2. Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Janneus • Janneus, Alexander • Janneus, Alexander, Passover riots • Janneus, Alexander, Temple gates • Janneus, mentioned in Antiquities
Found in books: Noam (2018) 117, 118, 128, 130; Simon-Shushan (2012) 118, 262
48b. כמין שני חוטמין דקין (ואחד) מעובה ואחד דק כדי שיהו שניהם כלין בבת אחת מערבו של מים מזרחו של יין עירה של מים לתוך של יין ושל יין לתוך של מים יצא,ר\' יהודה אומר בלוג היה מנסך כל שמונה ולמנסך אומר לו הגבה ידך שפעם אחד נסך אחד על גבי רגליו ורגמוהו כל העם באתרוגיהן,כמעשהו בחול כך מעשהו בשבת אלא שהיה ממלא מערב שבת חבית של זהב שאינה מקודשת מן השילוח ומניחה בלשכה נשפכה נתגלתה היה ממלא מן הכיור שהיין והמים מגולין פסולין לגבי מזבח:,48b. with two thin perforated nose-like protrusions. One of the basins, used for the wine libation, had a perforation that was broad, and one, used for the water libation, had a perforation that was thin, so that the flow of both the water and the wine, which do not have the same viscosity, would conclude simultaneously. The basin to the west of the altar was for water, and the basin to the east of the altar was for wine. However, if one poured the contents of the basin of water into the basin of wine, or the contents of the basin of wine into the basin of water, he fulfilled his obligation, as failure to pour the libation from the prescribed location does not disqualify the libation after the fact.,Rabbi Yehuda says: The basin for the water libation was not that large; rather, one would pour the water with a vessel that had a capacity of one log on all eight days of the Festival and not only seven. And the appointee says to the one pouring the water into the silver basin: Raise your hand, so that his actions would be visible, as one time a Sadducee priest intentionally poured the water on his feet, as the Sadducees did not accept the oral tradition requiring water libation, and in their rage all the people pelted him with their etrogim.,Rabbi Yehuda continues: As its performance during the week, so is its performance on Shabbat, except that on Shabbat one would not draw water. Instead, on Shabbat eve, one would fill a golden barrel that was not consecrated for exclusive use in the Temple from the Siloam pool, and he would place it in the Temple chamber and draw water from there on Shabbat. If the water in the barrel spilled, or if it was exposed overnight, leading to concern that a snake may have deposited poison in the water, one would fill the jug with water from the basin in the Temple courtyard, as exposed wine or water is unfit for the altar. Just as it is prohibited for people to drink them due to the potential danger, so too, they may not be poured on the altar.,From where are these matters derived? Rav Eina said that it is as the verse states: “With joy sason you shall draw water out of the springs of salvation” (Isaiah 12:3), indicating that the water was to be drawn from the spring and the rite performed in extreme joy.,Apropos this verse, the Gemara relates: There were these two heretics, one named Sason and one named Simḥa. Sason said to Simḥa: I am superior to you, as it is written: “They shall obtain joy sason and happiness simḥa, and sorrow and sighing shall flee” (Isaiah 35:10). The verse mentions joy first. Simḥa said to Sason, On the contrary, I am superior to you, as it is written: “There was happiness simḥa and joy sason for the Jews” (Esther 8:17). Sason said to Simḥa: One day they will dismiss you and render you a messenger parvanka, as it is written: “For you shall go out with happiness simḥa” (Isaiah 55:12). Simḥa said to Sason: One day they will dismiss you and draw water with you, as it is written: “With joy sason you shall draw water.”,The Gemara relates a similar incident: A certain heretic named Sason said to Rabbi Abbahu: You are all destined to draw water for me in the World-to-Come, as it is written: “With sason you shall draw water.” Rabbi Abbahu said to him: If it had been written: For sason, it would have been as you say; now that it is written: With sason, it means that the skin of that man, you, will be rendered a wineskin, and we will draw water with it.,§ The mishna continues: The priest ascended the ramp of the altar and turned to his left. The Sages taught: All who ascend the altar ascend and turn via the right, and circle the altar, and descend via the left. This is the case except for one ascending to perform one of these three tasks, as the ones who perform these tasks ascend via the left, and then turn on their heel and return in the direction that they came. And these tasks are: The water libation, and the wine libation, and the bird sacrificed as a burnt-offering when there were too many priests engaged in the sacrifice of these burnt-offerings in the preferred location east of the altar. When that was the case, additional priests engaged in sacrificing the same offering would pinch the neck of the bird west of the altar.,The mishna continues: Rabbi Yehuda said that they were limestone, not silver, basins, but they would blacken due to the wine. The Gemara asks: Granted, the basin for wine blackened due to the wine; however, why did the basin for water blacken? The Gemara answers: Since the Master said in the mishna: However, if one inadvertently poured the contents of the basin of water into the basin of wine or the contents of the basin of wine into the basin of water, he fulfilled his obligation. Then even the basin for water would come to blacken over the course of time as well.,§ The mishna continues: And the two basins were perforated at the bottom with two thin, perforated, nose-like protrusions, one broad and one thin. The Gemara asks: Let us say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and not with that of the Rabbis, as we learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: One would pour the water with a vessel that had a capacity of one log on all eight days of the Festival, unlike the wine libation, for which a three-log basin was used. According to his opinion, there is a difference between the capacity of the wine vessel and that of the water vessel; therefore, it is clear why the opening in the wine vessel was broader. As, if the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, they are the same as the capacity of the water basin, three log. Why, then, were there different sized openings?,The Gemara answers: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, the reason for the different-sized openings is that wine is thick and water is thin, and therefore wine flows more slowly than water. In order to ensure that the emptying of both basins would conclude simultaneously, the wine basin required a wider opening.,So too, it is reasonable to establish that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as, if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, unlike the description of the two openings in the mishna as broad and thin, elsewhere he is of the opinion that the openings as wide and narrow, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: There were two small pipes there, one for water and one for wine. The mouth of the pipe for wine was wide and the mouth of the pipe for water was narrow, so that the emptying of both basins would conclude simultaneously. The disparity between wide and narrow is greater than the disparity between broad and thin, thereby facilitating the simultaneous emptying of the three-log and one-log basins according to Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.,§ The mishna continues: The basin to the west of the altar was for water, and the basin to the east of the altar was for wine, and they would tell the one pouring the water to raise his hand. The Sages taught: There was an incident involving one Sadducee priest who poured the water on his feet, and in anger all the people pelted him with their etrogim. And that day, the horn of the altar was damaged as a result of the pelting and the ensuing chaos. They brought a fistful of salt and sealed the damaged section, not because it rendered the altar fit for the Temple service, but in deference to the altar, so that the altar would not be seen in its damaged state.''. None | |
|
