Talking Talmud

Diving into the details of melikah -- specifically the process, and the debated points of that process. Also, some ways in which melikah is different from shechitah, the slaughtering of the animals that are not birds. Also, on what happens if the bird's neckbone breaks in such a way that it cuts the flesh as well, then there's no shechitah - and the animal is a "neveilah" - with death that didn't happen via shechitah. As compared to a tereifah.

A descriptive daf... of details of slaughtering. That is, cutting the trachea in ways that are not obviously kosher, but may be so, and that leads to disputes over how and when which cutting took priority to determine the kashrut of the shechitah. Plus, a description of the sages sitting in rows and learning, considering different permutations where the shechitah is kosher or not. Also, what if the person doing the slaughtering is not Jewish? When is there leeway to see that shechitah as kosher? And all the implications for melikah...

In the case of a person who doesn't send his knife to be approved by a Torah scholar, the shochet should be ostracized or, alternatively, removed from his position, depending on whose opinion or the specific circumstances. And "removing from his position" doesn't stop there - he can't sell his meat as kosher, and it is to be wiped with feces so that it can't be sold to non-Jews either. Also: 2 new mishnayot - 1: On attempting shechitah with a rounded sickle with rounded serration - it's a machloket whether that's permitted. 2. On where precisely to slaughter on the trachea. Plus, if the slaughtering were done in a lower piece of cartilage, then it's not kosher according to Rav or Shmuel, but then someone who should be their follower (or either) ate from that shechitah. Note the distinction between the leniency in the land of Israel compared to the stringency in Babylonia, and how one needed to navigate the various practices.

On the phrasing of everyone can slaughter, everywhere and when, and with anything that can do proper slaughter (for example, a shard of glass). The Gemara shifts the focus from the animal to the person during the slaughtering - to include the Samaritan and a sinner, for example. Plus, Shmuel's father sent a knife and a question about it to the sages in the land of Israel to determine the permissibility of using it for shechitah. Also, the concerns about notched knives and how we know to check such a knife from the Torah. Plus, the different ways of checking the knife, including the sage who tested it on his own tongue.

What if one accomplishes shechitah by means of a mechanism that slaughters the animal - is that shechitah kosher? The answer lies in how much human involvement there is to activate that mechanism. Also, parsing the statements that "all are slaughtered" -- namely, every animal needs proper slaughtering. Plus, how eating meat in the wilderness was not allowed because shechitah wasn't possible, but then, when the Israelites came to the land of Israel, they were able to slaughter and eat the meat of animals. And now (in the time of the Gemara), after exile, shechitah continues instead of returning to the practice of the wilderness. Plus, the dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva with regard to how meat could be made acceptable in the wilderness.

More on Hilkhot Shabbat - with a baraita that connects between Hullin and Shabbat. One who cooks on Shabbat without intent, one can eat that food (though the person who cooked it may have to wait until after Shabbat, depending on whom you ask) - even before the end of Shabbat. If it was intentional, then the food can't be eaten, even after Shabbat, by anyone. Also, what about doing shechitah for someone who is ill on Shabbat, in the event that such a person would need that meat on Shabbat? The ill person is eligible to eat this meat, of course, but can a healthy person eat from that same shechitah that was done on Shabbat? Note the rabbinic decree to prevent the temptation of increasing the cooking on Shabbat. Plus, all tools that are sharp enough and smooth enough will yield a kosher shechitah.

A new mishnah (a tiny one)! One who slaughters an animal on Shabbat or Yom Kippur is liable for a death sentence, but the shechitah itself is kosher. But that would only hold true in the case where nothing could have been done to prepare the same shechitah before Shabbat (at the latest, some time on Friday) -- otherwise, it has to be prepared in advance. Especially if meat were to be given to dogs, for example. But can an animal really be "prepared" in advance? Are they really in the world to serve human beings? The Gemara says that their primary purpose is to live in the world, reproduce, and so on. Also, the rest of the Gemara addresses many different concepts of Shabbat - the first being "nolad" -- that which comes into existence on Shabbat. With application to the juices that emerge from the fruit over Shabbat (grapes, olives, and more). Plus, the concern regarding when animals are in the service of human beings - after shechitah is clear, but when in the decision to slaughter the animal to begin with?

