Talking Talmud

A new mishnah! On the ceremony of the process of the omer - how they wove the stalks of barley together while they were still attached to the ground, which made them easier to harvest. And the people who lived in the area came together to celebrate. And the ceremony continued... with underlying goals of taking a polemical stance against the Boethusians. [Who's Who: The Boethusians]. Plus, Megillat Ta'anit, and the days when it was not permitted to fast, and some when it wasn't permitted to eulogize either. Where the day of the starting counting the omer is highly disputed.

A new chapter - focused on the grain-offering that is the omer, brought on the 16th day of Nisan, the second day of Pesach, and which allows the "new" grain (or removes the prohibition against it. So, beginning with the new mishnah - on the case of the day of the omer offering falling on Shabbat, which is the unusual case, not the norm. The proper date of this entails a decision made against those who pushed for a different (regular) date, and therefore a good deal of ceremony to make the point. But with an effort to minimize the degree of violation of Shabbat. Also, the mitzvah of bringing the barley for the omer offering was first for the fields in proximity to Jerusalem, unless that barley didn't ripen, and then they could look farther afield. At the time of a civil war - in the Hasmonean era - during a time of siege, including an old man who knew "Greek wisdom," who fundamentally let the besiegers into the city. He acknowledged that the correct offerings were protecting those within the city of Jerusalem, and then the people outside of the city finally sent in a pig for an offering, and that was beyond bearing.

A new mishnah, with specifications for the different grain-offerings - marheshet vs. merhavat (with the different pans for each). The first has a cover and the second does not OR the first is deep and the second is shallow (it's a machloket, of course, coming from different traditions). Plus, the pan known as the "kalbus" - with an illustration of it by Rashi! Also, a second mishnah, with the case who takes a vow to bring a grain-offering that was baked in an oven, which specifically limits the fulfillment of the vow to certain ovens.

Still more on the offerings for Shavuot - the lambs and the loaves. Namely, showing the lambs in the 4 directions, plus up and down, to demonstrate God's province of the heavens and the earth. Or alternatively, to acknowledge and pray that nothing bad befall the people, from any which direction. With parallels, of course, to lulav and the waving thereof. Plus, the fulfillment of mitzvot as a means of thwarting the Satan - unless taking that gleeful approach is taunting him or inviting him to challenge the person keeping the mitzvot. Also, 3 animal offerings that each need 3 mitzvot in accompaniment, with all the concomitant details - including waving while the animal is either alive or no longer so. Note that no sacrifice required all three of those accompanying mitzvot - usually, 2 out of 3. Plus, the question of whether the laying on of hands (semikhah) would be required.

A new mishnah! Another list of the grain-offerings that require waving and do not require being brought near to the altar. With a deep dive into the procedure of the waving. And a focus on those offerings that require waving. Plus, the offering that is brought by a woman, yet she doesn't do the waving herself.

A new mishnah! Two requirements of all grain-offerings (and not only): 1. bringing near (to the altar), and 2. waving. The bringing near is only done for grain-offerings, but not all grain-offerings. The waving is not only done for grain-offerings, and not all of them, and not all of other offerings either, but for some of them. First listed are those that require drawing near and no waving. (Rabbi Shimon doesn't agree that drawing near is required of all of the grain-offerings on this list). Also, comparing these factors and what they have in common, and where they differ. Plus, a different view again by Rabbi Shimon, where he needs to find a different common denominator (which he does): the commonality or regularity in which they are brought.

A new mishnah! It lists grain-offerings that need both oil and frankincense, one or the other, or neither. Note the various kinds of menahot, and how these various terms and requirements are applied. Also, the grain-offering of the sinner, which involves oil and frankincense - in circumstances where the latter has to be brought as part of the offering (including the minhah kena'ot). Oil on the grain-offering by itself would invalidate it, whereas the levonah (frankincense) would not do so. Note the powder effect of frankincense as well.

More on when the grain-offerings can have chametz/leaven and when they cannot. And the prohibition again honey on the altar -- and if there are exceptions regarding leaven, there are none, according to this Gemara, for honey. But there are still minor exceptions for the honey as well - in terms of what the kohanim themselves can eat. Plus, what happens when these factors are indeed violated? When in the point of violation is the sinner subject to lashes? Plus, whether the prohibition is specific or not - which leads to the prohibition against muzzling, unexpected though that is.

In the context of cooking on Shabbat... when there is layering of meat on the coals, and then turn the meat over, one is liable for cooking on Shabbat. But not turning the meat over should also be an issue of cooking on Shabbat, depending on when the meat was put on the fire. Not turning the meat over leaves the meat substantially undercooked, but edible. Plus, the measure of this violation would be the amount of a dried fig. Also, no leavening was permitted in the grain-offerings, as per the Torah's description of them - even before the fistful is removed. With exceptions to the no-leaven rule, including the 2 loaves of Shavuot. But what happens if one processes a leavened grain-offering? Once it's been disqualified, can it be reinstated? Note that the constraints for this leavening question are not easily defined.

