Talking Talmud

The bond between the animal sacrifices of the holiday of Shavuot and the "Shtei ha-Lechem" loaves of the same holiday, and when they are both required, as essential, and when one could be offered without the other, if need be. Also, a deeper dive into the the loaves of the Shtei ha-Lechem to begin with, and how they have to be changed in appearance (and if and when they are to be eaten). The rabbinic approach to the lambs seems to contradict the Torah's requirement - which needs its own deeper dive, as well.

More on aspects of Temple worship that are not essential to each other. Also, the treatment of the Temple offerings for Rosh Chodesh from the Book of Yehezkel (Ezekiel) - which is not the same thing as that which is commanded in the Torah. And once the Gemara is talking about a source from Ezekiel, it opens the discussion to other challenges -- including an important story of Rabbi Haninah ben Hizkiyah and how he explained all of the difficult passages of Ezekiel. Plus, a new mishnah! Bringing us back to the discussion of essentiality. With an atypical dispute in the mishnah itself - given the explanations for the respective opinions: Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Shimon ben Nanas, and Rabbi Shimon.

On the "hilazon," the crustacean whose blood is used to make the tekhelet: the murex trunculus, and its form, function, and impact. Also, the Gemara tells the story of a sage who was particularly careful about the mitzvah of tzitzit, and, indeed, they end up protecting him from sin (and then in reward for his resolve to not sin, he is given the very opportunity that was prohibited - but now permitted for him). Also, 2 mishnayot! 1 - Non-essential libations with regard to each other. But what about the grain-offering itself? 2 - The bull, the ram, and the lamb of the Musaf offerings - are not essential for each of the others to be accepted.

More on tzitzit and the garments they are to be tied to. Also, all men need to wear tzitzit on a 4-cornered garment. What about women? Slaves? Those questions are subject to dispute - including the argument that they are positive, time-bound commandments, from which women are exempt. Plus, the parallel between tzitzit and sha'atnez, and the role of kohanim in wearing sha'atnez. And what about garments with 3 or 5 corners? (Hint: The 5-cornered garment needs tzitzit, but the 3-cornered one does not) Also, the focus on tzitzit being a time-bound mitzvah - for the daylight, specifically because "you shall see them" is included in the mitzvah of tzitzit. And in the seeing, the one wearing them is to remember.... some specific mitzvah, or all of them.

Where should the tzitzit be attached to the 4-cornered garment? How long do tzitzit need to hang down? But they don't have a measure... or at least not as long as they are long enough to count as being "strings." A point upon which Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai agree. Plus, is there a blessing made upon tying tzitzit or only upon wearing them? Also, diving into the details of the dying of tekhelet and its rules. Plus, the need for expertise - and just how special the tekhelet was.

Some unusual cases pose questions for tzitzit - for example, when a 4-cornered garment is folded in half. That is, is the garment obligated in the tzitzit or is the person obligated in wearing them? Plus, the plausibility of getting out of wearing tzitzit at all, followed by an encounter with an angel - who acknowledges that, in a time of God's anger, even unfulfilled positive mitzvot might be held against a person. Also, if a garment were made entirely of tekhelet, the tzitzit could be of any color, it would seem, except for the indigo plant dye. But wouldn't the tzitzit also need another color as well?

A dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shamai on whether a linen cloak is obligated in tzitzit (including tekhelet, that is, which has to be a wool thread). Is that a problem of sha'atnez? The halakhah follows Beit Hillel. So what is the rabbinic decree and how should they publicize it? From what garments need the tzitzit, the Gemara moves to the concern of indigo, which is a plant-based dye and fraudulent when it comes to tekhelet, and that itself received a rabbinic decree -- against people using it and err with regard to the mitzvah inadvertently. Also, the concern of sha'atnez being in a night garment, which itself would be exempt from tzitzit. Plus, the early pious folks who would tie tzitzit on the corners before 4 were even present - which raises the question of "adding" to a mitzvah, which itself is prohibited.

On how to tie tzitzit (another one of those very "visual" descriptions in words). Including the winding and knot-tying of the 8 threads on the corner. Also, the interaction of colors of blue and white, and which is considered holier - for an increasing level of holiness in how they are tied, with symbolism and deeper meaning as implied. Plus, how wool strings will cover the mitzvah of tzitzit for a 4-cornered garment made of linen, without a concern of sha'atnez (the reverse may not be an issue of sha'atnez either, but it's more complicated - and doesn't work - because of the blue string needing to be wool). And what about silk?

