Zevachim 111A

בקרבו נסכים במדבר פליגי.

They disagree with regard to whether one is liable for pouring a libation outside the courtyard that was not first consecrated in a service vessel. This dispute is based on a disagreement with regard to whether wine libations were offered in the Tabernacle in the wilderness before the Jewish people entered Eretz Yisrael. The Talmud will soon explain the logical connection between the two issues.

רבינא אמר: בלמדין ניסוך המים מניסוך היין פליגי.

Ravina said: Everyone agrees that wine libations are valid even if they are not first consecrated in a sacred service vessel. Therefore, one who pours a wine libation outside the courtyard is liable even if it was not first consecrated in a service vessel. They disagree with regard to whether the liability for pouring a water libation can be derived from that of a wine libation. The first tanna holds that it can; R' Elazar, son of R' Shimon, holds that it cannot.

תנו רבנן: המנסך שלשה לוגין יין בחוץ ⁠– חייב. רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון אומר: והוא שקדשן בכלי.

§ A baraita states: One who pours as a libation 3 log of wine outside the courtyard is liable. R' Elazar, son of R' Shimon, says: And that is in a case where he first consecrated the wine in a sacred service vessel.

מאי בינייהו? אמר רב אדא בר רב יצחק: בירוצי מידות איכא בינייהו.

What is the difference between them? Rav Adda bar Rav Yitzḥak said: The difference between them is with regard to whether the overfill of measuring vessels is also consecrated. Both agree that one is liable for pouring a libation outside the courtyard only if it was first consecrated in a service vessel. The first tanna holds that the liquid that rises above the rim of a vessel is also consecrated, and if one collects 3 log of that liquid and pours it as a libation outside the courtyard he is liable. R' Elazar, son of R' Shimon, holds that only the wine within the walls of the vessel itself is consecrated.