A case where one brings produce to the roof of a building to keep it away from insects, but it gets wet from dew, which makes the produce eligible to become impure. Plus, the ways in which intent (or lack thereof) has impact on the kashrut of one's shechitah (or one's sacrifice). Also, two very brief mishnayot: 1. If a non-Jew slaughters an animal in a way that would be kosher if it were done by a Jew, the animal is considered a "neveilah" and it imparts ritual impurity. 2. If one slaughters at night - or if a blind person slaughters - the shechitah is kosher, with some apparent difference of opinion whether that is considered kosher even in an ideal situation or only after the fact.

Do you need to see the entire process of shechitah to be able to trust that it was done properly? The Gemara has a case that does require one to see the entirety of the process, but we know that that isn't usually how it works (so often, we do not see any of the process of shechitah!), so the sages delve into the particulars of the case. Perhaps it's a question of whether you know the shochet's level of knowledge and expertise. Also, if one chooses an agent to go slaughter an animal and the agent discovers that the animal was already slaughtered - can it be trusted to be a kosher shechitah? What about terumah that was set aside? Would it have been set aside properly?

A quantifiable majority determines the outcome of an unknown, as per the biblical verse: "Follow the majority." But with an unquantifiable majority - what is the source for the principle to apply in those cases as well? Note that the Gemara supports this principle with 9 examples -- that is, 9 sources as possibilities from which it is understood or derived. Note also that checking the reality of the situation isn't the issue; the sages are intent on establishing the sources and using the majority to establish "truth," rather than looking for the truth in other ways.

Given that the knife for shechitah cannot be notched, there was an event when a knife was discovered to be notched after it was used to slaughter 13 animals. But if he only discovered that to be the case after the last animal's shechitah, then maybe it became notched along the process and the first animal(s) were not a problem. The big - and perhaps indeterminable - question is when did the knife received its notch? All of which leads to the conclusion that the knife must be checked (for notches and whatnot) before each and every act of shechitah. Also, investigating the source of "chazakah" (the given status of a thing unless or until proven otherwise). Beginning with the example of tzara'at, in the case of a house. But what if that tzara'at is behind the door? Or in a dark house? The question of whether there's a tzara'at lesion to find does not require spotlighting the whole house in the search! Note that the source of establishing a given is in the context of tzara'at, and not kashrut, but it's not the first time they are linked.

A Torah scholar must learn 3 skills: writing, kosher slaughtering, and circumcision. And 3 additional things are subject to dispute - whether they are skills that are required or commonplace: tying the knot of tefillin, the blessing for the wedding, and tying tzitzit. Also, standards of presumption regarding an animal: while it's alive, the presumption is that it's not going to be kosher. Once it's slaughtered correctly, then the presumption is that the animal IS kosher, unless a blemish is discovered. Also, what if a wolf bite is clear on the innards of an animal - but perhaps it's a puncture after the shechitah? Or might the bite have obscured a hole that would have made the animal a treyfa? What about a snake's poison? But the wolf/intestine is a concern of a prohibition! And the snake concern is about danger, which requires greater stringency!

If you heat a knife to white-hot, the shechitah done with that knife is kosher, because it was already sharp enough before it was hot. The concern is whether the slaughtering was done with the knife's blade or if it was done via the heat and a burn. The Gemara contrasts the issues that pertain here to the details of tzara'at, which has a long-standing tradition "halakhah le-Moshe mi-Sinai" regarding the measure of impurity. Plus the details of shechitah as applied to a case of tzara'at. Also, the 3 knives that the butcher needs to cut the meat and the forbidden fats, and to keep the forbidden from contaminating the permitted. Plus, distinctive indications regarding which knife was which.

