Talking Talmud

For a case of certainly pure terumah vs. uncertain terumah (whether it's pure or not) - in light of the plural of the word "terumotai" in the Torah. Or is it "terumati"?! Also, what if one DID make a blemish on a first-born animal, even though it's of course not allowed. The Gemara specifically looks for comparable cases to determine the penalties, if there are to be any.

The Gemara picks up on Beit Hillel's leniency from the previous day's mishnah, and Rabbi Akiva's opinion on "the gazelle and the hart" - which are permitted to a non-Jew to eat. And how that phrasing drives the interpretation, including explanations by Rishonim (the medieval commentators). Plus, the question whether menstruant woman could participate in such a meal. Also, a new mishnah! You can't actively intentionally make a blemish in an animal, but certain actions that might leave a blemish are allowed to prevent a more lasting blemish. Note the shift to issues of impurity and purity, in the case of wine where there's uncertainty as to whether it's impure.

A discussion here compares the first-born with tithed animals. For a firstborn, it cannot be redeemed, but it can be sold. And tithed animals are the reverse. What's the source? The Gemara explains that for the subjects of this group much be free. Thus, there are two steps here - establishing that a "maaser" item cannot be redeemed to begin. with. The details, for those who delve in, show many different appearances of non-Geulah. Also, a focus on the "gezarah shavah" as the methodological leading principle here. The phrase cannot be used for other inferences for that gezarah shavah to work at all. Also, a statement by Rava about how that which has been dedicated cannot be redeemed, at least when it's a first-born animal. Plus, it depends where the items are - whether in the kohen's possession or that of the owner. Also, a very small new mishnah (!), with a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, as to whether those partaking of a blemished first born could sit together -- B"Sh says only kohanim; B"H says even a non-Jew!

Finishing the 4th chapter - with the series of baraitot about the "chaver" - with a focus here on the last one. That is, specifically, a kohen can examine first-borns for blemishes, as long as they are not being given to himself, but he could rule on his own sacrifices, for example. Plus, how many judges are needed for various things, including judging first-borns, one or three? Plus, other examples that require a court of 3, including halitzah. What if you have an expert in blemishes on that court? And starting chapter 5 - with a new mishnah: selling the meat of disqualified consecrated animals at the butcher vs. selling the blemished of first-born animals. They're not weighed precisely in contrast to the regular consecrated animals, and the proceeds go to the owner. Plus, Rav Sheshet and narrowing the focus of the mishnah to orphans...

A new mishnah! A person who is suspected or known to not be careful about the laws of the shemitah year may or may not be careful about tithing, and likewise with regard to the rules of purity/impurity. But once one is suspect, that person can't judge or bear witness, at least with regard to that specific arena. Also, a focus on the "chaver," someone who is known to be careful in all areas of halakhah. Including details that are debated between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai.