Talking Talmud

A new mishnah! If the blood of an offering were mixed with blood... it is still acceptable as an offering. What if it were mixed with wine? Or if the bloods mingled.... The blood must appear to be blood, at the very least, rather than whatever other liquid it might have mingled with. Plus, the debate over what it means for the blood to be recognizable. And the question of which liquid becomes the majority - whether it's like with like, or different substances, with ramifications for whether the mixture can be used on the altar.

Two new mishnayot for today's episode (and one for tomorrow's): 1. What happens if the limbs of already slaughtered animals for different offerings are mixed up? With several possible solutions to the mix-up to ensure that nothing is violating the honor and sanctity of the altar. 2. What if the limbs of a valid offering are mixed with the limbs of a blemished offering? And again, with assessment in the Gemara as to how to handle them.

Money from the sale of shevi'it produce cannot be used to purchase terumah produce, lest the permissible time to eat the produce be too limited. But Rabbi Shimon seems to allow terumah spices even when one might have thought the permitted time period is long over. With several cases of back and forth on his views. Also, when the stringencies of both guilt-offerings and peace-offerings - for example - were necessary.

When there's a mix-up of sacrifices and it's not clear who brought which offering, then the question of semihah - the laying on of hands on the animal - comes to the fore. Plus, what if the mix-up is between private ownership vs. public ownership? Or is the mix-up just the blood? And how - again - might it compare to the parah adumah? (Spoiler alert: It doesn't.) Also, all offerings can be intermingled and confused - a strong statement, when some offerings are always male or female, which should not be confusable, for example. Plus, a new mishnah - also about mix-ups, and where they should be treated according to the stringencies that are in each kind of offering (in the example, a guilt-offering and a peace-offering).

More on mix-ups of prohibited animals together with permitted animals... with a tour back to Tractate Avodah Zarah, with a ring of idolatry that was intermingled with other non-prohibited rings. And then one is lost in the Mediterranean. How does that affect the decision about majority? And how does it inform the understanding of the animals...? Plus, the division to form majority - with the specific example of 100 rings. Also, when one of a mixture of 10,000, as the case may be, of which one is prohibited, falls into another group of three, such that it is still in a minority, is it permitted or not? Plus terumah, plus the impact of the Dead Sea.

The principle that is learned from the details surrounding the dried figs, a specific example: when things are sold by number, they can't be nullified in a majority. With some dispute about when and whether the majority can actually nullify the figs, for example. Also, a mixture of sacrifices, where the process of offering them is different, and therefore there's no way to treat them stringently - as in the sin-offering and the burn-offering, where the blood is put below and above the red line respectively.

More on the mixtures, and the unidentifiable element that was prohibited from benefit. With a strong question as to why the rule of negating the prohibited element in the majority that is not prohibited does not apply. Of course, it's a machloket - and contingent on the nature of the mixture, and whether the items can be counted and are sold individually. Plus, the comparison to a mishnah in Orlah, and specific fruits and dried fruits, with dried figs as the example.

Chapter 8! And a new mishnah. On mixtures, when something that is prohibited for benefit is mixed with "regular" items (or, in these cases, animals) of the same kind - such that that which is prohibited for benefit cannot be identified, then the whole lot would need to be put to death. Or, depending on the nature of the prohibition, perhaps all animals put out to pasture until they got a blemish, rather than put to death. Those animals were then sold, and the money was used to purchase new offerings. Also, the details that "any amount" of that which is prohibited for benefit is startling in the larger amount that might be destroyed for that small amount. Note the parallel mishnah in Tractate Temurah, and the fact that both mishnayot (here and there) are needed to teach these laws, or we might end up drawing the wrong conclusions.

A complicated daf.... with a textual comparison of biblical verses, focusing on the words "neveilah" and "treyfah" - both of which are now defined. With many categories and permutations of both, and each, when it comes to different kinds of animals. Plus, a more straightforward passage on the unusual terms of the birds with melikah, when the bird has a blemish, and then in comparison to unusual animal (non-bird) offerings, such as a goat, and then, finally, a focus on the "eglah arufah," the heifer who is then considered its own category.

More on the pinching of the bird - melikah. If done in ways that were considered inappropriate or incongruous (like, at night), then the melikah would be invalid, but without rendering anything impure - not even the clothing of the kohen. Plus, the newly introduced term of a "treyfah," but the definition is yet to come. How does the proper slaughter of a treyfah prevent the impurity that accompanies a "neveilah," carcass?