Talking Talmud

A long mishnah (or a series that are published together): If a get is written with a name of a place that is not legitimate... Or other goofs in location... If other details are wrong... When is the get not a get? Plus, how a get that is not a get can really mess up a second marriage, and children from the second marriage. Plus, co-wives are treated like the divorcing woman too. Also, a deeper dive into the country that is not legitimate, and other countries as named in divorce. Plus, Rabbi Meir's approach in creating mamzerim.

Essential component elements of offering sacrifices on the altar - including the laying on of hands, on the head of the goat (for example). Also, the concept of the sacrifice of Nachshon - namely, the "prince" of the tribe of Yehudah, representative of all of the tribute by the tribes in the wilderness (Parshat Naso in the Torah), in contrast to the sacrifices as commanded for the generations to implement. Plus, being liable for each of the component parts of kneading, shaping, and baking the grain-offerings, as delineated in the mishnah on the previous page (and the accompanying beraita). Also, bloodletting that might save an animal's life, with protections in place to prevent kohanim from engineering blemishes for non-holy meat. (5 opinions in total)

A new mishnah! With basic directions as to how to make and shape the grain-offerings, with a clear prohibition against "chametz"/leaven, except for 2 specific grain-offerings. Including the source from the Torah to prohibit leaven from the altar. Plus, does each act with offering count as a prohibition (kneading, shaping, baking) or just as one? It's a case of a generalization and a specification, followed by a general case again. The specific statement therefore comes to teach something about the general statement. Note that proximity in the original text matters.

How much flour needs to be measured out for the grain-offering? A minimal amount, so that even the poorest sinner can manage the offering. And that flour? It's dough, not just loose, powdery flour. Also, fresh figs vs. dried figs in terms of figuring out the volume or number when it comes to giving terumah (and the question of whether that's terumah gedolah or terumat ma'aser).

Chapter 5! On preparing the dough... with a new mishnah that explains that all of the grain-offerings are matzah (unleavened), with two exceptions. Plus, a discussion on how leavening was used. Plus, an important genealogy on the descendants of Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah (who himself could trace back to Ezra). Also, a gripping aggadic story about Abraham (the patriarch), the Destruction of the Temple, and the destiny of the Jewish people, as mirroring the negotiation between God and Abraham with regard to the destruction of Sodom and Gemorrah and divine punishment.

More on the griddle-cakes... which were brought together with the daily offerings of the morning and of the afternoon. This raises the question of how much flour went into each offering - was the 10th of an efah of flour divided between the two daily offerings, or per each of them? Plus, the same question as applied to the frankincense, in terms of quantity with regard to each daily offering of the morning and of the afternoon. Where one approach relies on the verses and another on the logic (again, neither being tested in a taster kitchen). Also, when the kohen gadol died and another hasn't yet been appointed, the question of how much of the offering should be brought is asked as well - is he bringing, as it were, a double-portion for the kohen gadol, as it were, if he needed to bring for both of them.

On Rava's opinion about the kohen gadol's griddle-cake offering. The griddle-cake involves flour and oil, but the measurements of each are not clear -- and are therefore subject to interpretation and deriving the details, whether from the verses or logic. Note the recipe that doesn't address taste, but rather learned inferences. Also, a new mishnah! The commitment to the offering of the havitin, even when the kohen gadol whose job it was to bring them has died. Even though one expects the next kohen gadol to have been appointed before the previous one died, but not always... and rather than have the havitin paid for by the treasury, the kohen gadol's heirs had to cover it. Until they went back to having the treasury pay for it, because people weren't abiding by the decree for the heirs to pay.

More on the incense - including differences between communal incense vs. individual's incense. Also, the parallel is drawn between the gifts of the 12 tribes' princes, as told in the Book of Numbers (Parshat Naso) and the offering of this incense. Also, back to grain-offerings! And a specific recall of the "havitin" brought by kohanim, and the special one offered by the kohen gadol -- that were offered by Aharon and his sons in the Torah. With specifics for preparing those offerings.

More on Shavuot and its lambs... If older animals were brought - it's a dispute, whether they would count for the offerings of Shavuot or not. That is, if the intent is correct; if not, then not. Also, if the kohanim made something pigul - then that is invalid, even if it was done inadvertently. Plus, a new mishnah - with more on essentiality: the daily offerings and the additional offerings of a given day, when both are not possible, for whatever reason. Also, in the case of missing an offering, the ability to make it up later in the day was real, unless there was intent to miss it. But if inadvertent, fulfilling the obligation for the offering later on was acceptable. Likewise, for incense. Plus, the order of precedence in the case of a community that could only offering one of the given offerings.

The case of slaughtering 4 lambs with the 2 loaves of Shavuot (instead of 2 lambs), then how is that error handled? Two of those lambs are not offered for their own sake, since they aren't presented in the right context, as, for example, a generic peace-offering. That is, the first two lambs have already fulfilled the Shavuot requirement. Also, Rav Yitzhak comes from the land of Israel to the study halls of Babylonia, and he teaches: Animals that are offered for the wrong purpose cannot be used, but must be left to burn... And his rationale for disqualifying these offerings is by virtue of comparison with the sin-offering. Until the Gemara turns the argument on its head and suggests that this mandatory peace-offering is more similar to the voluntary peace-offering, which would leave it a valid offering. Plus, if the animal that is brought is the wrong animal, for example, if it is the wrong age, those are disqualified.

