Liquid that can complete the volume of 40 se'ah of water needed for a mikveh also would work to fill the basin in the Temple. The question then is which substances meet this definition of the liquids that can indeed complete the water of a mikveh or the kiyor. Plus, a discussion of the insects that "develop from water" - and the quesiton of science in the Talmud. Also, with regard to impurity that invalidates the kohen for the service, must it come from a dead body? What about a creepy-crawlie? (or reverse the cases, for that matter) Plus, the distinction between those who bring about atonement as compared to those who achieve atonement.
What if the kohen dunks his hands and feet into the basin instead of running the water from the basin over his hands and feet? Does that work? The Gemara delves into the source verses for this practice and suggests that the water must come "from" the basin - though perhaps "in it" works as well. Also, a 3-way debate if the water in the basin remains overnight - is it valid for purification and consecration?
Halakhot brought from the land of Israel to the scholars of Babylonia - Rav Dimi quoting R. Yochanan, on the dilemma raised by Ilfa: If water is left overnight, will that work to sanctify hands and feet? Which themselves can stay sanctified overnight. Also, the question of whether leaving the Temple courtyard would require re-washing and sanctifying the kohen's hands and feet. Can the hands and feet be sanctified outside of the Temple? What about if one needs the bathroom?
On the garments of the kohen - and how he can bandage a finger with a reed, for example, while he is serving in the Temple, but not if he weren't part of the worship at that time. Plus, a full bandage being a concern of being another garment, and being a problem of adding to the required garments. Size being relevant as well. Also, the kohen gadol who purifies for the service of Yom Kippur, including washing his hands and feet, and also considering the clothing changes - missing an immersion doesn't necessarily invalidate his service. With clear details of how the kohen must position himself - which is interesting, given that it's not quite intuitive.
A kohen who isn't wearing all of the priestly garments cannot do the service. And he has to wear them well - but if they are too long or too short or too worn out, that would still be acceptable. But not if we doubled up or left off one of them (4 garments for a regular kohen, 8 for the kohen gadol). What about a bandage (we'll see tomorrow that it depends). Or dirty. All of those factors would invalidate the service. Also, the fabric of the garments have very specific criteria as well - in terms of it being fine linen and the way the threads are made.
The mishnah identified the person handling the offering with the status of a "tevul yom" -- one who is waiting until nightfall for the purity effected by immersing in the mikveh earlier in the day to kick in -- as one whose offering would not be valid. So the search for the source for this conclusion is undertaken by the Gemara - including a comparison to shaving the head and/or points of the face. Also, a sampling of the establishment of norms for those who might bring such a korban - in this case, a zav or one akin to a zav, with an unhealthy seminal emission (one who is a mehusar kippurim) - with a connection to the red heifer.
Chapter 2 - with 2 new forms of disqualification: the wrong person or a person with the wrong status bringing the offering -- or bringing it at the wrong time. The mishnah lists the many people who would invalidate the offering just by virtue of who they are or what their status is. And then the Gemara looks to source each of the people who would have invalidated the offering, with an effort to find the precise ones. Plus, the example of the "onen," the acute mourner, if he is the kohen gadol, whose service would invalidate the offering. As sourced in the story of Nadav and Avihu, and Aaron's refraining from offering sacrifices immediately after their shocking deaths.
More on whether the conveyance of the blood from the place of slaughter to the altar needs to be via walking. Plus, how to handle a bird, whose slaughtering is already at the altar, without collection and conveyance of the blood. The discussion, when reported in the land of Israel generated laughter, which is eventually explained. What about a non-kohen doing the conveying? With all kinds of possible permutations.
Where is the sin-offering slaughtered? And what happens if the offering is slaughtered elsewhere? [What's What: The footprint of the Temple, and which areas are where.] And how does the incorrect intent in the wrong place have impact on the validity of the offering? Plus, the question of whether conveying the blood from one part of the Temple to another needs intent (and whether it needs walking to be valid). Also, can a non-kohen do this aspect of the service? What aspects of this process is the formal "avodah," and what parts are just maintenance, as it were?
A new mishnah! If a Korban Pesach and a sin-offering were slaughtered, but not for their own sakes correctly, then they won't be fit for those specific purposes. And this need for correct intent applies to all 4 acts of worship with regard to the blood - correct slaughter, collecting the blood, conveying it to the altar, and sprinkling it on the altar. But whether conveying the blood is truly part of this worship is opened for discussion. Also, a discussion of pigul - namely, the meat of an offering outside of its specific time of offering. Including a discussion of a kohen who dips a finger in the blood and whether that has impact on the validity of the korban and also on the question of pigul. Part of the issue is that most laws of these offerings are derived from the peace-offering, shelamim, but pigul has different halakhot for the sin-offering.
