Talking Talmud

A new mishnah: When the bird is killed improperly in the context of sacrifices, it does not necessarily constitute a carcass, in terms of conveying impurity. Specifically, melikah vs. slaughtering. Note the question of maturity - including in terms of appearance - of the birds. The Gemara dives into how the phenomenon of melika makes the difference as far as the carcass of the bird is considered. Including an attempted parallel to the red heifer.

Bringing a burnt-offering from a bird can switch to be a sin-offering, if the procedure that is done is the sin-offering practice, instead of the burnt-offering practice. Plus, the queries of the Gemara on this with a contradictory case of two women who bring the burnt- and sin-offerings post childbirth, and what happens in the event of error or confusion.

Chapter 7! Opening, of course, with a new mishnah: Still, with regard to bird offerings, with all the proper details of a sin-offering for the offering to be valid. And then cases that changes an element, such that the sin-offering is incorrectly offered - whether in procedure or intent, the offerings are then invalid -- though not judged for karet. And likewise, the same review for the bird burnt-offering, olah. Also, another long mishnah - with a shift to focus on dead body of the bird, and when "nevalah" - the impurity of the body of a dead animal - might kick in, or not - because the offering does not carry that kind of impurity, or shouldn't, depending on the terms. Going back to me'ilah - the misuse of that which has been consecrated. Plus, can there be misuse of a bird olah, as consecrated? It's a machloket.

When the kohen burns the bird on the altar, in its removed separate body parts, from crop to gizzard. Plus, the examples of when the intent was wrong or the placement was wrong, and so on - and when those errors in protocol invalidated the offering, distinguishing between the sin-offering and the burnt-offering. Also, If the kohen didn't remove the crop, or other parallel removings, then, with implications for whether the offering is supposed to be a sin-offering or burn-offering. With a key dispute and 3 understandings of that particular dispute.

3 things were done on the altar above the red line - including libations of water and wine, and certain details of the bird olah (burnt-offering), and on the southeast corner. Also, specific directions or coordinates where the different parts of the offering must take place. Plus, a new mishnah! Specifically the details of the bird sin-offering. Including a vivid description of "melikah" of the bird - pinching the neck of the bird in such a way as to nearly separate the head from the body. And then all that blood would be placed (or dripped) on the altar. Also, a very long mishnah detailing various practices pertaining to the bird offerings, including that pinch on the neck -- and also the permutations of details that could go wrong with our without significant impact on the validity of the offering.

Two new mishnayot! 1 - What is the proper place of the fistful of grain of the grain-offering? Defining "kimtzah" -- scooping up the meal. That kimtzah was tantamount to the act of slaughtering of an animal sacrifice, in terms of the details surrounding it (of course, it's not animal), like where in the courtyard the procedure could be done. 2 - The bird offering - and other procedures that were done above the red line and below the red line, respectively. Plus, directing traffic on the ramp of the altar, and traversing the top of the altar too.

Building the Second Temple's altar - at which point, they already knew the outline of the building itself, but they weren't quite sure about the altar. How did the know? One suggestion is that the archangel Michael told them in a vision. Alternatively, the "ashes of Isaac" -- as seen in a vision -- were seen in the same place as the altar, namely, since that was also the location of the Binding of Isaac. Alternatively, the scent at the place was that of the offerings, instead of the scent of incense that was designed to improve the overall smell of the place. Plus 3 prophets revealed the necessary details of replacing the altar -- and maybe also to use the now-classic Torah scribal script for writing a Torah scroll. Also, the ramp to the altar were separated by a gap -- which means that the offering was thrown across the gap, and the practice of doing so was derived from a verse.

When the Tabernacle was in Shilo, the altar seems to have been made of stones, and not the copper that Moshe made. But if that's the case, how was there unceasing use of the same altar from Moshe to Shlomo (Moses to Solomon)? The Gemara, of course, attempts to resolve that contradiction to the satisfaction of both claims (no ceasing of the fire on the altar from Moses to Solomon and the ostensibly stone altar). Also, the size of the altar in the Second Temple (long after Solomon's altar in the First Temple), based on a mishnah in Middot. Plus, why the size was increased.

Using a textual comparison to connect the outer altar of Moses with that of Ezekiel - or alternatively interpreted to connect the outer altar of Moses with that of the inner altar of Moses. This inference raises the question of how far that kind of interpretation can go - in light of the specific measurements of these altars: is the altar a "vessel," or not? Plus, the question of whether the courtyard's floor was eligible as a place for the offerings - for example, could the blood really be sprinkled on the floor?! Which raises the concern of just how bloody this process was, and all the more for the night of Pesach sacrifice. Also, questions about the meal-offerings that needed to be eaten at the time of the other offerings -- apparently next to the altar, but that view is revised to establish: not if the altar was broken. Plus, a dive into ma'aser sheni - that was to be eaten in sanctity in Jerusalem - and how that requirement of being in the holy city compared to a requirement of the Temple itself being present at the time too.

If the altar is damaged, the offerings that were slaughtered there - where the damaged altar is - are invalid. Of course, the question then arises, what about the order of operations? Did the offering's slaughter take place before or after the damage to the altar? Also, what happens to an animal that has been rendered disqualified? For example, what if the altar were fixed? Would the offering become acceptable again? Note: The rejected offering is called "dichui." Also, considering how many offerings King Solomon brought on the day of inaugurating the Temple, how did they manage? Was the altar too small? Did the king sanctify the entire courtyard? Or was the phrasing just to be nicer to the altar, as it were?