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.

A long mishnah... specifically on how grain-offerings can be brought with invalidating intent, and how that will make the offerings "pigul." Yet, sometimes, the offering will be invalid, but the punishment for that would not be "karet" (and other times, it would be karet). Plus, the measure of an olive's worth, and the impact of that size portion. Also, the distinction between a sinner's grain-offering, in that the frankincense is not offered, and the burden of violation to the extent of pigul is slightly harder. Plus, again, whether a half-olive measure of eating and a half-olive measure of burning can combine to make a full-olive measure of violation (spoiler: the answer is no).

More on the kohen's fistful from the grain - ensuring no barrier to the grain itself. Plus, the physical description of how to take the grain in one's hand, with the understanding of a basic action - namely, what it means to take a handful. But what about if one used fingertips? Are all fingers supposed to be involved? The Torah has phrasing from which some details may be gleaned. Also, the frankincense! Which itself is (usually) essential to the menahot. Plus, a dispute about what happens for an offering of frankincense on its own, as compared together with the grain-offering (or the lehem hapanim).

When the Torah uses the term "finger" or the term "kohen," it is understood to always mean the right hand. The bias against the left-hand is already understood, but note that the Torah specifies the right-hand on occasion. But there are other occasions when the left-hand was explicitly called for (also as per the Torah) - to the extent that Rabbi Shimon allowed left-handed acceptance of the blood. Going back to the verses, "finger" AND "kohen" is necessary in his estimation. And the mishnah seems not to have included this machloket.

If oil and grain for the grain-offering were mixed outside the wall, would that be kosher as an offering or not? It's a machloket! With verses as prooftexts for each view. Also, left-handed grain-taking, which is, again, problematic in terms of the grain-offering. Plus, the explicit mention of the left-hand in the verses about the person recovering from tzara'at, and the way the rules of interpretation handle it (no pun intended).

On the "griddle-cakes" of the kohen gadol, Rabbi Yohanan addresses how partial cakes can be sanctified. But a beraita makes it clear that they needed to be brought as full cakes, not partial ones, so the kohen gadol could bring the amount of a smaller cake for the morning and afternoon, which might be lesser in some aspect, but no less sanctified. How does all of this connect to the ordinary minhah offering - why not learn one from the other? Plus, when do you bring a "havitin" without oil? Frankincense? With 4 "gufa" inquiries on this daf, referring back to the case on the previous one.

On the offering that is brought by a person who would make it invalidated, which means that there's no rectification for the grain-offering, by returning the fistful to the original vessel. Also, that vessel only functions to sanctify something when it's not on the ground. [Who's Who: Rav Avimi] Rav Avimi seems to have forgotten his Torah, especially that of Tractate Menahot - and there's discussion of his experience of studying with Rav Hisda. Also, more on the question of the vessel on the ground - where Rav Sheshet says: Go look and see what people do (but how did that work, generations after the Temple?). With recourse to the example of switching/refreshing the Lehem HaPanim (the shewbread). But isn't the Table (the Shulhan) resting on the ground?!

More on learning the details of the treyfa from "min ha-bakar" - to disqualify the treyfa. How several verses work together to learn the teaching that the Gemara wants to prove. Plus, a new mishnah! With a list of ways the offering would be rendered invalid. Also, a statement from Rav that seems to contradict the statement that a non-kohen taking the fistful of the grain would render it invalid. Can this error simply be redone? That may depend on the details of the case.

What happens in the case of a person who needs purification from tzara'at - a whole process - where the order of the tasks may make a difference in terms of validity - in the goal of using the case of tzara'at to answer the question the grain-offering, and ultimately rejecting it. Also, another parallel to animal sacrifices... in terms of paving the way for the sanctification of sacrifices, including, for example, melikah (of the bird). Plus, a kal va-chomer vs. verses understanding, where neither is quite rejected.

The meal-offerings that are exceptions to the general acceptance of them when offered in error: a sin-offering, and a minhat kena'ot, the "jealousy" offering of the sotah-woman. With verses to establish why the sin-offering is necessarily different, while the sotah-offering is a little more complicated, and dependent also on some logic. But wait - there's another offering that cannot be offered with any error of intent: the Omer! Which permits new grain for use, so if it was not brought correctly, it wouldn't permit the new grain. With a parallel to the nazir. And what about a guilt-offering?

Where are the most sacred offerings brought? And the less sacred offerings? That is, the northern and southern parts of the Temple courtyard, respectively. And what happens if the offering were brought in the wrong part of the courtyard? Also, what happens if one's intent is not for a grain-offering, but an animal sacrifice, for example? Or not for the right grain-offering? Intent is evident in the different kind of grain-offerings produced (fried, fluffy dough, etc.). And yet, the evident wrong-intent rarely invalidates the grain-offering. Why?