Does produce from Beit She'an need tithing? How is this even a question - Beit She'an is clearly part of the land of Israel. Note the Gemara's initial focus on how a sage isn't going to change his mind -- with various interpretations of the Hebrew term used here to note that he won't be dissuaded. Back to Beit She'an - it all goes to the human consecration (and re-consecration) of the land as essential to the holiness that results in land-based mitzvot, and the decisions made for the sake of the local poor. [Who's Who: Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair] Also, a story of the animals of the righteous. With a story of R. Pinchas ben Yair being able to split the river (for easier passage) - and with allusions to the splitting of the Red Sea -because of his own stance that it should - and God granted the miracle. Which rolls into a story about a stubborn donkey who wouldn't eat non-tithed barley. Plus, the concerns about preventing the suffering of animals and the righteous who take up their cause. Plus, Rabbi Hanina's statement that any injury or suffering in this world was decreed on high - with all the accompanying theological conundrum.

A story involving R. Asi and R. Zeira about eggs that were cooked on wine - did that combination carry a risk of "demai" (possibly untithed produce)? Where even R. Asi wasn't thinking about this concern - and how God prevents error by those who are righteous. Which leads us into the ongoing discussion of mixtures or combinations. Also, what about the concern of the population of those unschooled (am ha-aretz) in the halakhic arena of tithing? What if the person who is ignorant switches out that food, perhaps out of concern that it goes bad, or one's personal status of being impure/pure to be protective. That is, one's intent could be entirely on target, but the action is still problematic for a potentially demai mixture.

On the way Yehoshafat stuck by Achav, even when it came to the reliability of his shechitah, despite Achav being guilty of worshipping idols. Note the relationship between the king of Yehudah and the king of Yisrael, despite the divine among the tribes. Plus, the ravens who brought Eliyahu (Elijah) the Prophet his daily bread and meat... ostensibly from Achav's slaughterhouse (so how can Eliyahu have eaten that shechitah if it weren't acceptable? But he's really in a different reality). Plus, what if these ravens were people, not ravens? Also, a return to the Kutim/Samaritans - how it was determined to reject their shechitah after all. Plus, God protects righteous people from inadvertent sinning - or, in this case, not eating meat that wasn't slaughtered properly.

If one finds a string of birds in the possession of a Kuti, there are various ways of increasing rigor to test whether the Kuti had done the slaughtering properly, each of which concludes with determining whether the Kuti himself would eat from his shechitah. That is, where they accepted the halakhic requirements, they were incredibly careful -- and if they didn't accept the requirement to begin with, then they weren't trustworthy. Also, investigating Rava's view on one who intentionally eats non-kosher food - and yet that person can be relied upon for his assessment of kashrut, and even if that person does idolatry. Plus, the human enticement of food and drink just won't work for the Divine.

More on the contradiction in the first mishnah of the tractate, with attempts to determine what caveat works for the distinction between the ideal circumstances for kosher slaughtering as compared to after the fact. With a spotlight on the case of the "Kutim" (Samaritans) whose shechitah was accepted if overseen by an observant Jew. [Who's Who: Kutim/Samaritans] The question is what degree of supervision is required. And the test for kashrut is whether the Samaritan himself would eat his own shechitah. Plus, rounding up all 6 opinions regarding careful reading of the mishnah to draw that ideal/after the fact (lekhathilah/ bedi'avad) distinction.

An introduction to Hullin, including the meaning of the term and the likely original title of the tractate. Also, details of how to manage ritual slaughter (for any kind of slaughter, including non-consecrated meat). And the first mishnah! Everyone is eligible to do this slaughtering -- except for the usual 3 (deaf-mute, cognitively impaired, or a minor). Though, if they did it, and under supervision, and the slaughtering is done correctly, then it would be kosher too, at least after the fact. But does "everybody" always mean this distinction between the ideal situation and after the fact? With parallels to elsewhere in the halakhah that disprove that idea.

