Talking Talmud

Given the clear categorization and classification of all of the various factors for the sacrifices, Ullah addresses cases of "kodshim kalim" - when the parts of these offerings were on the offering before the sprinkling of the blood (which was usually necessary to make them suitable for the altar). Plus, a key distinction between animals that were already slaughtered as compared to those that were alive - and already brought to the altar (and then brought down). Also, what about a blemished animal that ended up on the altar? With comparisons brought between bird offerings and animal offerings - specifically, for example, in the case of cataracts. Plus, the timing of placement on the altar - if the blemish precedes the consecration of the specific animal. Also, delving into the details of bestiality - with birds, no less.

On the debate over what items can be taken down from the altar, and which must remain here - and then, against the backdrop of the several tannaitic views, the decision was made. With libations in a different category from the offerings themselves, apparently. Also, a new mishnah! Paying new attention to that which became invalidated before bringing them into the courtyard, let alone on the altar... With a specific list, including idolatry, bestiality, and more. Also, the Gemara on this mishnah that addresses 3 exclusions from the altar - as brought in a beraita -- exclusions for which the blood indeed would be brought down. Specifically, assessing Rabbi Yehudah's view.

Finishing chapter 8: If the kohen brought the blood of the offering into the Sanctuary unintentionally, the offering remains valid - implying that if he had done so intentionally, it would have invalidated the offering, but it seems to remain acceptable anyway. Plus, the Gemara lines up the various opinions to clarify them. Also, beginning chapter 9, with a new mishnah! On how the altar sanctified that which was fit for the altar - with a baseline of the burnt-offering. With discussion of what remains on the altar once it has been put there - even if it should not have been put there initially. Also, more on when that which has been brought on the altar, and should not have been - were they sanctified from their placement on the altar even though they shouldn't have been there? With credit to Rabbi Yehoshua for following his own thinking, though it may not have sat well across the board - for example, something that is fit for the altar, but wasn't offered at that time (certainly, there's no absolute agreement about such cases). Note also that not everything that is to be consumed by fire has the same status of sacrifices (for example, incense).

An outer offering is invalid when its blood is brought into the Sanctuary - which seems to be the sin-offering. With Rabbi Akiva's exegesis. Also, a new chapter and a new mishnah! With cups in and out of the courtyard - again reviewing what invalidates the offering. Also, comparing offerings with a tenant vs. a scheduled release indenture - and why it doesn't quite work.

More on the question of blood that was mixed together - this time, if blood that should have been above the red line with that which should have been below the red line - and it is, of course, a matter of dispute. Also, sources for the blood needing to be where it is placed by which animal on the altar, though there's little practical application, despite the disputes.

A long mishnah that begins on daf 79b: More on mixtures of blood - first, that of an animal with no blemish with that of an animal with a blemish. Which necessitates spilling that mixture down the drain. But the cases here recognize the difference between what is ideal and what needs to be tolerated, or is considered acceptable once it has already been done. Which moves the discussion to the question of placing blood in 4 places or only 1 place on the altar - which some of the blood needs the 4 places, and some the 1, which turns into a dispute over "bal tosif" vs. "bal tigra" -- adding or suppressing to the mitzvah. Also, the Gemara discusses a parallel mishnah - where the dispute is about a blemished limb, rather than this mixture issue. Plus, whether these mixtures work to "blend" -- and when can you cover your bases?

Even a mixture of liquid may depend on majority, though the appearance of the mixture may make the difference -- for example, if the color of the liquid is lighter than it would have been without being mixed with another liquid. With different treatment of spit as compared to urine. But the substance itself can't be nullified by the same kind of substance. Plus, an impure person's urine that is nullified by several mixings with (pure) water (how many times is a matter of dispute). Also, once the impure liquid comes in contact with flax, the impurity remains.

A new mishnah! If the blood of an offering were mixed with blood... it is still acceptable as an offering. What if it were mixed with wine? Or if the bloods mingled.... The blood must appear to be blood, at the very least, rather than whatever other liquid it might have mingled with. Plus, the debate over what it means for the blood to be recognizable. And the question of which liquid becomes the majority - whether it's like with like, or different substances, with ramifications for whether the mixture can be used on the altar.

Two new mishnayot for today's episode (and one for tomorrow's): 1. What happens if the limbs of already slaughtered animals for different offerings are mixed up? With several possible solutions to the mix-up to ensure that nothing is violating the honor and sanctity of the altar. 2. What if the limbs of a valid offering are mixed with the limbs of a blemished offering? And again, with assessment in the Gemara as to how to handle them.

Money from the sale of shevi'it produce cannot be used to purchase terumah produce, lest the permissible time to eat the produce be too limited. But Rabbi Shimon seems to allow terumah spices even when one might have thought the permitted time period is long over. With several cases of back and forth on his views. Also, when the stringencies of both guilt-offerings and peace-offerings - for example - were necessary.

When there's a mix-up of sacrifices and it's not clear who brought which offering, then the question of semihah - the laying on of hands on the animal - comes to the fore. Plus, what if the mix-up is between private ownership vs. public ownership? Or is the mix-up just the blood? And how - again - might it compare to the parah adumah? (Spoiler alert: It doesn't.) Also, all offerings can be intermingled and confused - a strong statement, when some offerings are always male or female, which should not be confusable, for example. Plus, a new mishnah - also about mix-ups, and where they should be treated according to the stringencies that are in each kind of offering (in the example, a guilt-offering and a peace-offering).