Chapter 4! With a new mishnah. On tzitzit, and the verses that pertain to this mitzvah, including the prohibition against sha'atnez. Note that neither the tekhelet string nor the white strings prevent the fulfillment of the mitzvah of tzitzit. Plus, the rediscovery and use of tekhelet in the modern era. Also, the white strings are used first, but if they're added to the garment out of order, the mitzvah is still fulfilled. So does the order matter or not? And what about a garment that is fully made of tekhelet? The lack of essentialism here ends up being essential.

After discussion of the tefillin shel yad - including which arm - the Gemara turns to what is received as an impossible case: for a person with two heads, which one gets the tefillin? But if a two-headed tefillin-wearer was an impossibility, what about a first-born male infant who needed a pidyon ha-ben? Would that be 5 sela'im or 10? Will such a baby make it to the 30-day mark when a pidyon ha-ben takes place? And if not, would he still need the redemption of the ceremony with the kohen? Also, moving on to tzitzit: fringes on a minimum of the 4 corners of a garment (is that one mitzvah or 4?). What about garments with other number of corners? What about wearing tzitzit at night?

If one who is in the process of laying tefillin makes the blessing on the arm, puts the "tefillin shel yad" on, and then speaks, interrupting himself before laying the "tefillin shel rosh," what must he do? Make a new blessing? A different blessing? Is he fresh outta luck? Also, what was the timing of laying tefillin - from when until when? Plus, the parallel between the laying of tefillin at night and on Shabbat (and yom tov). Also, the significance of the "sign" that is tefillin.

More on tefillin, of course. The base of the box of the tefillin, the letter Shin on the tefillin, the black straps, among other details - are all "halakhah le-Moshe mi-Sinai" (not subject to dispute). Plus, a story about a few people who wore tefillin that did not follow the basic rules (blue wool instead of black leather, for example), and they were somehow not rebuked accepted. Also, the case of tefillin that tore. And the fact that their sanctity protects them from being used for anything else. Plus, measurements for the straps of tefillin. Also, what about God's tefillin? And the knot thereof? And what they contain?

More on mezuzot and the entrances that need a mezuzah. What about a sidepost that doesn't need a mezuzah? Plus, how the mezuzah goes up on the right side. Also, tefillin! 4 passages in 4 sections of the tefillin boxes. Plus, the lettering of tefillin, and how all letters must be present, and not connect (as script connects). Plus, the derivation of "totafot" as indicating the 4 segments of tefillin.

More laws on mezuzot, specifically placement of the mezuzah on the doorjamb - the Gemara's basic example is of a door on a pivot, not hinges, in contrast to modern day doors. Also, what was one to do if the entrance around the door itself couldn't take nails, etc., to affix the mezuzah? With creative solutions, depending on the material of the doorjamb. Plus, the doorposts need to be there for more than just supporting a portico or rooftop.

On the writing of a mezuzah - in terms of the scribe's method of holding the parchment, leaving space at the top and the bottom, and so on. Including shifts in the application of varying views with regard to the writing of the text itself. How was that dispute resolved? The Gemara introduces the determinant of Eliyahu the Prophet -- in the non-mezuzah example of the halitzah shoe, and when even that determining voice would be accepted as law and when it would not: namely, as guided by the widespread practice of the Jewish people. Also, the sanctity of tefillin, mezuzot, and Torah scrolls - can tefillin parchment be "demoted" to be a mezuzah? It would seem yes, except for the requirement that the mezuzah parchment needs scoring. Plus, not sitting on a bed (couch?) that as a Sefer Torah on it.

More from Rabbi Shimon Shezuri - with a question of untithed produce that was mixed with a greater portion of tithed produce. Rabbi Tarfon gives him a solution - and the Gemara suggests several other solutions Rabbi Tarfon could have made (though the Gemara also then explains why he didn't make them). Also, going back to the scribal requirements - when a tear requires replacement, with recognition of worn parchments (vellum), and how they were protected. Plus, the requirements of writing out the text for a mezuzah.

On the last 8 verses of the Torah - who wrote them? That is, how could Moshe have written them when the text itself recounts his death at the beginning of them? Plus, what does it take to "get the mitzvah" of getting the Torah at Sinai? (Spoiler: Any writing of any letter of a Torah scroll). [Who's Who: Rabbi Shimon Shezuri] Plus, the case of the shechitah of a pregnant animal - what if the fetus survives (depending on how many months it is). Plus, checking out the rulings of R. Shimon Shezuri.

