Talking Talmud

Chapter 6! With a new mishnah - Is the status of the altar as if it's fully in the north, or only on the northerly portion of the altar itself? Keep in mind that being slaughtered in the north is essential to the sacrifice - namely, for it to be valid. At least, for the kinds of offerings that must be slaughtered in the north to be valid. One solution to the dispute, of course, is the fact that the offerings themselves had different requirements. Also, the Gemara looks for the sources for the northerly location. Plus, where the altar actually stood (not so simple), and the differences between what was relevant for the inside and outside. The details of the options of the antechamber vs. the main chamber are also essential here. All with an eye to the north.

Starting with the last mishnah (on the bottom of 56:) - the offerings of the first-born, the tithes, Passover sacrifice, and more... in terms of what is eaten by whom. Starting with the first-born and the tithing - where the Gemara finds a source for the details and time frame of these offerings. The sages in these discussions are earlier - Tannaim, not Amoraim - and Rabbi Tarfon himself is a kohen. Which makes him more familiar with the details, perhaps. And Rabbi Yossi HaGelili has some questions for him. With a comparison to the piece-offering. Also, why the Passover sacrifice was eaten only at night and only until midnight (or the midpoint of the dark of the night). And it's another dispute between Tannaim - in this case, Rabbi Elazar ben Azariyah and Rabbi Akiva.

The dimensions of the courtyard are key for determining where a person becomes liable for being impure in the courtyard. Plus, the impact on where the slaughtering can be done for kodshei kodshim and kodshei kalim. Also, when the sunset has begun, the blood can no longer before offered on the altar for that same day.

We have 3 mishnayot today - with one at the very bottom of the previous daf. 1. The guilt-offerings (ashamot) together with the peace-offerings, but with a focus on the former - the mishnah delineates the terms of where to slaughter the offering, where to bring the blood, and so on. 2. The mishnah specifies "kodshim kalim," the less holy of the offerings, where the terms were a little more flexible, such as slaughtering the offering anywhere in the Temple courtyard, instead of only in the northern part. Including details about who can be present when the kohanim eat from these offerings in the outer courtyard - or even elsewhere in Jerusalem. 3. Nearly an exact repetition of the previous mishnah, with the focus on the peace-offerings (shelamim). Also, the Gemara explains the location of where the slaughter should happen - noting the opening of the Ohel Mo'ed - the Tent of Meeting - indicate that all areas of the Temple courtyard would be acceptable.

The southeast corner of the altar didn't have a base - but what does that mean? Was there no physical base or does it mean that the base there couldn't be used for the blood? Perhaps it's because of the divide in the property in the portions of Yehudah and Binyamin - where the sacrifice had to be done in Yehudah's portion. Also, the selection of David and Samuel of the place on the hill upon which the Temple would be built - as among the highest places around, "between the shoulders."

2 mishnayot! On sin-offerings - the procedure of how the slaughter, blood, altar, and eating the portions of the offering were all handled. This itemization includes the route the kohen would take on ascending the altar and walking around it (on the top) for the sake of putting the blood on the corners of the altar, with two views on how precisely those placements that needed to happen. Plus, a discussion of the red line that separates between the upper blood and the lower blood on the altar, and the source for it. Also - delineating kodshei kodshim and kodshei kalim, the gradations of holiness of the different sacrifices. Plus, how the division of the land according to tribes is manifest in the Temple - with part of it in Yehudah's portion and part of it in Binyamin's portion.

More on the pouring the remaining blood after sprinkling on the base of the altar.... And the way to conclude the requirements regarding this blood - via logical inference instead of biblical text making the point. The concern being whether this pouring would disqualify the offering, though it seems that everyone agrees that it will not. Which raises the question as to the blood of a bird offering, which might be disqualifying (it's a machloket), moving a step or two away from the original premise of a question. Also, there is, of course, a view that the pouring of the blood is essential (meaning, if it were not done, it would disqualify the offering after all) - as found in a long baraita. But all that material really comes to teach the point of the essential nature of the pouring. Which, of course, is then refuted - or the attempt is made. Plus, a slew of practical questions for which we don't have immediate answers.

Exegetical prowess: "binyan av" - learning the narrow case from a more general case. This category is added to the others: gezerah shavah, kal va-chomer, and hekesh. And the Gemara uses a baraita about disqualified blood as learned from a "binyan av" to probe whether it could then be applied to another binyan av. But that would mean deriving a law regarding that which was improperly done to that which was properly done, and that is difficult. And binyan av is determined to be a less used approach. Also, back to the halakhot about pouring the remaining blood - after the sprinkling - on the western side of the base of the external altar. And what might have been thought to do otherwise. But does the blood really need to be poured out there, when it doesn't bring about atonement or prevent it if it weren't done?

More on rabbinic interpretation of the biblical text and the rules about how that works - by means of gezarah shavah, kal va-chomer, hekesh. What happens when the sages themselves aren't sure that they're inferences and analogies work in the derivation of halakhot? When can logic triumph over textual inference?

Shifting focus to the guilt-offering (the "asham"), and the fact that it too is to be slaughtered in the northern part of the Temple courtyard - along with the blood collection and sprinkling and so on. And, again, the details are derived from the Torah's verses and inferences from one verse to another. Also, the guilt-offering slaughtered by the person who is coming off tzara'at also needs to be in the north of the Temple courtyard. And this derivation is then used to understand certain exegetical rules that apply to elsehwere in the Torah as well. The claim is that the Torah is written in this way to make sure that we learn the halakhah in this way.