The Gemara picks up on yesterday's mention of King Hizkiyahu, one of the few truly righteous kings of Israel, and how he not only was a good example among Israel, but also for the neighboring nations. Plus, the Mediterranean region from Tyre to Carthage (likely) were said to have known God, though the rest of the world may not have. Also, the recognition of Torah study as of supreme value, especially once the Jewish people were in exile, beginning in Babylonia. Also, a final mishnah! With a profound understanding that one's pure intent is what determines the value of the offering, and whether its "aroma is pleasing to God," and not how large or expensive it is. Plus, the hunt for the source of this idea.

A new mishnah! One who makes a vow to bring an offering must do so in the Temple in Jerusalem (as compared to local personal offerings)... and also as compared to the replica of the Temple in Egypt: Beit Honio (or the Temple of Onias). And Honio was the descendent of Simon HaTzadik. [Who's Who: Simon HaTzadik] [What's What: The Temple of Onias] The historical context is essential here, in the era on the path to the downfall of the Second Temple... Note that the phrasing of one's vow will make the difference as to whether one could bring the offering in Beit Honio at all, though it obviously ought to be offered in Jerusalem. Plus, a baraita that delves into the question of where the Temple of Onias went wrong - namely, was it really a seat of idol worship? And who was "Honio"? Why did he agree to dress like a woman? And what was the state of the Jewish people in this era?

More on the collection horns - and why there were 6 of them. Plus, the case of an animal that has been dedicated as an offering and then it becomes blemished before it is sacrificed - perhaps he could replace the 1 animal with 2 others (and what if then those 2 are blemished too?). Could a different kind of animal be swapped? Of course, each unusual case is a matter of dispute. With a deep dive into the possibility of replacing the blemished offering with something that might have been perceived as lesser than the original - to the extent that Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi did not accept those replacement possibilities to begin with. And another mishnah: what happens when there is confusion regarding which offering has already been consecrated. Starting with the larger one (of two). Or the middle one (of three). And defaulting to the most generous option.

2 mishnayot! 1 - A wine libation may be brought on its own, but what about oil? And what if one makes a vow to do so in an unspecified amount? Or if one isn't sure what the vow was? What are the minimum amounts that would cover the vow? Also, consideration is paid to which days have the most required offerings brought. And what really happened -- in contrast to a boundary-pushing question? 2 - On fulfilling the vows for a certain kind of offering, rather than the animal itself, such as an "olah," burnt-offering. The mishnah stipulates that that means one should bring a sheep. Of course, if one isn't sure what one vowed, the list of what must be brought gets long and complicated, to cover the bases. Plus, all kinds of misspeaking or misremembering what the vow might have been, and how to fulfill it. Also, the 6 collection horns for donated funds in the Temple - and why those 6 specifically.

A debate between Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi and the Rabbis - based on how many offerings must be brought to cover all bases to fulfill a vow when the details of that vow have been forgotten. What is the status of all the offerings that aren't fulfilling that vow? Also, one who takes a vow to bring wood for the altar - is that to burn the other offerings or is it an offering itself? The Gemara seems to understand it as an offering in and of itself. With a limitation that bringing an offering of wood must bring 2 logs (at least). Plus, 5 cases of fistfuls - primarily around the frankincense. Plus, the shock value measuring stick of determining how much one's donation of gold or silver or copper might have been.

Chapter 13! With the new mishnah, and a focus on oaths regarding grain-offerings. What happens when one takes an oath, but isn't sure what amount he'd specified in his oath. That is, how to cover the oath by a "maximum" of the grain-offering (or all of them, as the case may be). Also, who taught that one might need to bring all of them? The Gemara approaches this question by a process of elimination, almost, establishing first who did not subscribe to this view, before concluding whose view it was. With parallels drawn from the Nazir and the person recovering from tzara'at. Is Rabbi Shimon's view dependent on his allowing sacrifices to be brought conditionally?

Another 2 mishnayot! 1 - Making donations of libations to the Temple must be made in the specific amount of the offerings themselves, rather than being too much or too little for the one given libation. Which gives rise to the question whether libations need to be in fixed amounts or not. And that answer is elusive. 2 - With regard to bringing oil as its own offering - that doesn't really work, according to Rabbi Akiva, but Rabbi Tarfon says it does work. Why would oil be different from wine in this regard? But they are. Also, some restrictions on one who vows to donate grain-offerings, depending on what he has or has not specified. Plus, the significance of the grain-offering.

2 mishnayot! 1 - If one makes a vow to bring a voluntary grain-offering, but the phrasing makes it an invalid vow in some way or other, then the vow is incumbent upon the person who misphrased it. Which seems stringent, rather than looking for an opening to let the oath-taker out of the oath. With a dispute as to how this works between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai - namely, why the oath is still incumbent upon the person who misspoke. 2 - If one makes a vow to bring a grain-offering of 60-tenths of an ephah of fine flour, he can bring it in one vessel. But if one takes a vow to bring 61-tenths of an ephah, that would entail one vessel of 60-tenths and another of one-tenth. The day that would require 61-tenths is the first day of Sukkot if it falls out on Shabbat. With the clarification that, yes, that degree of precision with the measurements is necessary for compliance with halakhah.

On consecrated items and ritually impure items -- and how they are not treated the same in halakhah with regard to their prohibited use and their respective liabilities. Plus, the specific properties of food in its capacity to be rendered impure. Plus, the timing of the sprinkling of the blood of an animal sacrifice. Also, the wording of a vow to bring a grain-offering will have significant impact on what the obligation becomes. With examples of how a vow can go unfulfilled when the oath and the offering do not match.

Chapter 12! With a new mishnah - redeeming the sanctity of grain offerings and libations, especially when the item has become impure. But what happens if the item is pure? Plus, complex Gemara on the impurity and redemption of these items, with various opinions on when precisely the redemption can be implemented, with a focus on the monetary sanctity.

2 mishnayot to finish chapter 11! What if the items from the table were moved on the wrong day (that is, the shewbread and the frankincense)? What happens if they remain present past the time of Shabbat when they are supposed to be removed correctly? Plus, a dispute over premature offerings -- and what is considered a "premature" offering (including thinking it was daytime when it was still night). Note also the many ways that the offerings and other substances are sanctified throughout the process. Also, the days that one can eat the bread from the 2 loaves of the Shavuot offering (namely, 2 or 3 days from the baking of the loaves, depending on how the holiday falls out in proximity (or lack thereof) to Shabbat). Plus, when the loaves can be baked on the holiday, though not on Shabbat or Yom Kippur.

More on King Solomon's 10 tables, and how the kohanim put the shewbread on Moses' table and not Solomon's (or was it one table at a time, including Solomon's tables?). Also, the concept of increasing in holiness and never diminishing it - as familiar from Chanukah, and applied here. Plus, not mocking one who has forgotten his Torah, but treating such a person with respect -- and a key example of how a sage's own life story may have impact on the positions he takes in the Gemara. Also, a new mishnah! Of the tables, and of two at the entrance of the sanctuary, one was marble and one was gold - with the preparation for the shewbread and then the staged removal of the old shewbread. Plus, the pageantry of switching in the new shewbread for the old. And the brief days during which eating the bread was valid (and how two days of not cooking led to Babylonian returnees eating raw meat). Also, the question of when to learn non-Torah subjects like Greek philosophy.

More on the set-up of the Temple, including a larger "amah," that was the one of Shushan, and also a smaller measure, which was most significant for the craftsman building the Temple. With an open discussion about representation of the foreign king in the Temple, which seems difficult. Could it be metaphorical? Maybe, but it sounds more literal. Also, healing trees. Plus, presenting the actions of King Solomon, in terms of setting up 10 tables and 10 menorahs in the Temple, with specific placement in the north and south of the courtyard respectively.

All of the mention of "amot," the measure of a forearm, that are mentioned in the Temple are "medium-sized" cubits -- which was 5 or 6 handbreadths, depending on what was being measured. Also, the application of those amot of different lengths, as concluded from the description of the Temple's measurements in Ezekiel.

