Talking Talmud

Beginning with some aggadic material - with Abraham claiming about himself that he is nothing but dust and ashes, and that he and his descendants have 2 mitzvot. Which 2 mitzvot is a matter of discussion. The discussion leads to the color of "tekhelet" -- the blue thread in tzitzit, the ritual fringes, and what makes them distinctive. Plus, an encounter with Nimrod. Also, chapter 7! With a new mishnah, and the wrestling between Jacob and the angel, which leads to the prohibition of the sciatic nerve, the "gid ha-nasheh," and the many details pertaining to it.

Blood that splatters and blood that's left on the knife also need to be covered, with a verse to make that point. As long as there's no other blood there at the same time. But if the life-blood was covered, then these other extra locations of blood do not to be covered. Also, a new mishnah - with a long list of substances that can be used for covering the blood, including that which can make plants grow. Plus, defining "fine sand," as a possible blood-coverer. Also, what do you use if you're in a situation where there's no material that will support the sprouting of seeds after covering the blood?

2 mishnayot! 1 - What if one is obligated to cover the blood after the slaughter of a non-domesticated animal or a bird and does not do it? A passerby who sees it should then cover the blood, but if the blood had been covered and it became uncovered, then there's no longer an obligation to cover. If the wind covered it, the obligation remains. But in a story of someone who covered the blood before the slaughterer had a chance to do so, the person who covered the blood had to pay (in gold) the slaughterer -- with a question as to why exactly he's penalized. Plus, another story of Sadducees and the dynamic in Rome between Jewish sects and the drama of Birkat HaMazon. 2 - If the blood that is supposed to be covered is mixed with water or wine or the blood of an animal that doesn't need to be covered -- if the mixture has the appearance of blood, it still needs to be covered, for example. And the solution itself, including the proportion of blood therein matters less than the appearance.

A new mishnah! If a deaf-mute, someone with cognitive impairment, or a minor slaughtered an animal with supervision, then the slaughtering is kosher shechitah - and there's an obligation to cover the blood, if the animal were a non-domesticated animal or a bird. But not if there was no supervisor there. Likewise, when it comes to slaughtering an animal and its offspring on the same day. Also, Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi on covering the blood, and how far the requirement for taking care of this goes -- how did they figure out the halakhah? And another new mishnah! Slaughtering 100 animals in 1 place requires only 1 act of covering the blood.

A new mishnah! Does the mitzvah of covering the blood apply to an animal that is discovered to be unfit for consumption? Whether because the animal is a treyfa or because the slaughtering was done in the name of idolatry, for example. With sources, and machloket (of course) in the Gemara on the mishnah, with a focus on the rabbis and Rabbi Shimon, and then, eventually, the view of Rabbi Meir as well. Plus, Rabbi Meir's opinion and Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi's opinion line up for some of the cases, in any case.