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.

More on Ulla's opinion (based on Resh Lakish) that partial entry is akin to a complete entry - when it comes to an impure person and the Temple. In the context of "semihah" - laying hands on the animal - needing to be done in the same place as the slaughtering of the animal, usually without interruption (though of course our case is an exception). Note the distance between the gate of Nikanor and its relevance for the person with tzara'at. And note the effort involved for this laying on off hands - beyond just reaching out one's hand and touching the animal. Also, the impure person who handles the sacrificial, consecrated food - will he get lashes or not? (that's the ongoing machloket between Resh Lakish and R. Yochanan)

A new chapter (3)! With a new mishnah. Which continues the topics of chapter 2. If those who are disqualified from doing the Temple service do the slaughter of the offering, the offering is still valid. That is, assuming their intentions are correct, and so on, throughout their practice. What if collecting/receiving the blood is done by someone who is qualified, but hands it off to the disqualified person? What if blood spills to the floor? What if the blood was conveyed to the wrong place? The key element to making sure that the worship is valid is the capacity to revisit it and fix what has gone wrong - as long as there is "dam ha-nefesh." Also, the case of a ritually impure person who places his hand into the courtyard of the Temple - even though he hasn't entered fully - may require lashes (it's a machloket). In the case of the person who has had tzara'at and isn't yet purified, there may be leniency. Of course, the Gemara counters with examples why the leniency would not apply (until the Gemara specifies this impurity as being different).

What happens if the olive's measure of the offering was eaten in combination by 2 people? Is the concern that an olive's measure is eaten, or that the given person ate the olive measure? Or what if the olive's measure was eaten over a long, slower period of time than the usual "half a loaf of bread" time frame? Plus, even if the olive's measure was divided or slow, etc., it would not invalidate the offering - because those same actions don't combine.

More on improper intent for time and improper intent for place - pigul is the issue with time, and one can get karet for it, while improper intent for place is not considered pigul, and karet isn't at stake, though the offering would be invalid. The issues kick in first and foremost if there were two different "avodot" - offerings - and the intents were then confused. Plus, several different approaches. Also, a question of what is really meant by an olive's worth (the measure of ke-zayit), in terms of timing and placement, that perhaps can be answered by the sages in Babylonia. Plus, complicating negative intent removes the offering from the concerns of pigul - or can do so.

NOTE: Current events on the day of today's daf were uplifting and moving and miraculous and poignant (and sad) in many way - today is the day that the 20 living remaining hostages held captive by Hamas were freed. We speak about it briefly in tomorrow's episode, which we recorded on this day, but in the same vein, it bears mention now too. May God provide healing and comfort for those who need either or both most especially, and also for the entire nation. If any of the meat of the korban shelamim (the peace-offering) were to be eaten on the 3rd day, it would be a problem - and if the intent was to eat it then, it would likely be a matter of pigul. Perhaps the timing can be considered in comparison to the day or time passing of the zav or zavah. Also, a very long mishnah - on the particulars of timing and placement and intent, along with the blood having been offered correctly.

A new mishnah! (on the bottom of the previous daf). When there's intent to sprinkle from the blood outside the Temple, or to burn the sacrifical parts of the offering outside the Temple, or to eat from it outside of the Temple, or an olive measure of the skin of the tail - any of these actions would invalidate the offering, but without incurring the punishment of karet. Likewise, with intent for any of those above acts for "the next day," instead of on time - not only would the offering be invalidated (pigul, because of the improper intent), but the person would also incur karet. With a brief deep dive into the tail of the animal, and what is relevant here. But where are these details from? Two verses in the Torah address improper intent, one about place and one about time. Note that one verse is really about pigul and the other about notar - the leftover past the time issue.

3 interpretations of the most recent mishnah: Shmuel maintains that the atonement kicks in when the blood is appropriately on the altar. Resh Lakish, however, says that if the offering is invalidated, the atonement doesn't work, but there is still room for Shmuel's understanding about atonement. A third understanding is R. Yohanan, which is that there's no atonement. Note that the Gemara does relate the views to each other. Also, a shift to focus on the burnt-offering, and Rabbi Shimon's understanding of the details of what invalidates such an offering - with a comparison between the mishandling or error in transferring or placing the blood vs. an issue with the suitability of the animal itself (for example, and this is the Gemara's first example of a problematic animal, the animal used in bestiality).

What happens if the animal to be slaughtered is partly outside of where it needs to be for the slaughtering in the courtyard - Shmuel's father answers Shmuel. Ideally, no. And then the Gemara brings other cases - what the animal were suspended in the air? Shmuel says it's fine, and his father notes that it has to be in the courtyard, and suspension in the air doesn't fulfill that requirement. What if the slaughterer was suspended in the air? Also, a new mishnah - with a list of what is NOT acceptable to do, rather than what is, in terms of where the blood needed to be placed.

