Talking Talmud

Two new mishnayot! 1 - What is the proper place of the fistful of grain of the grain-offering? Defining "kimtzah" -- scooping up the meal. That kimtzah was tantamount to the act of slaughtering of an animal sacrifice, in terms of the details surrounding it (of course, it's not animal), like where in the courtyard the procedure could be done. 2 - The bird offering - and other procedures that were done above the red line and below the red line, respectively. Plus, directing traffic on the ramp of the altar, and traversing the top of the altar too.

Building the Second Temple's altar - at which point, they already knew the outline of the building itself, but they weren't quite sure about the altar. How did the know? One suggestion is that the archangel Michael told them in a vision. Alternatively, the "ashes of Isaac" -- as seen in a vision -- were seen in the same place as the altar, namely, since that was also the location of the Binding of Isaac. Alternatively, the scent at the place was that of the offerings, instead of the scent of incense that was designed to improve the overall smell of the place. Plus 3 prophets revealed the necessary details of replacing the altar -- and maybe also to use the now-classic Torah scribal script for writing a Torah scroll. Also, the ramp to the altar were separated by a gap -- which means that the offering was thrown across the gap, and the practice of doing so was derived from a verse.

When the Tabernacle was in Shilo, the altar seems to have been made of stones, and not the copper that Moshe made. But if that's the case, how was there unceasing use of the same altar from Moshe to Shlomo (Moses to Solomon)? The Gemara, of course, attempts to resolve that contradiction to the satisfaction of both claims (no ceasing of the fire on the altar from Moses to Solomon and the ostensibly stone altar). Also, the size of the altar in the Second Temple (long after Solomon's altar in the First Temple), based on a mishnah in Middot. Plus, why the size was increased.

Using a textual comparison to connect the outer altar of Moses with that of Ezekiel - or alternatively interpreted to connect the outer altar of Moses with that of the inner altar of Moses. This inference raises the question of how far that kind of interpretation can go - in light of the specific measurements of these altars: is the altar a "vessel," or not? Plus, the question of whether the courtyard's floor was eligible as a place for the offerings - for example, could the blood really be sprinkled on the floor?! Which raises the concern of just how bloody this process was, and all the more for the night of Pesach sacrifice. Also, questions about the meal-offerings that needed to be eaten at the time of the other offerings -- apparently next to the altar, but that view is revised to establish: not if the altar was broken. Plus, a dive into ma'aser sheni - that was to be eaten in sanctity in Jerusalem - and how that requirement of being in the holy city compared to a requirement of the Temple itself being present at the time too.

If the altar is damaged, the offerings that were slaughtered there - where the damaged altar is - are invalid. Of course, the question then arises, what about the order of operations? Did the offering's slaughter take place before or after the damage to the altar? Also, what happens to an animal that has been rendered disqualified? For example, what if the altar were fixed? Would the offering become acceptable again? Note: The rejected offering is called "dichui." Also, considering how many offerings King Solomon brought on the day of inaugurating the Temple, how did they manage? Was the altar too small? Did the king sanctify the entire courtyard? Or was the phrasing just to be nicer to the altar, as it were?

Chapter 6! With a new mishnah - Is the status of the altar as if it's fully in the north, or only on the northerly portion of the altar itself? Keep in mind that being slaughtered in the north is essential to the sacrifice - namely, for it to be valid. At least, for the kinds of offerings that must be slaughtered in the north to be valid. One solution to the dispute, of course, is the fact that the offerings themselves had different requirements. Also, the Gemara looks for the sources for the northerly location. Plus, where the altar actually stood (not so simple), and the differences between what was relevant for the inside and outside. The details of the options of the antechamber vs. the main chamber are also essential here. All with an eye to the north.

Starting with the last mishnah (on the bottom of 56:) - the offerings of the first-born, the tithes, Passover sacrifice, and more... in terms of what is eaten by whom. Starting with the first-born and the tithing - where the Gemara finds a source for the details and time frame of these offerings. The sages in these discussions are earlier - Tannaim, not Amoraim - and Rabbi Tarfon himself is a kohen. Which makes him more familiar with the details, perhaps. And Rabbi Yossi HaGelili has some questions for him. With a comparison to the piece-offering. Also, why the Passover sacrifice was eaten only at night and only until midnight (or the midpoint of the dark of the night). And it's another dispute between Tannaim - in this case, Rabbi Elazar ben Azariyah and Rabbi Akiva.

