7, 2),"The roundness of your legs are like jewels, the work of a craftsman" - they were more beautiful than the work of a craftsman.

Beraisa (R. Elazar bei R. Tzadok): There was a small trapdoor between the Ulam (entrance-hall to the Heichal) and the Mizbeach. Once in 70 years the young Kohanim would descend down the hole to retrieve the congealed wine that was like fig cakes. They would then come and burn it in sanctity. Just as the libations were done in sanctity, so the burning was done in sanctity.

Rebbi: The Torah described the libations in terms of endearment, satisfaction and intoxication.

R. Yehuda bar Lakara quoting R. Shmuel bar Nachman: Since the Temple was destroyed, there is no longer congealed wine nor white glass. What is white glass? White glass that was (soft and) flexible.

(The Mishnah had taught (earlier 49-1 (a) 5.) that the two holes in the two silver bowls were of different widths) They wanted to suggest that the wider hole was for the water and the narrow hole was for the wine; as R. Yona quoted R. Imi as saying that a hole that is not wide enough to allow water to flow out, allows wine to flow out; even if it does not allow wine to flow out, it allows oil to flow out. If it does not allow oil to flow out, it allows honey to flow out.

One could even say the opposite - it is R. Yehuda who said that they would use a Lug all eight days.

Queries (R' Shimon B"L to R. Yochanan): What if he performed the libations before sacrificing the Korban Tamid? What if he performed it at night? What if he did not perform it today - may he compensate and perform it tomorrow?

Answer (R. Yochanan quoting R. Ila quoting R. Yosi): The Pasuk states (Bamidbar 29, 31), "and its libations" - this refers to both water and wine libations. This teaches that if the libations preceded the sacrifice, it is valid. Also, if he performed the libations at night, it is valid. Finally, if he did not perform it today, he may not compensate and perform it tomorrow, as there is a law that when the day passes, the day's obligations have also passed. (If there is a sacrifice that is brought on a specific day, if that day passed, there is no way to compensate.)

Rabbanan increase the quantity of water and decrease the number of days of libations; R. Yehuda decreases the quantity of water but increases the number of days.

Some say that it was the very same Sadducee who slaughtered the Red Heifer after immersing and waiting until nightfall (which is a requirement only according to the Sadducees' understanding of the Torah); he also poured the libation water on his feet and on Yom Kippur, he burned the incense before entering the Holy of Holies.

R. Simon disagrees - he said either it was the same Kohen for the Red Heifer and Sukos stories and another Kohen for Yom Kippur; or it was the same Kohen for the Red Heifer and Yom Kippur and another Kohen for the Sukos story.

According to the opinion that he died a short time after he wrongly performed the Yom Kippur service, he could have been the Kohen in all three stories. (He slaughtered the Red Heifer between Yom Kippur and Sukos and he poured the water of the libations on Sukos.)

According to the opinion that he died immediately after leaving the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur, when worms came out of his nostrils and an imprint of the foot of a calf was seen on his forehead (from an angel that hit him) - it could not have been the same Kohen as the one who poured the water libations on his feet, as he had already died before Sukos.

Rather, either the Red Heifer and the libations were the same Kohen but Yom Kippur was a different Kohen; or the Red Heifer and Yom Kippur were the same Kohen and the libations were done by a different Kohen.

In another incident, concerning the behaviour of the sons of Eli the Kohen Gadol, the Temple Courtyard cried out against them - "Go out from here, go out from here, sons of Eli, you have profaned the House of G-d!"

On that day (when they pelted the Sadducee with their Esrogs), the corner of the Mizbeach became damaged and they put on it a lump of salt to camouflage the damage; as any Mizbeach without a Keren (corner), a Sovev or a Yesod is considered damaged (and invalid).

Question (asked to R. Abahu): The Pasuk states (Vayikra 16, 17), "No person may be in the Tent of Meeting at the time when the Kohen Gadol enters the Holy of Holies to atone, until he leaves" - even angels, about which the Pasuk states (Yechezkel 1, 10), "and the appearance of their faces was that of a person" - they may not be in the Tent of Meeting at that time. So how could the angel come and hit him?

Answer (R. Abahu): It is only forbidden for angels to come when the Kohen Gadol performs the correct, valid service - in this case he did not.