More on mix-ups of prohibited animals together with permitted animals... with a tour back to Tractate Avodah Zarah, with a ring of idolatry that was intermingled with other non-prohibited rings. And then one is lost in the Mediterranean. How does that affect the decision about majority? And how does it inform the understanding of the animals...? Plus, the division to form majority - with the specific example of 100 rings. Also, when one of a mixture of 10,000, as the case may be, of which one is prohibited, falls into another group of three, such that it is still in a minority, is it permitted or not? Plus terumah, plus the impact of the Dead Sea.

The principle that is learned from the details surrounding the dried figs, a specific example: when things are sold by number, they can't be nullified in a majority. With some dispute about when and whether the majority can actually nullify the figs, for example. Also, a mixture of sacrifices, where the process of offering them is different, and therefore there's no way to treat them stringently - as in the sin-offering and the burn-offering, where the blood is put below and above the red line respectively.

More on the mixtures, and the unidentifiable element that was prohibited from benefit. With a strong question as to why the rule of negating the prohibited element in the majority that is not prohibited does not apply. Of course, it's a machloket - and contingent on the nature of the mixture, and whether the items can be counted and are sold individually. Plus, the comparison to a mishnah in Orlah, and specific fruits and dried fruits, with dried figs as the example.

Chapter 8! And a new mishnah. On mixtures, when something that is prohibited for benefit is mixed with "regular" items (or, in these cases, animals) of the same kind - such that that which is prohibited for benefit cannot be identified, then the whole lot would need to be put to death. Or, depending on the nature of the prohibition, perhaps all animals put out to pasture until they got a blemish, rather than put to death. Those animals were then sold, and the money was used to purchase new offerings. Also, the details that "any amount" of that which is prohibited for benefit is startling in the larger amount that might be destroyed for that small amount. Note the parallel mishnah in Tractate Temurah, and the fact that both mishnayot (here and there) are needed to teach these laws, or we might end up drawing the wrong conclusions.

A complicated daf.... with a textual comparison of biblical verses, focusing on the words "neveilah" and "treyfah" - both of which are now defined. With many categories and permutations of both, and each, when it comes to different kinds of animals. Plus, a more straightforward passage on the unusual terms of the birds with melikah, when the bird has a blemish, and then in comparison to unusual animal (non-bird) offerings, such as a goat, and then, finally, a focus on the "eglah arufah," the heifer who is then considered its own category.

More on the pinching of the bird - melikah. If done in ways that were considered inappropriate or incongruous (like, at night), then the melikah would be invalid, but without rendering anything impure - not even the clothing of the kohen. Plus, the newly introduced term of a "treyfah," but the definition is yet to come. How does the proper slaughter of a treyfah prevent the impurity that accompanies a "neveilah," carcass?

A new mishnah: When the bird is killed improperly in the context of sacrifices, it does not necessarily constitute a carcass, in terms of conveying impurity. Specifically, melikah vs. slaughtering. Note the question of maturity - including in terms of appearance - of the birds. The Gemara dives into how the phenomenon of melika makes the difference as far as the carcass of the bird is considered. Including an attempted parallel to the red heifer.

Bringing a burnt-offering from a bird can switch to be a sin-offering, if the procedure that is done is the sin-offering practice, instead of the burnt-offering practice. Plus, the queries of the Gemara on this with a contradictory case of two women who bring the burnt- and sin-offerings post childbirth, and what happens in the event of error or confusion.

Chapter 7! Opening, of course, with a new mishnah: Still, with regard to bird offerings, with all the proper details of a sin-offering for the offering to be valid. And then cases that changes an element, such that the sin-offering is incorrectly offered - whether in procedure or intent, the offerings are then invalid -- though not judged for karet. And likewise, the same review for the bird burnt-offering, olah. Also, another long mishnah - with a shift to focus on dead body of the bird, and when "nevalah" - the impurity of the body of a dead animal - might kick in, or not - because the offering does not carry that kind of impurity, or shouldn't, depending on the terms. Going back to me'ilah - the misuse of that which has been consecrated. Plus, can there be misuse of a bird olah, as consecrated? It's a machloket.

When the kohen burns the bird on the altar, in its removed separate body parts, from crop to gizzard. Plus, the examples of when the intent was wrong or the placement was wrong, and so on - and when those errors in protocol invalidated the offering, distinguishing between the sin-offering and the burnt-offering. Also, If the kohen didn't remove the crop, or other parallel removings, then, with implications for whether the offering is supposed to be a sin-offering or burn-offering. With a key dispute and 3 understandings of that particular dispute.

3 things were done on the altar above the red line - including libations of water and wine, and certain details of the bird olah (burnt-offering), and on the southeast corner. Also, specific directions or coordinates where the different parts of the offering must take place. Plus, a new mishnah! Specifically the details of the bird sin-offering. Including a vivid description of "melikah" of the bird - pinching the neck of the bird in such a way as to nearly separate the head from the body. And then all that blood would be placed (or dripped) on the altar. Also, a very long mishnah detailing various practices pertaining to the bird offerings, including that pinch on the neck -- and also the permutations of details that could go wrong with our without significant impact on the validity of the offering.

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.