The dimensions of the courtyard are key for determining where a person becomes liable for being impure in the courtyard. Plus, the impact on where the slaughtering can be done for kodshei kodshim and kodshei kalim. Also, when the sunset has begun, the blood can no longer before offered on the altar for that same day.

We have 3 mishnayot today - with one at the very bottom of the previous daf. 1. The guilt-offerings (ashamot) together with the peace-offerings, but with a focus on the former - the mishnah delineates the terms of where to slaughter the offering, where to bring the blood, and so on. 2. The mishnah specifies "kodshim kalim," the less holy of the offerings, where the terms were a little more flexible, such as slaughtering the offering anywhere in the Temple courtyard, instead of only in the northern part. Including details about who can be present when the kohanim eat from these offerings in the outer courtyard - or even elsewhere in Jerusalem. 3. Nearly an exact repetition of the previous mishnah, with the focus on the peace-offerings (shelamim). Also, the Gemara explains the location of where the slaughter should happen - noting the opening of the Ohel Mo'ed - the Tent of Meeting - indicate that all areas of the Temple courtyard would be acceptable.

The southeast corner of the altar didn't have a base - but what does that mean? Was there no physical base or does it mean that the base there couldn't be used for the blood? Perhaps it's because of the divide in the property in the portions of Yehudah and Binyamin - where the sacrifice had to be done in Yehudah's portion. Also, the selection of David and Samuel of the place on the hill upon which the Temple would be built - as among the highest places around, "between the shoulders."

2 mishnayot! On sin-offerings - the procedure of how the slaughter, blood, altar, and eating the portions of the offering were all handled. This itemization includes the route the kohen would take on ascending the altar and walking around it (on the top) for the sake of putting the blood on the corners of the altar, with two views on how precisely those placements that needed to happen. Plus, a discussion of the red line that separates between the upper blood and the lower blood on the altar, and the source for it. Also - delineating kodshei kodshim and kodshei kalim, the gradations of holiness of the different sacrifices. Plus, how the division of the land according to tribes is manifest in the Temple - with part of it in Yehudah's portion and part of it in Binyamin's portion.

More on the pouring the remaining blood after sprinkling on the base of the altar.... And the way to conclude the requirements regarding this blood - via logical inference instead of biblical text making the point. The concern being whether this pouring would disqualify the offering, though it seems that everyone agrees that it will not. Which raises the question as to the blood of a bird offering, which might be disqualifying (it's a machloket), moving a step or two away from the original premise of a question. Also, there is, of course, a view that the pouring of the blood is essential (meaning, if it were not done, it would disqualify the offering after all) - as found in a long baraita. But all that material really comes to teach the point of the essential nature of the pouring. Which, of course, is then refuted - or the attempt is made. Plus, a slew of practical questions for which we don't have immediate answers.

Exegetical prowess: "binyan av" - learning the narrow case from a more general case. This category is added to the others: gezerah shavah, kal va-chomer, and hekesh. And the Gemara uses a baraita about disqualified blood as learned from a "binyan av" to probe whether it could then be applied to another binyan av. But that would mean deriving a law regarding that which was improperly done to that which was properly done, and that is difficult. And binyan av is determined to be a less used approach. Also, back to the halakhot about pouring the remaining blood - after the sprinkling - on the western side of the base of the external altar. And what might have been thought to do otherwise. But does the blood really need to be poured out there, when it doesn't bring about atonement or prevent it if it weren't done?

More on rabbinic interpretation of the biblical text and the rules about how that works - by means of gezarah shavah, kal va-chomer, hekesh. What happens when the sages themselves aren't sure that they're inferences and analogies work in the derivation of halakhot? When can logic triumph over textual inference?

Shifting focus to the guilt-offering (the "asham"), and the fact that it too is to be slaughtered in the northern part of the Temple courtyard - along with the blood collection and sprinkling and so on. And, again, the details are derived from the Torah's verses and inferences from one verse to another. Also, the guilt-offering slaughtered by the person who is coming off tzara'at also needs to be in the north of the Temple courtyard. And this derivation is then used to understand certain exegetical rules that apply to elsehwere in the Torah as well. The claim is that the Torah is written in this way to make sure that we learn the halakhah in this way.

The sin-offerings and others needs to be slaughtered in the northern part of the Temple courtyard -- as derived by biblical verses. Plus, the collecting of the blood, the sprinkling of the blood, and the placement of the person collecting the blood. Also, the way "he shall slaughter it" comes to exclude. And the laying on of hands comes into play as a possible exclusion, rather than it being about the northern location for the slaughtering. With a deep dive as to whether the person handling the offering needs to stand in the north too.

Finishing the 4th chapter, with a new mishnah: A sacrifice is slaughtered for the sake of 6 things -- all of which are far less tangible than the animal itself. The kohen's intentions have been preoccupying the Gemara for all these chapters, but now the shift, at the very end, is to the owner's intentions - that is, those of the person offering the sacrifice, even though it's handled professionally, as it were, via the kohanim. Also, starting the 5th chapter, with a new mishnah: The worship of certain sacrifices, from slaughter to collecting of blood to sprinkling of blood, needs to be specifically located in the Temple - in the northern part of the courtyard. To the extent that failing to do so correctly disqualifies the offering. But if the disposal of the blood is not as prescribed, it won't disqualify the offering. Specifically, the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur. Plus, what seems to be the carcasses would be removed to the ash pile outside of the Temple.

How is sacrificial blood excluded from the prohibition against "notar" and impurity? As derived from verses, that is. Likewise, how is blood not subject to me'ilah, after atonement (or even before atonement). Also, how these details are derived from verses that seem indirect or insufficient, when we might have wanted more. Also, why does the Torah mention "karet," the punishment of being cut off, three disctinct times? Each teaches another factor - with a dispute between Rabbi Yochanan and Shimon.

Two mishnayot! When an idolator brings an offering in the Temple... yes, that turns out to be something that could happen. Jewish people can't get benefit from those offerings, but there's no "misuse" of consecretion in those offerings. Likewise, there's no concern of impurity or exchanging the offering. The Gemara, of course, has some level of dispute over the stringencies applied to this kind of case. Also, those practices that were not subject to a violation of pigul may still be relevant for concerns of "notar" - leftovers, in terms of timing - and impurity.

Anything that has permitting factors - specifically, in this case, for the consumption of the consecrated offerings - will, depending, avoid the complicating factor of pigul. If pigul is established with regard to the peace-offering (shelamim), how can it apply to other offerings that aren't quite parallel to the shelamim? The Gemara explains it all very clearly, and pigul indeed is extended even to the oil that the person recovering from tzara'at offers (including non-shelamim meat offerings, bird offerings, and grain offerings). Such a clear delineation of pigul! Also, how it is that kohanim can eat from bird offerings. Plus, the grain offerings and atonement coming from the less likely source of the grain and the birds. With verses to teach it all.

A new mishnah! With a list of cases that would not make a person liable for pigul. The flour of the minchah offering won't become pigul. Likewise, the frankinscense. That is, the offerings themselves may become pigul, but not the ingredients thereof. Those ingredients are what make the offering possible to begin with. Also, on the case of the consecrated food to be eaten by a person who is ritually impure - why is there a need to state both the lenient cases and the stringent cases? Either side of that "equation," as it were, should be inferrable from the other. Note that "Ze'irei" doesn't have a title of "rav" or "rabbi."

Following the dispute about pigul for a meal-offering, the Gemara investigates all the permitting factors for an offering to be accepted, before there are any considerations of pigul. Note that the sprinkling of the blood on the inner altar needs to be done correctly. Also, the count of blood worship tasks: 43 or 47 or 48? If the bloods of two animals mingles, there is room to be lenient, in terms of how many placements there were on the altar.

"With the bull" - looking at the comparison between the goats that would be brought for unwitting communal idolatry and the unwitting sin in other fields. Via the juxtaposition of verses. Also, putting the sacrifices into the context of the Jewish people being beloved by God. With more details on the curtain too.

In light of the placement of blood on the inner altar - either one or two placements - preserving the atonement capacity of the offering, even without blood placed on all four corners, the question of blood on the curtain (parokhet) must be asked. The Gemara establishes that all seven placements must be made on the curtain - but it asks also about four placements, because of a verse with a plural term and R. Shimon's opinion. Also, why does the Torah specify the need for incense on the inner altar (which was the incense altar), as the terms are redundant? Plus, the focus on the verses as source material for the halakhic details.

