Talking Talmud

On the case of one who is ritually impure and eats from the sacrificial foods, whether they are pure or impure, may or may not be liable for the violation. Except that Rabbi Yosi HaGalillee says that person would only be liable if the food he ate was pure. Also, a new mishnah: The stringency of slaughtering outside of the Temple and the offering up there, as well as its leniency. Plus, what happens in the case of lapses in awareness of the offering up outside of the courtyard? It's a dispute - whether that person needs to bring a sin-offering for each separate offering out of that lack of awareness, or not. Also, incomplete offerings - do they incur a liability of the sin-offering, or is one exempt because of the lack of completeness?

After we've established how we know that slaughtering outside of the Temple violates a prohibition and likewise offering outside of the Temple, there's an investigating of the offerings that are meant to be burnt and offered in various places. Also, a focus on Rabbi Yishmael's and Rabbi Akiva's views regarding sprinkling the blood outside the Temple, and moving into discussion of offerings that were to be brought inside, and then incomplete and finished outside of the Temple. Plus, the sources they respectively derive their opinions regarding these issues from. Also, what about making such an offering outside of the Temple courtyard - in the era of "now" - when there is no Temple? Was the sanctification of the Temple and Jerusalem forever, or just for the time that the Temple stood?

Chapter 13! On offering sacrifices in locations that are not specified, and therefore also prohibited for sacrifices. The new mishnah raises the cases of offering outside the Temple. With a difference of approach between Rabbi Yossi HaGalilee and the sages. Plus, a ritually pure person who ate that which was impure would be exempt from a sin-offering, and the mishnah provides the explanation why. Also, the sources for all this in verses. Also, a focus on why this kind of offering outside of the Mishkan (or Temple) can't carry a "karet" punishment as derived from logic - though the Gemara first attempts to show how that logic would be upheld (by Rabbi Avin - and then knocked down by Rava).

When the bulls and he-goats are taken out to get burned and they render the people who handle them impure, what happens if the carcasses need to be brought back through the courtyard? Plus, the question of multiple people carrying a carcass - but the carcass can leave the courtyard before the "back" carriers would be out of the courtyard. And then it boils down to a verse... Also, when a kosher bird imparts impurity - what is the measure needed for it to do so? Plus, a deep dive into Rabbi Meir's opinion, as established in the mishnah. And the question whether the degrees of impurity will kick in, but that kind of impurity starts out as pretty severe to begin with.

More on the hides that would go to the kohanim, unless disqualification gets in the way -- but that really depends on when the disqualification takes place, including before or after the sprinkling of the blood of that offering. Also, specific offerings where the meat was not eaten - "internal sin-offerings," for which the blood was brought on the inner altar - and they were burned at Beit HaDeshen, the place of ashes (bulls and he-goats) and they render those who deal with them impure. Also, the "birah" - defining this location.

Two mishnayot: Mishnah 1 - When the burnt offering is disqualified, the kohanim won't get the hide of the offering, depending on when the disqualification took place, and why it's been disqualified (for example, not brought in the name of the right offering - which would not fulfill the person's obligation in bringing that offering, but the kohanim would get the hide). The Gemara focuses on what it means that the offering belongs to a person, but not hekdesh (and not that of a convert). Plus, the limud/learning that teaches that the kohanim get the hides of kodshei kodshim, and the hides of the kodshei kalim go to the owners who bring the offerings. Mishnah 2 - What happens to the hides when they've already been flayed from the offering, before disqualification? Rabbi Hanina, deputy high priest, said he never saw the hides going out to be burnt - which leads Rabbi Akiva to draw conclusions that the sages then rebut.

On kings and whether Moses was one - with the argument that he was not king, and also that he was, but without being the progenitor of a dynasty of kingship. Which leads to a discussion of monarchic dynasties - and the lack thereof, including King Saul. Also, how kohanim who are unfit for the service of a given day do not eat from that day's offerings... except that the shares of meat given the kohanim with blemishes has already been established! Plus, the logic of the order of the statements on these points.

The Gemara addresses the acute mourning of Aharon (Aaron) in the Torah when Nadav and Avihu die on the altar, when they bring the "strange fire" - and, among other offerings, a sin-offering was brought too - and Moshe (Moses) rebukes Aharon for burning the sin-offering among them. How much does Aharon's conduct inform the practices-to-be of kohanim in a state of acute mourning in the generations to come? Also, was Moshe himself a kohen, given his partaking of the offerings on this day of establishing the Mishkan? Doesn't the very fact that he was able to eat from the offerings mean he must have been a kohen? It's not that simple

Rabbi Shimon's position of the acute mourner and the Pesach offering - and ways of resolving the apparent contradictions in his respective positions. Specifically, must the kohen become impure for the death of a close relative or does he have permission to do so? A clear dispute. But the need for a "met mitzvah" - perhaps that is not disputed, and the kohen must become impure for the sake of that need to bury. Also, a deeper dive into the view that says the acutely mourning kohen must partake of the Pesach offering.

On kohanim who weren't eligible to eat from the sacrificial meats - beginning with a t'vul yom, one who has immersed in the mikveh for purity, but the sun has not yet set, so he isn't pure yet, for the purposes of eating from the offerings. [What's What: Mishmarot] Plus, the question of a "ba'al mum" - the degree to which even the "blemished" kohen is still a kohen in many important and privileged ways. Also, a kohen who is in acute mourning - and therefore cannot serve in the Temple at that time, but still may (or may not?) partake of the foods that were eaten by the kohanim. For example, sacrificial meats. And the Pesach offering in contrast to them... He still has to be purified by the time of eating, but there are stringencies in place with regard to these foods.