Talking Talmud

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.