More on the menorah - and also a whole host of instructions for scribes, plus a powerful piece of aggadah: How did Moshe know what the menorah was supposed to look like? Diagrams and designs of fire - displaying the menorah - came in a vision from heaven, to show what it should look like. Was there a Tabernacle of fire too? (No) Plus, other items that need the visual. Also, the story of how Moshe discovered the identity and accomplishment and "reward" of Rabbi Akiva - and God's decisions that run the world in ways that are beyond humans' abilities, even Moshe, to understand.

A new mishnah: In the category of essential "Temple accoutrements" -- with a focus on the Menorah, in the company of tefillin and tzitzit and other. The 7 branches of the Menorah are all essential. Likewise, a block of gold. Also, other, less essential details about the Menorah: 1. Moshe's ritual items were to be used forever except for the trumpets. 2. Materials from which the Menorah can still be kosher (besides gold) - and which are not valid. Plus, a diagram of the Menorah - in words.

Another daf with 2 mishnayot, with more on the fistful from the grain-offering. 1 - What if the minority of the offering weren't brought? Even if the majority of it was offered properly, this minority would invalidate the offering. Other parallel cases are brought as well. 2 - On the 2 goats of Yom Kippur, what if only one of them were brought? Would that function for atonement? (Spoiler alert: No). Likewise, 2 sheep and the 2 loaves of the grain-offering of Shavuot. And the 2 loaves themselves. Among many other listed combinations, where each component part must be present or the mitzvah is not fulfilled. Also, the 7 sprinklings of the blood of the red heifer - with a deeper dive into the intentions and directions of this sprinkling -- with a dispute that is resolved as being due to different opinions.

2 mishnayot! 1 - When is a grain-offering disqualified? And how does that connect to the blood that is collected from the animal sacrifice? With parallels between the fistful taken from the grain and that blood that is collected. Plus, the factor of impurity - if and when some portion of the grain-offering is impure, the offering may or may not have been rendered invalid. 2 - The ingredients of the grain-offering would be gathered in a sacred vessel before taking the fistful, and then transferred to a second sacred vessel. But what if it wasn't put in that sacred vessel? Is the fistful still valid? (hint: it's a machloket). Also, the question of when in the burning of the fistful from the grain does the rest of the offering become permitted for eating by the kohanim? Another machloket: from the time it begins to burn or only after "most" of the fistful is burned. With a deeper dive into that second opinion.

If the fistful that the kohen takes from the grain-offering becomes ritually impure, then the tzitz (the frontpiece) of the kohen gadol's garments will function to bring about the acceptance of the offering. Though the very fact of that working is puzzling. But why wouldn't the tzitz accept blemishes in an animal sacrifice? (among other key questions). Also, the question of intent comes into play - and the question of how the tzitz will incorporate those factors is considered seriously, by means of examples - including between shogeg and intentional, as well as an individual's offering and a communal offering. Plus, the concerns that lead to emending a rabbinic text, and the concerns of emending the text.

Can a fistful of grain function for different parts of the requirements of the grain-offering? Look to the verses in Leviticus. And what happens when one part becomes impure? The Gemara pauses on a "teiku." Also, a question from Rava - delving further into the ritual impurity, with consideration to different levels of impurity, and how it is conveyed to the next item over that comes in contact with the object that is impure (or is not rendered impure as the case may be).

Rava asks: If one takes a fistful of the grain and squeezes out the oil onto wood, does mean the fistful is missing its oil? Would that be invalid for an offering? How is that oil paralleled in animal sacrifice? (Or isn't it parallel?) Also, a new mishnah: Grain-offerings which haven't yet had the fistful taken from either one, and now the grain is mixed together - can they each have the fistful taken, or are they too blended? If the latter, then they're both invalid. The Gemara follows, with a dispute between Rav Hisda and Rabbi Hanina, regarding how meat that came to be in a mixture between impure meat and pure meat - when is the one kind negated or nullified in the other kind?

A new mishnah! A handful of one grain-offering that is mixed with another handful of grain... according to the rabbis' view, the mingling does not invalidate the sacrifice. Burning it on the altar is fine. But Rabbi Yehudah notes that select grain-offerings would not be valid in these circumstances. The Gemara then delves into parsing Rabbi Yehudah's position here, with comparison to the animal sacrifices of Zevahim. Plus, the question of when and whether substances can be nullified in the mixture of something of its same kind or something that much more different from the original. Note - these laws of mixtures are relevant to all areas of Halakhah, not just the sacrificial realm... except that the "no nullification" rule IS specific to the sacrificial realm. Or at least, when it's items of the same substance and also being offered on the altar. But the case is determined to be difficult.