Opening with a very (very!) long mishnah on the 12 loaves of the shewbread, including their process and their location and their shaping and their measurements and their placement. Also, how some of that processing overrode Shabbat rules, and some did not. Rabbi Akiva's general principle here is that if something can be done before Shabbat, it will not override the laws of Shabbat, but if it cannot be done before Shabbat (and not because a person ran out of time), those practices would override Shabbat. Plus, some of the comments of the Gemara - specifically on the way the shewbread was bent upwards but a significant measure, and set up on rods to allow the air to circulate and prevent mold.

On the lehem ha-panim, the 12 loaves of the shewbread - what happened to this offering when the Israelites were traveling in the wilderness, and need to switch the loaves from shabbat-to-shabbat? Would the bread become invalidated through the moving? Also, a new mishnah on how the 2 loaves of Shavuot and the 12 loaves of the shewbread are the same in processing. Including what is consecrated and requires the Temple courtyard for processing in vessels. Plus, a backhanded compliment for Rav Sheshet.

Closing chapter 10: A new mishnah! On the ways that semichah (laying on of hands) is more stringent than the requirement of waving the animal parts, and the ways that the waving is more stringent than semichah. And a potential contradiction as to whether the laying on of hands was as limited as the mishnah makes it sound (with a very nice resolution, too). Opening chapter 11! With a new mishnah - back to the 2 loaves of Shavuot and the lechem ha-panim, and the process by which they are kneaded and baked. Including safeguards to prevent mold. Plus, a puzzling apparent mismatch between the shape of the pans and that of the loaves.

Yesterday's mishnah raised the case of heirs bringing a sacrifice on behalf of someone who died before being able to offer it - and whether they would do the laying on of hands. Here, we are privy to a contradiction in the materials over whether they do it. Plus, another mishnah, with the list of all those who can, under the right circumstances, do the laying on of hands (semichah). Also, more on the semichah - specifically, how it was done with 2 hands, and how we know that it is supposed to be done with 2 hands. Plus, Resh Lakish's stance on this halakhah and the way he argues for and against it, with some frustration.

On the requirement of "semicha" - the laying on of hands before slaughtering an animal, and how it's the subject of the first recorded debate in the Oral Law. Plus, the way the placing of hands is part of the process of offering the sacrifice, together with atonement. Also, which animals require that laying on of hands? It's not all of them - where a bull does require it, but the goats brought in atonement for idolatry, well, that's a machloket. And what is the province of the elders, as compared to Aharon/the kohen gadol?

The Torah mentions offerings that are voluntary, and that theoretically could come to include a burn-offering, but the Torah also specifies the burnt-offering so that the details of accompaniment are also learned (for example, the libations). And we see the halakhic hermeneutical principles of deriving the general, the specific, and the general -- which concludes with a narrower application that one might have thought. Also, the specifics of offerings that indeed involve accompaniments -

2 new mishnayot! 1: All the dry measures used for measuring in the Temple were expected to be heaping measures. But one of the liquid measures for a unique usage (the kohen's grain-offering) was explicitly larger to be used as a level measure. Plus, the question of whether the measuring vessels were consecrated on the inside and on the outside or only on the inside - and the ramifications of that for any overflow and whether it becomes sanctified. 2: The animal sacrifices that are accompanied by libations. With the variations per different purposes of the offerings.

It took 3.5 log of oil to light the menorah - half a log per cup (with 6 branches, plus the shamash). That's the precise amount of oil to burn through the night, but did they figure that out by using excess oil and working the amount down, or did they start with a little and keep adding until they made it through the night? Also, a new mishnah: where libations that accompany the animal sacrifices were transferrable or combinable among some specific sacrifices. Plus, the lamb that was brought by the person recovering from tzara'at for the guilt-offering needs libations together with it.

More on the measures of liquids - and how the "hin" measuring cup was made by Moses in the wilderness, and then it wasn't used. Plus, a new mishnah - on the quarter-log and its uses, including the ratios of oil to flour. Also, the measure for the menorah's cups, and the process of removing them to fill them.