The kohen needs to stand on the floor when he's doing the Temple service. When is a stone on the floor part of the floor, and when is it on top of the floor, and how is that counted with regard to the kohen's need to be standing on the floor? What are the implications of a loose stone, as a matter of the Temple's decorum? Also, a deep dive into the given that the kohanim must do the service with their right hands, and when the Torah says, "finger," it also means the right hand.

The Torah teaches that Aaron will bear the sin committed with the sacred items - but what is that sin?? We know about the concern of pigul, so what is added here? Might it be an issue of purity and impurity? Also, another disqualification from the mishnah - namely, a kohen who does his part of the service while sitting instead of standing. Plus, the principle of no two verses deriving the same law, specifically common law, as derived for other cases.

Liquid that can complete the volume of 40 se'ah of water needed for a mikveh also would work to fill the basin in the Temple. The question then is which substances meet this definition of the liquids that can indeed complete the water of a mikveh or the kiyor. Plus, a discussion of the insects that "develop from water" - and the quesiton of science in the Talmud. Also, with regard to impurity that invalidates the kohen for the service, must it come from a dead body? What about a creepy-crawlie? (or reverse the cases, for that matter) Plus, the distinction between those who bring about atonement as compared to those who achieve atonement.

What if the kohen dunks his hands and feet into the basin instead of running the water from the basin over his hands and feet? Does that work? The Gemara delves into the source verses for this practice and suggests that the water must come "from" the basin - though perhaps "in it" works as well. Also, a 3-way debate if the water in the basin remains overnight - is it valid for purification and consecration?

Halakhot brought from the land of Israel to the scholars of Babylonia - Rav Dimi quoting R. Yochanan, on the dilemma raised by Ilfa: If water is left overnight, will that work to sanctify hands and feet? Which themselves can stay sanctified overnight. Also, the question of whether leaving the Temple courtyard would require re-washing and sanctifying the kohen's hands and feet. Can the hands and feet be sanctified outside of the Temple? What about if one needs the bathroom?

On the garments of the kohen - and how he can bandage a finger with a reed, for example, while he is serving in the Temple, but not if he weren't part of the worship at that time. Plus, a full bandage being a concern of being another garment, and being a problem of adding to the required garments. Size being relevant as well. Also, the kohen gadol who purifies for the service of Yom Kippur, including washing his hands and feet, and also considering the clothing changes - missing an immersion doesn't necessarily invalidate his service. With clear details of how the kohen must position himself - which is interesting, given that it's not quite intuitive.

A kohen who isn't wearing all of the priestly garments cannot do the service. And he has to wear them well - but if they are too long or too short or too worn out, that would still be acceptable. But not if we doubled up or left off one of them (4 garments for a regular kohen, 8 for the kohen gadol). What about a bandage (we'll see tomorrow that it depends). Or dirty. All of those factors would invalidate the service. Also, the fabric of the garments have very specific criteria as well - in terms of it being fine linen and the way the threads are made.

The mishnah identified the person handling the offering with the status of a "tevul yom" -- one who is waiting until nightfall for the purity effected by immersing in the mikveh earlier in the day to kick in -- as one whose offering would not be valid. So the search for the source for this conclusion is undertaken by the Gemara - including a comparison to shaving the head and/or points of the face. Also, a sampling of the establishment of norms for those who might bring such a korban - in this case, a zav or one akin to a zav, with an unhealthy seminal emission (one who is a mehusar kippurim) - with a connection to the red heifer.

Chapter 2 - with 2 new forms of disqualification: the wrong person or a person with the wrong status bringing the offering -- or bringing it at the wrong time. The mishnah lists the many people who would invalidate the offering just by virtue of who they are or what their status is. And then the Gemara looks to source each of the people who would have invalidated the offering, with an effort to find the precise ones. Plus, the example of the "onen," the acute mourner, if he is the kohen gadol, whose service would invalidate the offering. As sourced in the story of Nadav and Avihu, and Aaron's refraining from offering sacrifices immediately after their shocking deaths.

More on whether the conveyance of the blood from the place of slaughter to the altar needs to be via walking. Plus, how to handle a bird, whose slaughtering is already at the altar, without collection and conveyance of the blood. The discussion, when reported in the land of Israel generated laughter, which is eventually explained. What about a non-kohen doing the conveying? With all kinds of possible permutations.

Where is the sin-offering slaughtered? And what happens if the offering is slaughtered elsewhere? [What's What: The footprint of the Temple, and which areas are where.] And how does the incorrect intent in the wrong place have impact on the validity of the offering? Plus, the question of whether conveying the blood from one part of the Temple to another needs intent (and whether it needs walking to be valid). Also, can a non-kohen do this aspect of the service? What aspects of this process is the formal "avodah," and what parts are just maintenance, as it were?