Talking Talmud

Items are sanctified when they are put in holy vessels, but not all substances in all materials of vessels. So too, the priestly garments also atone. Note that the service needed to be done in new, pre-washed garments, for the sake of the glory (and wealth) of the Temple. Also, how the priestly garments are connected to the sacrifices from the Torah. And a quick catalogue of which garment atones for what sin. Plus, bloodshed and evil speech (lashon hara) seem to have two ways to atone (each), and also are named as acts for which there is no atonement.

More on how the altar, the ramp, and the vessels sanctify that which reaches each of them respectively - including the sources for this sanctification, according to the sages. Also, is the "air space" of the altar considered to be like the altar itself or not?

A new mishnah! What items would be taken off the altar if they were brought there, even if by accident? Plus, what parts of an animal that was brought for an offering were not burned with he rest of the animal - for a burnt-offering, that is? Moreover, the Gemara addresses the principle of burning the offering in full. But is everything really burned in full? And... another new mishnah! With a focus on items that were up on the altar, and then something that is there is dislodged from the spot -- well, then, that next part that fell is not returned to the altar. Plus, the question of timing - when something is on the altar and is burned however much, and then it falls... the Gemara clarifies how much time is left for the burning will determine whether the item is returned to the altar, with both the before and after midnight cases (and an explanation as to why both are necessary).

Given the clear categorization and classification of all of the various factors for the sacrifices, Ullah addresses cases of "kodshim kalim" - when the parts of these offerings were on the offering before the sprinkling of the blood (which was usually necessary to make them suitable for the altar). Plus, a key distinction between animals that were already slaughtered as compared to those that were alive - and already brought to the altar (and then brought down). Also, what about a blemished animal that ended up on the altar? With comparisons brought between bird offerings and animal offerings - specifically, for example, in the case of cataracts. Plus, the timing of placement on the altar - if the blemish precedes the consecration of the specific animal. Also, delving into the details of bestiality - with birds, no less.

On the debate over what items can be taken down from the altar, and which must remain here - and then, against the backdrop of the several tannaitic views, the decision was made. With libations in a different category from the offerings themselves, apparently. Also, a new mishnah! Paying new attention to that which became invalidated before bringing them into the courtyard, let alone on the altar... With a specific list, including idolatry, bestiality, and more. Also, the Gemara on this mishnah that addresses 3 exclusions from the altar - as brought in a beraita -- exclusions for which the blood indeed would be brought down. Specifically, assessing Rabbi Yehudah's view.

Finishing chapter 8: If the kohen brought the blood of the offering into the Sanctuary unintentionally, the offering remains valid - implying that if he had done so intentionally, it would have invalidated the offering, but it seems to remain acceptable anyway. Plus, the Gemara lines up the various opinions to clarify them. Also, beginning chapter 9, with a new mishnah! On how the altar sanctified that which was fit for the altar - with a baseline of the burnt-offering. With discussion of what remains on the altar once it has been put there - even if it should not have been put there initially. Also, more on when that which has been brought on the altar, and should not have been - were they sanctified from their placement on the altar even though they shouldn't have been there? With credit to Rabbi Yehoshua for following his own thinking, though it may not have sat well across the board - for example, something that is fit for the altar, but wasn't offered at that time (certainly, there's no absolute agreement about such cases). Note also that not everything that is to be consumed by fire has the same status of sacrifices (for example, incense).

An outer offering is invalid when its blood is brought into the Sanctuary - which seems to be the sin-offering. With Rabbi Akiva's exegesis. Also, a new chapter and a new mishnah! With cups in and out of the courtyard - again reviewing what invalidates the offering. Also, comparing offerings with a tenant vs. a scheduled release indenture - and why it doesn't quite work.

More on the question of blood that was mixed together - this time, if blood that should have been above the red line with that which should have been below the red line - and it is, of course, a matter of dispute. Also, sources for the blood needing to be where it is placed by which animal on the altar, though there's little practical application, despite the disputes.

A long mishnah that begins on daf 79b: More on mixtures of blood - first, that of an animal with no blemish with that of an animal with a blemish. Which necessitates spilling that mixture down the drain. But the cases here recognize the difference between what is ideal and what needs to be tolerated, or is considered acceptable once it has already been done. Which moves the discussion to the question of placing blood in 4 places or only 1 place on the altar - which some of the blood needs the 4 places, and some the 1, which turns into a dispute over "bal tosif" vs. "bal tigra" -- adding or suppressing to the mitzvah. Also, the Gemara discusses a parallel mishnah - where the dispute is about a blemished limb, rather than this mixture issue. Plus, whether these mixtures work to "blend" -- and when can you cover your bases?

Even a mixture of liquid may depend on majority, though the appearance of the mixture may make the difference -- for example, if the color of the liquid is lighter than it would have been without being mixed with another liquid. With different treatment of spit as compared to urine. But the substance itself can't be nullified by the same kind of substance. Plus, an impure person's urine that is nullified by several mixings with (pure) water (how many times is a matter of dispute). Also, once the impure liquid comes in contact with flax, the impurity remains.