Advertise on podcast: Talking Talmud

Can a fistful of grain function for different parts of the requirements of the grain-offering? Look to the verses in Leviticus. And what happens when one part becomes impure? The Gemara pauses on a "teiku." Also, a question from Rava - delving further into the ritual impurity, with consideration to different levels of impurity, and how it is conveyed to the next item over that comes in contact with the object that is impure (or is not rendered impure as the case may be).

Rava asks: If one takes a fistful of the grain and squeezes out the oil onto wood, does mean the fistful is missing its oil? Would that be invalid for an offering? How is that oil paralleled in animal sacrifice? (Or isn't it parallel?) Also, a new mishnah: Grain-offerings which haven't yet had the fistful taken from either one, and now the grain is mixed together - can they each have the fistful taken, or are they too blended? If the latter, then they're both invalid. The Gemara follows, with a dispute between Rav Hisda and Rabbi Hanina, regarding how meat that came to be in a mixture between impure meat and pure meat - when is the one kind negated or nullified in the other kind?

A new mishnah! A handful of one grain-offering that is mixed with another handful of grain... according to the rabbis' view, the mingling does not invalidate the sacrifice. Burning it on the altar is fine. But Rabbi Yehudah notes that select grain-offerings would not be valid in these circumstances. The Gemara then delves into parsing Rabbi Yehudah's position here, with comparison to the animal sacrifices of Zevahim. Plus, the question of when and whether substances can be nullified in the mixture of something of its same kind or something that much more different from the original. Note - these laws of mixtures are relevant to all areas of Halakhah, not just the sacrificial realm... except that the "no nullification" rule IS specific to the sacrificial realm. Or at least, when it's items of the same substance and also being offered on the altar. But the case is determined to be difficult.

More on salt... including the verses that require it for the grain-offerings, as well as the "melach s'domit" - salt from the Sodom region. As compared to salt that is quarried from a rock. The sacrificial hides were treated with salt too. So what is meant by "for the sacrifice" as compared to "for their eating"? They didn't only eat the holy foods - the regular foods could be eaten alongside. Note also that temple salt itself wasn't considered reserved for the kohanim. Plus, a comparison between the salt and the frankincense.

Rav Huna challenges Rav about whether salt is required for the grain-offering, even though it isn't presented in the Torah with double-language (as other requirements are). Which opens the discussion of the salt in new ways. Also, the Torah verse about salt and the grain-offering makes it clear that salt is essential to the offering. In contrast, in the case of the grain-offering, to the blood on the altar. Plus, a mnemonic to help remember the factors that would nonetheless require salt.

Wherever you have the word "torah" (meaning, law, not the Torah in total) and the word "chukah" (meaning, statute) - then the capacity to invalidate the offering kicks in . But does that mean either/or or both? It certainly sounds like both - but the Gemara tracks it through and either/or sounds better by the end... Plus, the list of occasions or specific categories of people for which these terms are present in context in the Torah. Also, scriptural repetition about the requirements of the grain-offering establishes those details (where the repetition takes place) as essential. But the offering itself must be a permanent one for this essential status. Until the case where temporary status seems not to be a problem, in light of the number of repetitions...?

If one has intent to leave blood over from an animal sacrifice, does everyone agree that doing so would invalidate the offering? The Tannaim hash it out - with a focus on Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi and Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua. With a lot of heartfelt drama in the details of this passage. Also, a new mishnah: If you didn't do a whole slew of the tasks associated with the grain-offering, the tasks on that list won't invalidate the offering. Plus, the Gemara that delves into the specifics of those tasks, and why those details matter to preserve the validity of the offerings. And more on the Temple service for the shelamim - peace-offerings too. Plus, the 15 tasks associated with these grain-offerings all together.

