Talking Talmud

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.