Essential component elements of offering sacrifices on the altar - including the laying on of hands, on the head of the goat (for example). Also, the concept of the sacrifice of Nachshon - namely, the "prince" of the tribe of Yehudah, representative of all of the tribute by the tribes in the wilderness (Parshat Naso in the Torah), in contrast to the sacrifices as commanded for the generations to implement. Plus, being liable for each of the component parts of kneading, shaping, and baking the grain-offerings, as delineated in the mishnah on the previous page (and the accompanying beraita). Also, bloodletting that might save an animal's life, with protections in place to prevent kohanim from engineering blemishes for non-holy meat. (5 opinions in total)

A new mishnah! With basic directions as to how to make and shape the grain-offerings, with a clear prohibition against "chametz"/leaven, except for 2 specific grain-offerings. Including the source from the Torah to prohibit leaven from the altar. Plus, does each act with offering count as a prohibition (kneading, shaping, baking) or just as one? It's a case of a generalization and a specification, followed by a general case again. The specific statement therefore comes to teach something about the general statement. Note that proximity in the original text matters.

How much flour needs to be measured out for the grain-offering? A minimal amount, so that even the poorest sinner can manage the offering. And that flour? It's dough, not just loose, powdery flour. Also, fresh figs vs. dried figs in terms of figuring out the volume or number when it comes to giving terumah (and the question of whether that's terumah gedolah or terumat ma'aser).

Chapter 5! On preparing the dough... with a new mishnah that explains that all of the grain-offerings are matzah (unleavened), with two exceptions. Plus, a discussion on how leavening was used. Plus, an important genealogy on the descendants of Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah (who himself could trace back to Ezra). Also, a gripping aggadic story about Abraham (the patriarch), the Destruction of the Temple, and the destiny of the Jewish people, as mirroring the negotiation between God and Abraham with regard to the destruction of Sodom and Gemorrah and divine punishment.

More on the griddle-cakes... which were brought together with the daily offerings of the morning and of the afternoon. This raises the question of how much flour went into each offering - was the 10th of an efah of flour divided between the two daily offerings, or per each of them? Plus, the same question as applied to the frankincense, in terms of quantity with regard to each daily offering of the morning and of the afternoon. Where one approach relies on the verses and another on the logic (again, neither being tested in a taster kitchen). Also, when the kohen gadol died and another hasn't yet been appointed, the question of how much of the offering should be brought is asked as well - is he bringing, as it were, a double-portion for the kohen gadol, as it were, if he needed to bring for both of them.

On Rava's opinion about the kohen gadol's griddle-cake offering. The griddle-cake involves flour and oil, but the measurements of each are not clear -- and are therefore subject to interpretation and deriving the details, whether from the verses or logic. Note the recipe that doesn't address taste, but rather learned inferences. Also, a new mishnah! The commitment to the offering of the havitin, even when the kohen gadol whose job it was to bring them has died. Even though one expects the next kohen gadol to have been appointed before the previous one died, but not always... and rather than have the havitin paid for by the treasury, the kohen gadol's heirs had to cover it. Until they went back to having the treasury pay for it, because people weren't abiding by the decree for the heirs to pay.

More on the incense - including differences between communal incense vs. individual's incense. Also, the parallel is drawn between the gifts of the 12 tribes' princes, as told in the Book of Numbers (Parshat Naso) and the offering of this incense. Also, back to grain-offerings! And a specific recall of the "havitin" brought by kohanim, and the special one offered by the kohen gadol -- that were offered by Aharon and his sons in the Torah. With specifics for preparing those offerings.

More on Shavuot and its lambs... If older animals were brought - it's a dispute, whether they would count for the offerings of Shavuot or not. That is, if the intent is correct; if not, then not. Also, if the kohanim made something pigul - then that is invalid, even if it was done inadvertently. Plus, a new mishnah - with more on essentiality: the daily offerings and the additional offerings of a given day, when both are not possible, for whatever reason. Also, in the case of missing an offering, the ability to make it up later in the day was real, unless there was intent to miss it. But if inadvertent, fulfilling the obligation for the offering later on was acceptable. Likewise, for incense. Plus, the order of precedence in the case of a community that could only offering one of the given offerings.

The case of slaughtering 4 lambs with the 2 loaves of Shavuot (instead of 2 lambs), then how is that error handled? Two of those lambs are not offered for their own sake, since they aren't presented in the right context, as, for example, a generic peace-offering. That is, the first two lambs have already fulfilled the Shavuot requirement. Also, Rav Yitzhak comes from the land of Israel to the study halls of Babylonia, and he teaches: Animals that are offered for the wrong purpose cannot be used, but must be left to burn... And his rationale for disqualifying these offerings is by virtue of comparison with the sin-offering. Until the Gemara turns the argument on its head and suggests that this mandatory peace-offering is more similar to the voluntary peace-offering, which would leave it a valid offering. Plus, if the animal that is brought is the wrong animal, for example, if it is the wrong age, those are disqualified.

More on the loaves and lambs of Shavuot and how the slaughtering of the lambs with the proper intent consecrates the breads too. Plus, the possibility of possible consecration (which is not possible according to everyone, but it is in the view of some). Also, the strength of the connection between the lambs' slaughter and the consecration of the loaves. What happens if that bread is lost? Plus, the sprinkling of the blood for its own sake... And how if the offering is made for its own sake, there's a lot more wiggle room than when the question is not asked. Note that all these lambs - which are peace-offerings - need to be brought in a timely way.

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.