More on the timing of the slaughtering of the Korban Pesach - whether it needs to be done in the afternoon of the 14th of Nisan or whether the morning of the 14th works too. Also, a newborn animal and how it can't be offered and also can't be given as a tithe. Plus, the case of one who does wrong (eating forbidden fat), designates his sin-offering, becomes a heretic (so his designation is negated and the offering is disqualified), and then comes back to faith -- is the offering reinstated? What about someone who loses his cognitive abilities (at the same point where the first one became a heretic), and then he was healed - is the offering reinstated? Both cases are necessary, as the Gemara explains. What if the court rules that the fat isn't actually forbidden? And then retracts the ruling that it was permitted - is that offering disqualified or no? Plus, the time that all the sages agreed.
More on the parallels and comparsions between various offerings, and the way intent for the particular offering does (or does not) invalidate a meal-offering. Including whether the blood of the given (animal) offering can be present in the Holy of Holies. Also, a new mishnah! Is a Korban Pesach that is slaughtered in the morning of the 14th of Nisan considered slaughtered at the wrong time? Plus, the new wrinkle of whether the offering is eaten, as compared to the korban olah, which is not. And returning to the question of early on the 14th of Nisan counts as the correct time for the Pesach sacrifice.
A beraita quoting a dispute between between R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua. A comparison between the sin-offering and the guilt-offering, distinguishing between them in several ways, including details about the way blood was applied to the altar, above and below a red line on the altar. With other details being similar to uphold the comparisons.
Can one switch a Korban Pesach to be a different offering? Or any offerings to be other offerings? How similar or dissimilar would the two different offerings need to be? To establish the various boundaries for the offerings, as they emerge from comparison to the Korban Pesach. [Who's Who: Mavog] [Who's Who: Rav Mesharshiyah] To establish that there are different kinds of sin-offerings, with real practical differences among them.
The Gemara uses the Torah's verses to prove which offerings need to be offered specifically in the name of its purpose and for the owner. With a distinction between sin-offerings that are offered in atonement and apology for violating a karet-level sin, as compared to the nazir's sin-offering. Which sacrifices can be learned from other sacrifices, or specifically not? Also, the Korban Pesach, and how its timing is essential, but so too is it essential that it be offered for its specific purpose.
Now, the peace-offerings that are brought on occasions of thanksgiving - what if one were slaughtered in the name of a different person's thanksgiving? Is the fact that it's still a thanksgiving offering sufficient for it to be fit as an offering, or must another be offered? Also, other offerings that have to be made in the name of the specific sacrifice (like the Korban Pesach, which has to be a Shelamim/peace-offering).
More questions on sacrifices that were brought with incorrect intent. Do these incorrect sacrifices that are kosher as sacrifices function to atone for those who bring them? The in-depth discussion begins on amud alef and continues through amud bet. Note that a korban olah atones for a lack of fulfillment of a positive commandment -- what happens if a person needs to atone for two such violations? Including a parallel to the laying on of hands (semiha) for the offering, though in the end, it is set aside.
A sacrifice brought for a different reason than the original intent is a kosher/valid sacrifice, but it doesn't remove the obligation for whatever sacrifice from the individual who needs to bring it. Plus, Resh Lakish and his penchant for lying on his stomach in the beit midrash (study hall), presumably as an example of his very simple living. He is named here because of his queries on the above principle regarding a sacrifice brought for the wrong intention. Meaning, if the offering is valid, why wouldn't it provide atonement for the person offering it? Rabbi Eliezer has an answer, based on a parallel to an offering that was designated by a given individual, but not brought before that person died. With a parallel to the woman who bears a child (with the open question regarding her potential dealth in the interim, given the maternal death rate at the time). Also, other sages weigh in on the same divided opinions - with precedent of a comparable situation, and making suppositions about how Resh Lakish would have responded to a query. Plus, more on the apparently comparable case of a mother's children and whehther they can effect the atonement ...
[Apologies for this late release. Unfortunately, we are beholden to the app we use for publication of each episode, and we were delayed, apparently, by the app updating, or not updating, as the case was. We hope it will be in good form now for a long time to come.]
What is the biblical source that the 4 different "blood" acts of worship - slaughter, receiving the blood in a consecrated vessel, bringing the blood to the altar, and throwing the blood on the altar - need to be done specifically for the sake of the specific offering being brought and also for the correct owner of that offering? Also, once those sources are established, a review of how the laws were actually derived from them - with principles of generalizations and specifics being applied.
If an offering is brought in the name of a different purpose from its originally intended purpose, it may or may not be fit as an offering. With comparisons to other arenas of Halakhah, specifically with regard to containers and the laws of purity and impurity. Also, an in-depth consideration of "change" - what happens when the owner of the offering is the change, and not the purpose of the offering itself? Why can't the offering be transferred to another?
