Talking Talmud

Additional consideration of the rules about absorption and how they apply to the meal offering - and also the sin-offering, both of which are specified, when we might have thought only one would apply. Plus, the regulations of the sin-offering, including the kohen's using his right hand. Also, closing out the chapter - ending on a "teku" - when both blood and grease is absorbed by a seller's garment. And opening a new chapter with a new mishnah - with the case of one who has gone to the mikveh, but still needs to offer a sacrifice to remove impurity.

A new mishnah! (on the bottom of 96) - with Rabbi Tarfon's perspective, perhaps especially nuanced because he himself was a kohen. See his disagreement with the sages. With delving into the purging and rinsing, including the Pesach sacrifice as an example. Note that pigul and notar are not the focus in the way they have been previously, but the purging of the pot takes center stage (also based on biblical verses). Also, another new mishnah: when two foods are in the same dish with different statuses (for example, more or less holy), the food that imparts the greater flavor takes precedence in terms of the level of sanctity and accompanying restrictions because of it. But this text seems to have a gap that the Gemara fills in - without stating the possibility of a gap...

More on how absorbed flavors are to be removed from earthenware - now recognizing that smashing the earthenware would be a problem in Jerusalem. That is, the holy city had certain cautions against garbage and trash piles, which meant that the debris from the Temple needed to be handled in specific ways, depending on its composition. Also, the learning style of Rami bar Hama and Rav Sheshet, as presented by Rabbi Yitzhak b"r Yehudah. R. Yitzhak wants proofs from sources, not from logic, and even when Rami bar Hama sets out to use tannaitic sources to answer R. Yitzhak's question (about the impurity of garments and vessels), he defaults to logic.

A new mishnah (from the bottom of 94) - a garment with blood that was sprayed from a sin-offering and that was later moved out of the Temple courtyard - should be brought back to the courtyard for its laundering process. Earthenware vessels would need to be destroyed... which repurifies them, essentially. Likewise, the garment might be torn, so that it could be returned the courtyard in purity. But doesn't it then become so small that it's just a tiny scrap? How to achieve that middle ground that is not a garment and therefore repurified, but still large enough to launder (only "garments" were laundered)? Also, note that anywhere that the sin-offering is cooked, there's a need for purging and rinsing. But what about a vessel in which its broth is poured? That's not cooking - and yet it needs to be broken. What about using that same vessel for a food that is quintessentially dairy, like kutach? These rules about the sacrifices inform our understanding of kashrut, certainly.

Starting with an investigation into the word "beged," or garment, that would become impure and perhaps need laundering. With a discussion of that which is susceptible to impurity, with 3 scenarios to distinguish between what is "fit" for impurity and what is in fact becoming impure. Size is relevant, and so is how plain the garment is - if it's supposed to be embroidered and is not as yet, then it is not finished and not fit for impurity (but if it is supposed to be a plain garment, it would be). Also, moving back to the laundering question - specifically with regard to leather. With a biblical teaching that leather is relevant, but also a key distinction is made between soft leather (garments) and hard leather - and also between laundering that involves water and rubbing to clean the item, as compared to water alone.