A final mishnah for chapter 9: On sourcing the wine for libations in the Temple. With limitations on the practices that would damage or sour the wine. Also, the checked the wine for impurities. Plus, speech was understood to be detrimental for wine. And the first two mishnayot of chapter 10: Listing measuring vessels for dry goods, with 2 measures, and for wet, with 7 different measures.

On "shemen ha-mor" - the oil of myrrh, which a discussion of how Queen Esther beautified herself among the other girls in the beauty contest, until the king chose her to be queen. With the question of defining what this oil was used for (an anointing or a depilatory). Also, a new mishnah - with a focus on olives and the several harvests and various pressings of them, attesting to the various qualities of oil too. And another mishnah - 9 degrees of oil, where the top level would be just prohibitive for the grain-offerings, but were always taken for the menorah oil.

2 mishnayot! 1 - Which grain is not acceptable - in this case, specifically listed, but after the fact, the grain would be accepted if used. Plus, how one works the land to grow good grain - from sowing to plowing to timing. 2 - The olive trees in Tekoa were the main source of olive oil for the Temple. After that, the trees in Regev. And after that, any other olives were still kosher, as long as they weren't coming a fertilized grove or an irrigated grove, as above regarding grain.

Which barley is to be used for the omer offering? During a sabbatical/shemitah year, they couldn't plant, but they could collect the natural growth, which they did. That collection needed to be as for food, however, and not for fuel -- because shemitah produce could not be burned. But it wasn't quite burned either.... Also, a deep dive into "first fruits/bikkurim," and how they were to be brought from the 7 species from the land of Israel. Plus, refinement of the details of the bikkurim as brought, based on the verses, and also the basic growth and whether it was in a field or elsewhere, for example. But why weren't bikkurim offered for all fruits and not just the 7 species?

On the sanctification of the many kinds of offerings, including the absorption into the sanctity. Plus, leading into the Pesach sacrifice, and when it might be invalidated as the korban Pesach, but still work as a peace-offering. Also, beginning chapter 9! Grain, oil, and wine, as used in the Temple service - from the new mishnah specifying where the grain can come from. The best grain, and from the land of Israel were required for the omer offering and the 2 loaves of Shavuot, but for most grain-offerings, there was a great deal of flexibility.

The case of one who designates ma'aser sheni money towards a peace-offering, can that work? The Gemara delves into the level of sacredness of the various properties. Also, a new mishnah! One who takes an oath to bring a sacrifice... which leads us right into the Passover offering, in perfect timing. Really, on the question of what funds can be used to purchase the offering. Also, more on the purchase of the all mandatory offerings - which are bought with non-sacred funds.

More on the mnemonic and exchanging a korban todah -- what if the exchange and the original are confused? And then what if one dies? The mnemonic addresses the possible solutions. Also, when one takes a vow to bring a thanksgiving offering must also bring the loaves. But what if the formulation of the vow shifts the focus? But what money can he use for the offering? Sacred or "regular?

What if something happens to the animal designated for the thanksgiving sacrifice? The animal part of the sacrifice is the more significant part, where the loaves are ancillary to the offering. To the extent that even if the loaves were specifically designated, the loss is not considered too problematic. What if the loaves were designated first? Plus, back-up animals for the thanksgiving animals, and the question whether the back-ups requires the loaves to begin with. Also, should the surviving animals after a replacement is used or not used be offered on the altar or not? A mnemonic is used to make sense of challenges in the discussion.

A new mishnah - from the bottom of daf 78: What happens to the thanksgiving offering when there's an issue with the grain-offering part of it -- as compared to the animal part of it? Plus, the connection to the inauguration of Aaron and his sons as kohanim. With a focus on a dispute revolving around a blemished animal vs. the incorrect location for slaughtering, as issues that interfere. But is that even the right comparison? Plus, cataracts as the blemishes. Also, another mishnah: animal offerings together with libations - and the question of these accompaniments being problematic for whichever reason, and how they are left overnight to disqualify them. Note that replacement animals are sacrificed as well, just not as a thanksgiving sacrifice - once they've been designated to replace a korban todah.