More on salt... including the verses that require it for the grain-offerings, as well as the "melach s'domit" - salt from the Sodom region. As compared to salt that is quarried from a rock. The sacrificial hides were treated with salt too. So what is meant by "for the sacrifice" as compared to "for their eating"? They didn't only eat the holy foods - the regular foods could be eaten alongside. Note also that temple salt itself wasn't considered reserved for the kohanim. Plus, a comparison between the salt and the frankincense.

Rav Huna challenges Rav about whether salt is required for the grain-offering, even though it isn't presented in the Torah with double-language (as other requirements are). Which opens the discussion of the salt in new ways. Also, the Torah verse about salt and the grain-offering makes it clear that salt is essential to the offering. In contrast, in the case of the grain-offering, to the blood on the altar. Plus, a mnemonic to help remember the factors that would nonetheless require salt.

Wherever you have the word "torah" (meaning, law, not the Torah in total) and the word "chukah" (meaning, statute) - then the capacity to invalidate the offering kicks in . But does that mean either/or or both? It certainly sounds like both - but the Gemara tracks it through and either/or sounds better by the end... Plus, the list of occasions or specific categories of people for which these terms are present in context in the Torah. Also, scriptural repetition about the requirements of the grain-offering establishes those details (where the repetition takes place) as essential. But the offering itself must be a permanent one for this essential status. Until the case where temporary status seems not to be a problem, in light of the number of repetitions...?

If one has intent to leave blood over from an animal sacrifice, does everyone agree that doing so would invalidate the offering? The Tannaim hash it out - with a focus on Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi and Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua. With a lot of heartfelt drama in the details of this passage. Also, a new mishnah: If you didn't do a whole slew of the tasks associated with the grain-offering, the tasks on that list won't invalidate the offering. Plus, the Gemara that delves into the specifics of those tasks, and why those details matter to preserve the validity of the offerings. And more on the Temple service for the shelamim - peace-offerings too. Plus, the 15 tasks associated with these grain-offerings all together.

Rabbi Hanina helped Rabbi Hamnuna with understanding something in Torah that he counted as equivalent to all the rest of his Torah learning: namely, on the burning of the handful and pigul, of course. Also, starting chapter 3 with a new mishnah! Taking the fistful of grain, but as something that is not meant to be eaten or that which is not meant to be burned - that would still be valid (except for one who disagrees). With a delving into these details, and then a conundrum regarding the double-language in the source verses.

A long mishnah - on the affect of pigul when it only affects part of the "permitter" - matirin - namely, by burning one part, the rest becomes permitted for consumption. Including a dispute between Rabbi Meir and the sages -- which leads to other areas of dispute between them. And further, a dispute between Rav and Shmuel about the dispute of Rabbi Meir and the sages. Also, the 43 (or 47 or 48) presentations of blood from the animal sacrifices of Yom Kippur. Also, a sesame seed and the smallest amount of potential pigul. Plus, a rejection of Rabbi Meir's views here.

2 mishanyot! 1 - How combinations can make items pigul or not. With the cases of the thanksgiving offering (animal offering plus loaves) and also the "Shtei HaLehem" - lambs and 2 loaves of Shavuot. Also, a long discussion about what question Rabbi Elazar asked of Rav (to determine the question itself), in terms of pigul with varied factors -- the order of events, with regard to offerings, intent, minimal measure, and so on. Plus, a mention of "cannabis" (hemp) in the context of mixtures. 2 - Pigul intent renders the libations pigul once they've been sanctified, but the libations, if brought with pigul intent, would not make the offerings themselves pigul.

Is there such a thing as pigul for half of the offering? It's a machloket! And a further development of Rabbi Yosei's position, which doesn't presume karet and whether some amount of pigul intent contaminates everything - for example, the 2 loaves of lechem ha-panim. What is the smallest unit, so to speak, that can become a problem of pigul? Or can it be in parts at all? Also, what about mitigating factors against the phenomenon of pigul - to make an offering permitted, when it might have become pigul? Also, delving into the position of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi, regarding combining intents and whether pigul results. Plus, the implications of a communal offering (vs. a personal one), with regard to purity/impurity.

Returning to pigul, in a new mishnah, with a focus on Rabbi Yosei's position of when the wrong intent would not result in a punishment of karet. Also, on how removing the fistful of grain was considered parallel to the slaughtering in animal sacrifice. And then the placement of the handful into a vessel is akin to collecting the blood of an animal sacrifice after slaughtering in a vessel. Plus, another new mishnah: the 2 loaves of "lechem ha-panim" (the shewbread) and the 2 bowls of frankincense on the Shulhan/Table - and how they are subject to pigul too.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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