Rabbi Hanina helped Rabbi Hamnuna with understanding something in Torah that he counted as equivalent to all the rest of his Torah learning: namely, on the burning of the handful and pigul, of course. Also, starting chapter 3 with a new mishnah! Taking the fistful of grain, but as something that is not meant to be eaten or that which is not meant to be burned - that would still be valid (except for one who disagrees). With a delving into these details, and then a conundrum regarding the double-language in the source verses.

A long mishnah - on the affect of pigul when it only affects part of the "permitter" - matirin - namely, by burning one part, the rest becomes permitted for consumption. Including a dispute between Rabbi Meir and the sages -- which leads to other areas of dispute between them. And further, a dispute between Rav and Shmuel about the dispute of Rabbi Meir and the sages. Also, the 43 (or 47 or 48) presentations of blood from the animal sacrifices of Yom Kippur. Also, a sesame seed and the smallest amount of potential pigul. Plus, a rejection of Rabbi Meir's views here.

2 mishanyot! 1 - How combinations can make items pigul or not. With the cases of the thanksgiving offering (animal offering plus loaves) and also the "Shtei HaLehem" - lambs and 2 loaves of Shavuot. Also, a long discussion about what question Rabbi Elazar asked of Rav (to determine the question itself), in terms of pigul with varied factors -- the order of events, with regard to offerings, intent, minimal measure, and so on. Plus, a mention of "cannabis" (hemp) in the context of mixtures. 2 - Pigul intent renders the libations pigul once they've been sanctified, but the libations, if brought with pigul intent, would not make the offerings themselves pigul.

Is there such a thing as pigul for half of the offering? It's a machloket! And a further development of Rabbi Yosei's position, which doesn't presume karet and whether some amount of pigul intent contaminates everything - for example, the 2 loaves of lechem ha-panim. What is the smallest unit, so to speak, that can become a problem of pigul? Or can it be in parts at all? Also, what about mitigating factors against the phenomenon of pigul - to make an offering permitted, when it might have become pigul? Also, delving into the position of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi, regarding combining intents and whether pigul results. Plus, the implications of a communal offering (vs. a personal one), with regard to purity/impurity.

Returning to pigul, in a new mishnah, with a focus on Rabbi Yosei's position of when the wrong intent would not result in a punishment of karet. Also, on how removing the fistful of grain was considered parallel to the slaughtering in animal sacrifice. And then the placement of the handful into a vessel is akin to collecting the blood of an animal sacrifice after slaughtering in a vessel. Plus, another new mishnah: the 2 loaves of "lechem ha-panim" (the shewbread) and the 2 bowls of frankincense on the Shulhan/Table - and how they are subject to pigul too.

A long mishnah... specifically on how grain-offerings can be brought with invalidating intent, and how that will make the offerings "pigul." Yet, sometimes, the offering will be invalid, but the punishment for that would not be "karet" (and other times, it would be karet). Plus, the measure of an olive's worth, and the impact of that size portion. Also, the distinction between a sinner's grain-offering, in that the frankincense is not offered, and the burden of violation to the extent of pigul is slightly harder. Plus, again, whether a half-olive measure of eating and a half-olive measure of burning can combine to make a full-olive measure of violation (spoiler: the answer is no).

More on the kohen's fistful from the grain - ensuring no barrier to the grain itself. Plus, the physical description of how to take the grain in one's hand, with the understanding of a basic action - namely, what it means to take a handful. But what about if one used fingertips? Are all fingers supposed to be involved? The Torah has phrasing from which some details may be gleaned. Also, the frankincense! Which itself is (usually) essential to the menahot. Plus, a dispute about what happens for an offering of frankincense on its own, as compared together with the grain-offering (or the lehem hapanim).

When the Torah uses the term "finger" or the term "kohen," it is understood to always mean the right hand. The bias against the left-hand is already understood, but note that the Torah specifies the right-hand on occasion. But there are other occasions when the left-hand was explicitly called for (also as per the Torah) - to the extent that Rabbi Shimon allowed left-handed acceptance of the blood. Going back to the verses, "finger" AND "kohen" is necessary in his estimation. And the mishnah seems not to have included this machloket.