Talking Talmud

When the bulls and he-goats are taken out to get burned and they render the people who handle them impure, what happens if the carcasses need to be brought back through the courtyard? Plus, the question of multiple people carrying a carcass - but the carcass can leave the courtyard before the "back" carriers would be out of the courtyard. And then it boils down to a verse... Also, when a kosher bird imparts impurity - what is the measure needed for it to do so? Plus, a deep dive into Rabbi Meir's opinion, as established in the mishnah. And the question whether the degrees of impurity will kick in, but that kind of impurity starts out as pretty severe to begin with.

More on the hides that would go to the kohanim, unless disqualification gets in the way -- but that really depends on when the disqualification takes place, including before or after the sprinkling of the blood of that offering. Also, specific offerings where the meat was not eaten - "internal sin-offerings," for which the blood was brought on the inner altar - and they were burned at Beit HaDeshen, the place of ashes (bulls and he-goats) and they render those who deal with them impure. Also, the "birah" - defining this location.

Two mishnayot: Mishnah 1 - When the burnt offering is disqualified, the kohanim won't get the hide of the offering, depending on when the disqualification took place, and why it's been disqualified (for example, not brought in the name of the right offering - which would not fulfill the person's obligation in bringing that offering, but the kohanim would get the hide). The Gemara focuses on what it means that the offering belongs to a person, but not hekdesh (and not that of a convert). Plus, the limud/learning that teaches that the kohanim get the hides of kodshei kodshim, and the hides of the kodshei kalim go to the owners who bring the offerings. Mishnah 2 - What happens to the hides when they've already been flayed from the offering, before disqualification? Rabbi Hanina, deputy high priest, said he never saw the hides going out to be burnt - which leads Rabbi Akiva to draw conclusions that the sages then rebut.

On kings and whether Moses was one - with the argument that he was not king, and also that he was, but without being the progenitor of a dynasty of kingship. Which leads to a discussion of monarchic dynasties - and the lack thereof, including King Saul. Also, how kohanim who are unfit for the service of a given day do not eat from that day's offerings... except that the shares of meat given the kohanim with blemishes has already been established! Plus, the logic of the order of the statements on these points.

The Gemara addresses the acute mourning of Aharon (Aaron) in the Torah when Nadav and Avihu die on the altar, when they bring the "strange fire" - and, among other offerings, a sin-offering was brought too - and Moshe (Moses) rebukes Aharon for burning the sin-offering among them. How much does Aharon's conduct inform the practices-to-be of kohanim in a state of acute mourning in the generations to come? Also, was Moshe himself a kohen, given his partaking of the offerings on this day of establishing the Mishkan? Doesn't the very fact that he was able to eat from the offerings mean he must have been a kohen? It's not that simple