Sukkah, Daf Mem Tet, Part 2
Introduction
In yesterday’s section we learned that the wine and water libations would drain out into the "pits" which lead down to the deep abyss that lies at the center of the world. Today’s section provides a different imagination of the where the wine libations would drain out.
תניא, אמר רבי אלעזר בר צדוק: לול קטן היה בין כבש למזבח במערבו של כבש, ואחת לשבעים שנה פרחי כהונה יורדין לשם ומלקטין משם יין קרוש שדומה לעיגולי דבילה, ובאין ושורפין אותו בקדושה, שנאמר +במדבר כח+ בקדש הסך נסך שכר לה’. כשם שניסוכו בקדושה כך שריפתו בקדושה.
It has been taught: R. Elazar b. Zadok said: There was a small empty space between the ascent and the altar, on the west side of the ascent, and once in seventy years the young of the priesthood used to descend there and gather up from there the congealed wine which looked like round cakes of pressed figs, and they would come and burn it in a state of sanctity as it is said, "In the holy place you shall pour out a drink-offering of strong drink to the Lord" (Numbers 28:7) just as its libation was done in sanctity, so too was its burning be done in sanctity.
According to R. Elazar b. Zadok there was a space between the ascent to the altar and the altar platform itself. The wine libations would drain out into this space. Young priests would clean out this congealed wine once every seventy years and then burn it in a holy place. Truly a once in a lifetime opportunity, for the lucky young priest! That they would burn it in a holy place is proven by a midrash, but the midrash is a bit puzzling and shall be explained below.
מאי משמע? – אמר רבינא: אתיא קדש קדש, כתיב הכא +במדבר כח+ בקדש הסך נסך וכתיב התם +שמות כט+ ושרפת את הנותר באש לא יאכל כי קדש הוא.
But what does [this midrash] mean?
Ravina said: An analogy is made between two appearances of the word holy." It is written here, In the holy place your shall pour out a drink-offering of strong drink to the Lord , and it is written elsewhere, "Then you shall burn the remainder with fire, it shall not be eaten, because it is holy" (Exodus 29:34).
As I stated above, the midrash doesn’t seem to make sense. It is not clear how R. Elazar b. Zadok uses the verse to derive the notion that the congealed wine must be burned in a state of holiness. Ravina explains that it is based on an analogy of the word "holy (קדוש)" in Numbers and in Exodus. In Exodus the Torah says that something that cannot be eaten because it is holy, must be burned. This is applied to the congealed wine, which is also holy.
כמאן אזלא הא דתנן נסכים, בתחילה – מועלין בהן, ירדו לשיתין – אין מועלין בהן.
לימא רבי אלעזר בר צדוק היא. דאי רבנן – הא נחתו להו לתהום!
אפילו תימא רבנן, בדאיקלט.
Whose view is followed in what we learned, "The law of sacrilege applies to drink-offerings at the beginning, but after they have descended into the pits, the law of sacrilege does not apply to them."
Must we say that it is that of R. Elazar b. Zadok, for if it were that of the rabbis–the pits descended to the abyss?
You may even say that it is that of the rabbis, [but it refers to] where it was collected.
We have now seen two opinions as to where the wine libations drain off into the abyss or into the pits. The Talmud analyzes a mishnah in light of this dispute. The mishnah says that if one makes use of drink-offerings before they have been poured out on the altar he has committed sacrilege illicit use of a holy item. But once it has been poured out, sacrilege is not committed by use of the wine. The Talmud suggests at first that this must accord with R. Elazar b. Zadok because the rabbis hold that the wine drains off into the abyss. There would be no reason to say that one who uses it commits sacrilege if there was simply no access to it.
The Talmud resolves that the mishnah could follow the rabbis (the wine drains into the abyss) if a person put a vessel there to collect the wine before it drains into the abyss.
I should note that this mishnah shows that in normative/halakhic texts the rabbis picture the wine draining off into a place from which it may be collected. It is in aggadic texts that they consider the wine as going down the abyss. We shall see more about this concept later.
ואיכא דאמרי: לימא רבנן היא ולא רבי אלעזר בר צדוק, דאי רבי אלעזר – אכתי בקדושתייהו קיימי! – אפילו תימא רבי אלעזר, אין לך דבר שנעשה מצותו ומועלין בו.
There are some who say: Shall we say that it is that of the Rabbis, and not that of R. Eleazar b. Zadok, for if it were that of R. Elazar b. Zadok, [the objection would arise:] Are they not still in their state of holiness?
You may even say that it is that of R. Elazar, for sacrilege cannot apply to anything whose commandment has already been fulfilled.
The Talmud now notes that in a different sense the mishnah may accord better with the rabbis who hold that the wine drains off into the abyss. For according to R. Elazar b. Zadok we might think that if one were to derive benefit from the wine after it drains off into the space between the altar and the ascent he has still committed sacrilege. After all, this congealed wine must be burned. So how can the mishnah accord with R. Elazar b. Zadok.
The answer is that even R. Elazar agrees that once the mitzvah to pour the wine out onto the altar has been fulfilled, one who uses the wine has not committed sacrilege.