Shifting away from the animal sacrifices of Tractate Zevahim to grain-offerings and the particulars of offering from grain. The first key aspect of a grain-offering is removing a fistful of grain from it, and the parallel is drawn between the handling of it and that of the blood that was collected from animal sacrifice for the altar. Opening with a new mishnah, of course: If that fistful were taken, but not in the name of the offering being brought - the offering is still valid except for a sin-offering and a "minhah kenaot" - a "jealousy" offering that is brought by the Sotah woman. Also, the various kinds preparation of grain-offerings (all of which would be fit) - a flat griddle fried cake, a more spongy dough, etc. So if the kohen offered one in place of the other, with wrong intent, it's still clear what was done, and it leaves the grain-offering fit because it's identifiable. Note the difference between a grain-offering that is brought because the given offering is supposed to be from grain, as compared to when one is offered for the sake of an animal sacrifice, but when there was some reason that the animal wouldn't be brought.

More on private altars - beginning with whether a nighttime slaughter on a private altar was permitted. Plus, other details of the nature of the particulars of the acts on the altars. Also, issues of intent (back to pigul!) on the public altar in an era when there were private altars too. Plus, the effort to derive the laws about the private altars from the known laws about bird offerings and their potential for disqualification (specifically about timing and non-kohanim).

More on the altars outside and prior to the Temple - from Gilgal to Nov & Givon, and Shilo (when private altars weren't allowed). The Gemara explains that a verse in Deuteronomy that speaks of "menuchah" (rest) and "nachalah" (inheritance) should be applied to Shilo and Jerusalem, or perhaps the reverse. Also, investigating the claim that there were no grain-offerings at a private altar. The Gemara also pushes for implicit recognition that bird-offerings and grain-offerings were fundamentally different from larger animal sacrifice, which seem to have been more special.

What offerings were made in the wilderness, after leaving Egypt? In Gilgal? What verses spurred Rabbi Shimon's opinion to say only some few sacrifices were made at Gilgal? The Pesach offering was made, of course. Note that the Children of Israel left Egypt without having been circumcised for years and years - until they then did circumcise themselves, with implications for their religious lives, including their offerings. Also, the 3 places the Divine Presence rested on the land of Israel: Shilo, Nov & Givon, and the Temple in Jerusalem. Plus, the fact that all of these places seem to have been in Binyamin's portion of the land of Israel. But what about Yehudah? And even Yosef? Also, the chronology of where the Mishkan was when, from the verses themselves.

When the Children of Israel stopped for some time at Gilgal, when private offerings were allowed. But what offerings did they actually bring? And which were simply not done then? Also, a deep dive into the sacrifices brought by a nazir. Plus, what it takes for an offering to be voluntary.

Which animals were allowed to be sacrificed altogether? Male, female, blemishes and not, etc. But what about a treyfa (an animal that was going to die within the year)? Plus, the Gemara probes the implications from this status to the animals that boarded Noah's ark. Distinguishing between "clean" and "unclean" animals may have been unclear before the giving of the Torah, but they could derive which animals were kosher and not by virtue of how many of each was saved on the ark (7 for the kosher animals, even if they didn't yet know that they would be "kosher" animals). Also, the Gemara eases into halakhot about non-Jews bringing offerings outside of the Temple, and on private altars that were not acceptable for the Jews (at that time). Plus, the possibility of lacunae in the biblical verses cited by the Gemara. And the Jews could advise the non-Jews as to how to make the offerings, but not do it themselves.

A dispute over whether one is liable for slaughtering a premature guilt-offering outside of the Temple - a very specific case. Also, if what you slaughter isn't fit to be a Temple offering to begin with, for example, than there's no liability. Plus, offerings that were allowed to be brought outside of the courtyard (or, rather, the Tabernacle) because it hadn't yet been established as the sole location for this. Thus, in the wilderness - offerings were made in the Tent of the Meeting, and largely by the class of the first born, rather than the kohanim. At least, until the kohanim were established at the day of establishing the Tabernacle itself. Also, the deaths of Nadav and Avihu, their father's reaction, their uncle's reaction, and what it means to sanctify God in their deaths.

On blemished animals, premature animals, an animal and its offspring - any of these offered outside of the Temple would not make the person offering them liable, but they still violate a negative commandment. With some dispute over premature animals. Plus, the people who aren't ready to bring their offering - not the animal being unready, but the person who needs to bring it have no yet finished the time they need to wait to fulfill the process of becoming ready for the offering. For example, waiting the number of days before the possibility of purification kicks in, as per the Torah. Plus, the Amoraic refining the phrasing of the mishnah.

On slaughtering the red heifer "outside of the pit" has to mean more than "outside of the Temple," as this offering was always made outside of the Temple. So what is the concern here? The Gemara provides a few suggestions. Also, a sidestep away from the dispute between R. Yochanan and Resh Lakish on the daf about the concern of impurity in the land - and whether there might be bones in the ground from the time of the Flood (which, if there, are reason to be concerned about impurity in the ground). But did the Flood actually come to the land of Israel? And could there be anything interfering with the (apparently identifiable) bedrock? Plus, women would give birth to children who would draw water to contribute to the next red heifer offering (as part of the process) - children who were kept free of ritual impurity to be able to play this role. And if that isn't clear for the whole land, then at least Jerusalem - where R. Yehoshua essentially stipulates that the holy city is not impure. Also, more on the Flood itself - and how the huge animals were saved from the waters, given that they wouldn't have fit on the ark.