Talking Talmud

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.