More on the loaves and lambs of Shavuot and how the slaughtering of the lambs with the proper intent consecrates the breads too. Plus, the possibility of possible consecration (which is not possible according to everyone, but it is in the view of some). Also, the strength of the connection between the lambs' slaughter and the consecration of the loaves. What happens if that bread is lost? Plus, the sprinkling of the blood for its own sake... And how if the offering is made for its own sake, there's a lot more wiggle room than when the question is not asked. Note that all these lambs - which are peace-offerings - need to be brought in a timely way.

The bond between the animal sacrifices of the holiday of Shavuot and the "Shtei ha-Lechem" loaves of the same holiday, and when they are both required, as essential, and when one could be offered without the other, if need be. Also, a deeper dive into the the loaves of the Shtei ha-Lechem to begin with, and how they have to be changed in appearance (and if and when they are to be eaten). The rabbinic approach to the lambs seems to contradict the Torah's requirement - which needs its own deeper dive, as well.

More on aspects of Temple worship that are not essential to each other. Also, the treatment of the Temple offerings for Rosh Chodesh from the Book of Yehezkel (Ezekiel) - which is not the same thing as that which is commanded in the Torah. And once the Gemara is talking about a source from Ezekiel, it opens the discussion to other challenges -- including an important story of Rabbi Haninah ben Hizkiyah and how he explained all of the difficult passages of Ezekiel. Plus, a new mishnah! Bringing us back to the discussion of essentiality. With an atypical dispute in the mishnah itself - given the explanations for the respective opinions: Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Shimon ben Nanas, and Rabbi Shimon.

On the "hilazon," the crustacean whose blood is used to make the tekhelet: the murex trunculus, and its form, function, and impact. Also, the Gemara tells the story of a sage who was particularly careful about the mitzvah of tzitzit, and, indeed, they end up protecting him from sin (and then in reward for his resolve to not sin, he is given the very opportunity that was prohibited - but now permitted for him). Also, 2 mishnayot! 1 - Non-essential libations with regard to each other. But what about the grain-offering itself? 2 - The bull, the ram, and the lamb of the Musaf offerings - are not essential for each of the others to be accepted.

More on tzitzit and the garments they are to be tied to. Also, all men need to wear tzitzit on a 4-cornered garment. What about women? Slaves? Those questions are subject to dispute - including the argument that they are positive, time-bound commandments, from which women are exempt. Plus, the parallel between tzitzit and sha'atnez, and the role of kohanim in wearing sha'atnez. And what about garments with 3 or 5 corners? (Hint: The 5-cornered garment needs tzitzit, but the 3-cornered one does not) Also, the focus on tzitzit being a time-bound mitzvah - for the daylight, specifically because "you shall see them" is included in the mitzvah of tzitzit. And in the seeing, the one wearing them is to remember.... some specific mitzvah, or all of them.

Where should the tzitzit be attached to the 4-cornered garment? How long do tzitzit need to hang down? But they don't have a measure... or at least not as long as they are long enough to count as being "strings." A point upon which Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai agree. Plus, is there a blessing made upon tying tzitzit or only upon wearing them? Also, diving into the details of the dying of tekhelet and its rules. Plus, the need for expertise - and just how special the tekhelet was.

Some unusual cases pose questions for tzitzit - for example, when a 4-cornered garment is folded in half. That is, is the garment obligated in the tzitzit or is the person obligated in wearing them? Plus, the plausibility of getting out of wearing tzitzit at all, followed by an encounter with an angel - who acknowledges that, in a time of God's anger, even unfulfilled positive mitzvot might be held against a person. Also, if a garment were made entirely of tekhelet, the tzitzit could be of any color, it would seem, except for the indigo plant dye. But wouldn't the tzitzit also need another color as well?

A dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shamai on whether a linen cloak is obligated in tzitzit (including tekhelet, that is, which has to be a wool thread). Is that a problem of sha'atnez? The halakhah follows Beit Hillel. So what is the rabbinic decree and how should they publicize it? From what garments need the tzitzit, the Gemara moves to the concern of indigo, which is a plant-based dye and fraudulent when it comes to tekhelet, and that itself received a rabbinic decree -- against people using it and err with regard to the mitzvah inadvertently. Also, the concern of sha'atnez being in a night garment, which itself would be exempt from tzitzit. Plus, the early pious folks who would tie tzitzit on the corners before 4 were even present - which raises the question of "adding" to a mitzvah, which itself is prohibited.

On how to tie tzitzit (another one of those very "visual" descriptions in words). Including the winding and knot-tying of the 8 threads on the corner. Also, the interaction of colors of blue and white, and which is considered holier - for an increasing level of holiness in how they are tied, with symbolism and deeper meaning as implied. Plus, how wool strings will cover the mitzvah of tzitzit for a 4-cornered garment made of linen, without a concern of sha'atnez (the reverse may not be an issue of sha'atnez either, but it's more complicated - and doesn't work - because of the blue string needing to be wool). And what about silk?

Chapter 4! With a new mishnah. On tzitzit, and the verses that pertain to this mitzvah, including the prohibition against sha'atnez. Note that neither the tekhelet string nor the white strings prevent the fulfillment of the mitzvah of tzitzit. Plus, the rediscovery and use of tekhelet in the modern era. Also, the white strings are used first, but if they're added to the garment out of order, the mitzvah is still fulfilled. So does the order matter or not? And what about a garment that is fully made of tekhelet? The lack of essentialism here ends up being essential.