What happens to the clothing that is sprayed by the blood that is being sprinkled on the altar? With implications regarding laundering the garments worn by the kohanim. Also, regarding the blood that is placed on the inner altar -- which is specifically the sin-offering (goat) of Yom Kippur and the bull offering as well. The placement of this blood is essential to the atonement.

More on Beit Hillel's understanding that one placement of blood on the altar is sufficient - as derived from the "atonement" as stated in each verse about the sin-offering. The Gemara probes whether the law can be derived via logic, which sounds plausible, and not only from the verses - for example, an inference about the outer altar placement of blood because of the placement of blood on the inner altar. Also, not the shift in the cases, where Beit Hillel's position ends up being more stringent, and Beit Shammai more lenient, which is not their usual way. But look to Tractate Eduyot - as early mishnah! Note also more details of the placement of the blood, with details of what makes the placement acceptable to qualify the offering for atonement.

A new mishnah - starting chapter 4! A dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel: How many placements of blood on the altar are required for atonement? Beit Shammai says two places on the altar are necessary, while Beit Hillel says one placement is sufficient. Both of which depend on respective differences in reading verses from the Torah. Plus, what about leftover blood from previous offerings? And can sprinkling of the blood be done via pouring, or are they considered separate acts altogether? The different readings of the Torah's verses are understood to be based on words that are written differently than the way they are vocalized - specifically, "kranot" vs. "kranat" (meaning, corners or corner). With comparable examples from tefillin and sukkah.

A new mishnah! If one slaughters an offering with intent to leave part of it for the next day - whether blood or parts of the animal - or to remove them from the Temple, the offering is subject to a dispute whether it is valid or not. There's no verse to disqualify this case, for example. Plus, when two verses appear to teach the same thing - in terms of not leaving the offering overnight. Also, one who slaughters an offering with intent that people who are ritually impure would eat from it - that offering is invalid, especially because this intent kicks in before the blood is even sprinkled for the offering. Which leads to the question of pigul vs. other invalidating concerns, such as the given person's impurity.

A new mishnah! One who has intent to handle the food of an offering to be eaten at the wrong time or wrong location - or parts of the animal that are not customarily eaten - with a measurement of a kezayit, an olive's worth. But note that less than an olive's worth of something eaten does not combine with less than an olive's worth that is burned in the wrong place or the wrong way. Plus, many other cases, including a fetus or eggs in a female animal at the time of slaughter. The Gemara on the mishnah begins with a statement from the amora R. Elazar, which is unusual. Also, further discussion of intent in such a way that the result is pigul - and pigul itself carries a karet punishment.

More on the debates between Resh Lakish and R. Yochanan: One who has eaten meat from the sacrifices before the blood has been sprinkled... Resh Lakish says this person deserves lashes; R. Yochanan says no. But if the meat itself had become impure, everyone agrees that the one who eats it would be rendered impure - quite different from the individual becoming impure. Also, what happens if the person who is impure who received the blood also conveys it? To what extent and when is the remnants of blood sufficient to render the practice fit? And what about the pouring of the blood? A baraita clarifies. With specific exclusions of remnants from the neck of an animal. With some gory details.

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.

A new mishnah! If the blood from the animal spills on the floor instead of being collected, and only then it's collected, that offering is invalid. The Gemara delves into the verses that teach what is necessary - in terms of what needs to be accepted. Plus, positioning in slaughtering the animal, such that no blood should fall. Also, a dilemma: if the bowl used for collecting the blood drops out before the blood reaches the air space of the bowl, is that valid or not? The answer may be a parallel to a barrel used to collect water from a pipe that may later be used for purification (or not - does the lack of fitness for purification answer the bottomless bowl question, or not?).

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?

A new mishnah! If a Korban Pesach and a sin-offering were slaughtered, but not for their own sakes correctly, then they won't be fit for those specific purposes. And this need for correct intent applies to all 4 acts of worship with regard to the blood - correct slaughter, collecting the blood, conveying it to the altar, and sprinkling it on the altar. But whether conveying the blood is truly part of this worship is opened for discussion. Also, a discussion of pigul - namely, the meat of an offering outside of its specific time of offering. Including a discussion of a kohen who dips a finger in the blood and whether that has impact on the validity of the korban and also on the question of pigul. Part of the issue is that most laws of these offerings are derived from the peace-offering, shelamim, but pigul has different halakhot for the sin-offering.