The Eddie D. Sit edition, an audio series of the Talmud Bavli, Masechet Zevachim, has been dedicated by our good friend and student of the Shiur Daf Yomi, Binyamin HaKohen, known as Benny C. He has dedicated this Masechet, and with the help of God, may he have success and prosperity. Being that he is a Kohen, with God’s help, when the Mashiach comes, he will serve in the Beit Hamikdash alongside the other Kohanim in the merit of this Masechet, which specifically discusses the avodah of the Kohanim in the Beit Hamikdash regarding the Korbanot. Today’s daf is Daf Kuf Yud Aleph. We begin today's daf on Kuf Yud Amud Bet, four lines from the bottom.
The text states: “The one who pours three log of water outside on the festival is liable.” Rabbi Elazar states, “If he filled them for the purpose of the festival, he is liable.” This introduces a machloket between the Tanna Kamma and Rabbi Elazar. The Tanna Kamma asserts that if you took three log of water during Sukkot and poured it outside, you are liable. In contrast, Rabbi Elazar adds a condition: if you filled them with the intent for the festival, then you are liable. Both agree on the liability, but Rabbi Elazar emphasizes the intent behind the action.
What is the practical difference between their views? Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak suggests that they are arguing about whether there is a minimum measure for the water. Is there a required amount, or can one bring as much water as desired? Everyone agrees that a minimum of three log is necessary, but the question arises about whether more can be brought to the mizbe'ach.
The Tanna Kamma states that if one pours three log, they are liable, and this applies even if more is brought. The minimum is indeed three, but if one pours six, the three are included in the six. If one fills a large vessel with six log and pours it out, it all becomes sanctified, and thus, if brought outside, one would be liable as well.
However, Rabbi Elazar maintains that the maximum is three log. He argues that anything beyond three does not contribute to the sanctity required for the mizbe'ach. This leads to a significant distinction: Tanna Kamma believes that any amount poured becomes sanctified, while Rabbi Elazar asserts that only the first three log are valid for the mizbe'ach.
As the discussion continues, we see that the debate hinges on whether the water poured outside retains its sanctity. Rabbi Elazar argues that if the water is filled with the intent for the festival, it must be filled in the appropriate vessel, whereas the Tanna Kamma does not require this condition. This highlights the differing views on the role of intention and vessel in the sanctification process.
In conclusion, the machloket between Tanna Kamma and Rabbi Elazar revolves around the definitions of liability and sanctity regarding the water poured for the festival. The implications of these rulings stress the importance of both intention and the vessel used in performing the avodah as prescribed in the Beit Hamikdash.