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.