Talking Talmud

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.

On blemished animals, premature animals, an animal and its offspring - any of these offered outside of the Temple would not make the person offering them liable, but they still violate a negative commandment. With some dispute over premature animals. Plus, the people who aren't ready to bring their offering - not the animal being unready, but the person who needs to bring it have no yet finished the time they need to wait to fulfill the process of becoming ready for the offering. For example, waiting the number of days before the possibility of purification kicks in, as per the Torah. Plus, the Amoraic refining the phrasing of the mishnah.

On slaughtering the red heifer "outside of the pit" has to mean more than "outside of the Temple," as this offering was always made outside of the Temple. So what is the concern here? The Gemara provides a few suggestions. Also, a sidestep away from the dispute between R. Yochanan and Resh Lakish on the daf about the concern of impurity in the land - and whether there might be bones in the ground from the time of the Flood (which, if there, are reason to be concerned about impurity in the ground). But did the Flood actually come to the land of Israel? And could there be anything interfering with the (apparently identifiable) bedrock? Plus, women would give birth to children who would draw water to contribute to the next red heifer offering (as part of the process) - children who were kept free of ritual impurity to be able to play this role. And if that isn't clear for the whole land, then at least Jerusalem - where R. Yehoshua essentially stipulates that the holy city is not impure. Also, more on the Flood itself - and how the huge animals were saved from the waters, given that they wouldn't have fit on the ark.

Ending chapter 13: On the case that a sin-offering is lost, replaced, and then the first one is found - to what may it be compared? A question that itself is called into question. And what is happened to the animal that is not offered as the sin-offering, when it is not yet disqualified as an offering anyway? The parallel is made to suggest a burnt-offerring, though that has its own challenges. Also, the first - and entirety of - mishnah for chapter 14: Beginning with 2 offerings that were supposed to be sacrificed outside the Temple courtyard. Plus, animals that are disqualified that are sacrificed, as it were, outside the Temple courtyard. Plus offerings that were not disqualified by being offered outside of the Temple courtyard. Plus, the distinction between communal offerings and individual offerings, and when there was a possibility of both a private and a public "bamah," outside of the Temple (or Mishkan, as the case may have been).

When the remnants of an offering's blood are brought outside of the Temple - that's a liability for violating offering outside of the Temple. This aspect of the blood is considered essential to the offering - with many subsequent implications (and subject to dispute). Also, a new mishnah - on melikah of the birdsa and also slaughtering - when the action taken outside the Temple is problematic and when it is not. Also, the Gemara shifts focus from preparation of the offering to the liability for it, when offered outside of the Temple. Plus, another mishnah: On collecting the blood of a sin-offering - what happens when the blood is in one cup and then brought to an altar outside of the courtyard, or inside - that's liable.

Mishnayot! Mishnah 1 - More on grain-offerings, when the offering is brought outside of the Temple courtyard - when the kohen's fistful has not been removed prior to the offering - that isn't a complete offering. But what if it is (the fistful of grain has been removed), and then it is offered incorrectly? Mishnah 2 - When the fistful and the levonah (frankincense) is offered outside, perhaps liability won't kick in until both are burned outside (only one might not be enough). The Gemara asks whether the fistful of grain being burned might be sufficient, even without the levonah. Mishnah 3 - If sacrificial blood, water libations, Also, the discussion shifts to the water libations of sukkot, in contrast to wine libations, and where they need to be offered. And note the "Halakhah le-Moshe mi-Sinai" about the water libations.

Two mishnayot! 1 - Circumstances of liability for offerings outside of the Temple and what happens those offerings are then invalidated. Plus, the return of pigul and notar as disqualifications. 2 - Moving on to the grain offering - a list of different circumstances of a grain offering, where it is brought outside of the Temple. Also, various other ways these offerings can go wrong, including dealing with the minimal requirements of a measure for the offering. Plus, when the person who handles these offerings wrongly is exempt, what is the rationale for that exemption?