They disagree as to whether libations were offered in the wilderness. (1) Rabina said: They disagree as to whether we learn water libation from wine libation. (2) Our Rabbis taught: One who makes a libation of three logs of wine without, is liable. R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon said: Provided that he [first] sanctified them in a [service] vessel. Wherein do they disagree? — Said R. Adda the son of R. Isaac: They differ about the overflow of measures. (3) Rabbah the son of Raba (4) said: They disagree as to whether libations were offered at the Bamoth, and in the controversy of the following Tannaim. For it was taught: A private Bamah does not require libations: these are the words of Rabbi. But the Sages maintain: It does require libations. (5) Now, these Tannaim [disagree on the same lines] as the following Tannaim. For it was taught: ‘When ye are come [etc.]’: (6) Scripture prescribes [the bringing of] libations at the great Bamah. You say, at the great Bamah: yet perhaps it is not so, but rather at a minor bamah? (7) When it says, into the land of your habitations, which I give unto you. (6) surely Scripture speaks of a Bamah in use by all of you: these are the words of R. Ishmael. R. Akiba said: ‘When ye are come’ prescribes libations at a minor Bamah. You say, at a minor Bamah: yet perhaps it is not so, but rather at the great Bamah? When it says, ‘into the land of your habitations,’ Scripture speaks of a Bamah in use in all your habitations. (8) Now when you analyse the matter, [you find that] on R. Ishmael's view they did not offer libations in the wilderness, while on R. Akiba's they did offer libations in the wilderness. R. NEHEMIAH SAID: IF ONE PRESENTED THE RESIDUE OF THE BLOOD WITHOUT, HE IS LIABLE. R. Johanan said: R. Nehemiah taught in agreement with the view that [the pouring out of] the residue is indispensable. (9) An objection is raised: R. Nehemiah said: If one offered the residue of the blood without, he is liable. Said R. Akiba to him: Surely [the pouring out of] the residue of the blood is [but] the remainder of a rite? (10) Let [the burning of] the limbs and the fatpieces prove it, he replied, which is the remainder of a rite, (11) yet if one offers them up without, he is liable. Not so, said he, If you speak of [the burning of] the limbs and the fat-pieces, that is because it is the beginning of the service; will you say the same of the residue of the blood, which is the end of the service? (12) Now if this is correct, (13) let him answer him: This too is indispensable? That is indeed a refutation! But now that R. Adda b. Ahabah said: The controversy (14) is about the residue of the inner [sin-offering]; (15) but all agree that [the pouring out of] the residue of the outer [sin-offering] is not indispensable, [you can answer thus]: R. Nehemiah spoke [in the Mishnah] of the residue of the inner [sinoffering]; whereas that [Baraitha] was taught in connection with the residue of the outer [sin-offerings]. (16) If so, let him [R. Nehemiah] answer him: I spoke [only] of the residue of the inner [sin-offerings]? — Rather, he argued on R. Akiba's hypothesis. (17) MISHNAH. IF ONE NIPS A BIRD[-OFFERING] WITHIN AND OFFERS IT UP WITHOUT, HE IS LIABLE; IF ONE NIPS IT WITHOUT AND OFFERS IT UP WITHOUT, HE IS NOT LIABLE. (18) IF ONE SLAUGHTERS A BIRD WITHIN AND OFFERS IT UP WITHOUT, HE IS NOT LIABLE. (19)

---

(1). ↑ Both agree that no standard is required, and when the Tanna says three logs he is not exact, for the same applies even to less. (Tosaf. Rashi reverses it; both agree that there is a definite standard, and liability is incurred only for three, not for more or less.) The first Tanna holds that libations were offered in the wilderness. Now, Scripture states, When ye are come into the land of your habitations (sc. Eretz Israel)... and will make an offering by fire unto the Lord... then shall he that bringeth his offering present unto the Lord... wine for the drink-offering (Num. XV, (2) seq.). This implies that libations became obligatory only after they entered Eretz Israel. This cannot mean at the public Bamoth, since these were the same as the Tabernacle in the wilderness, where libations were already offered. Hence it must mean at private Bamoth, and in this respect it was a new obligation, since there were no private Bamoth in the wilderness. At these private Bamoth, however, there were no service vessels to sanctify the wine before use; hence the wine could not require special sanctification. For that reason the first Tanna maintains that even when private Bamoth were subsequently forbidden, and wine and water for libations would first be sanctified in service vessels, yet if one made a libation without even of water not specially drawn and sanctified, he was liable, since there had been a time when unsanctified wine was used for libations. R. Eleazar, however, holds that libations were not offered in the wilderness. Hence ‘when ye are come’, etc. refers to the Tabernacle at Shiloh, where the wine was first sanctified. Therefore liability is incurred only for wine (or water) specially drawn and sanctified, since we find no instance of unsanctified wine being used.
(2). ↑ They agree that libations were offered in the wilderness; therefore the text must refer to private Bamoth, where unsanctified wine was used. But this was only in the case of wine; water libations, however, were offered only at the public Bamoth, and the water was first sanctified. The first Tanna holds that we learn water libation from wine libation: as liability is incurred for offering a libation without even of unsanctified wine, so is it incurred for water not specially drawn. R. Eleazar rejects this analogy and maintains that since only sanctified water was used in libations, liability is incurred only for same.
(3). ↑ The brim that floats above the actual vessel. Both hold that sanctification by a service-vessel is required; the Rabbis maintain that the overflow is sanctified, and therefore even if the three logs consisted of such overflow, one is liable, R. Eleazar holds that the overflow is not sanctified, and liability is incurred only for wine that was sanctified in the vessel itself.
(4). ↑ Emended text (Sh.M.). Cur. edd, Raba the son of Rabbah.
(5). ↑ R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon agrees with Rabbi that there were no libations at a private Bamah, and so we never find them without prior sanctification; the ‘first Tanna agrees with the Sages that libations were offered at a private Bamah, and these, of course, were not first sanctified.
(6). ↑ Numb. XV, 2.
(7). ↑ ‘Great’ and ‘minor’ mean public and private respectively.
(8). ↑ Hence, a private Bamah.
(9). ↑ V. supra 42b. Therefore it is a service and entails liability if done without.
(10). ↑ And is not indispensable (v. supra 52a); hence it does not entail liability when done without.
(11). ↑ It is not indispensable, for the sprinkling of the blood alone is indispensable.
(12). ↑ Surely not.
(13). ↑ That R. Nehemiah holds that the pouring out of the residue of the blood is indispensable.
(14). ↑ Whether the pouring out of the residue is indispensable or not.
(15). ↑ The residue of the blood of sin-offerings which is sprinkled within, in the Hekal.
(16). ↑ R. Nehemiah admits that that is not indispensable; hence one who offers it without is not liable.
(17). ↑ I maintain that the pouring out of the residue is indispensable. But even if, as you say, it is not, let the burning of the limbs prove that one who offers it without is liable.
(18). ↑ Once he nips it without it is nebelah and not fit for offering up within. He is not liable for nipping it without, as stated supra 107a.
(19). ↑ Because by slaughtering it within, instead of nipping it, he disqualified it, and therefore it could not be offered up within.