Zevachim 48: Order of Sacrifices; Post-Modern Writing

The rabbis begin our daf with a discussion about why our last Mishna begins with directions about sacrifices done in the northern part of the Temple courtyard.  However, the more interesting component of today's daf, for me, is the focus on the hermeneutic principals. 

Why would the Mishna begin with the Yom Kipur sacrifices and not the olah, burnt offering, which teaches is about the halacha about the placement of that offering (Vayikra 1:11)?  The Gemara teaches that we begin with offerings that came from rabbinic and not Torah taught instruction.  We learn that the Sages are enamoured by halachot that are based on logical inference.  To me, this is an example of the flexibility that the rabbis espouse when it comes to valourizing  their own work.

Sefer Vayikra (4:29) suggests that the offerings should be brought in the same place that the olah was to be brought.  However, the Sages were not satisfied with a simple, biblical direction.  Tosafot say that the olah offering should be the last part of this Mishna.  This is because only the offering brought to the north of the Temple courtyard is states clearly.  When establishing the order of the Mishna, the olah was written after the chatat, the sin-offering, since both have communal sacrifices and personal sacrifices associated with them.  The asham, guilt offering is written later because it is only brought as a personal sacrifice.

When we discuss post-modern thought and self-referential writings, we usually think of the twentieth century and today's creations.  Today's daf offers an example of the rabbis understanding and sometimes referring to their own interpretive and organizational processes when it comes to creating the Talmud text. 

Zevachim 47: Where to Slaughter the Offerings, Vessels vs. Hands

Our daf completes perek IV and brings us to a new Mishna that introduces Perek V.  It teaches about the location and consumption of the offerings that are slaughtered.  We hear that there are halacha regarding the most sacred offerings - these include burnt, sin, guilt and communal peace offerings.  

The bull and goat offerings for Yom Kippur are slaughtered in the north, their blood is sprinkled between the staves of the Ark in the Holy of Holies and on the parochet, the curtain that separates that from the sanctuary, and on the golden altar/the inner altar.  The rabbis teach that any error disqualifies the offering.  The remaining blood is poured onto the western base of the external altar.  If there is an error here, the offering is not disqualified.  

Regarding bulls or goats that are burnt as sin offerings, the slaughter happens in the north of the Temple courtyard and the blood is collected in a service vessel in the north.  The blood is sprinkled on that same parochet and on the golden altar.  Mistakes disqualify these offerings.  The remaining blood is poured onto the western base of the external altar by a priest.  If this does not happen properly, the offering is not disqualified.  The bull and goat of Yom Kippur and the bull and goat that are burned are then burned in the place of the ashes.  This is located outside of Jerusalem.  

The Gemara suggests a principle taught by this Mishna: The collection of their blood in a service vessel is in the north of the Temple courtyard.  Why would this be ignored in the Mishna, which focuses on slaughter and sprinkling?  The rabbis decide that these offerings would include the guilt offering of a leper, for which the blood is collected in the hand, and thus these rituals could not be stated as a principle.  This would be the case even if the blood of a leper's guilt offering is collected in a service vessel.  

The rabbis argue about whether a vessel or simply the priest's body should collect this blood, for it is "put" onto the leper's ear, thumb and big toe - with the priest's own body. As they search for conformity and/or patterns, the rabbis question whether all of this blood should be collected by hand and not by service vessels at all.

Zevachim 46: Six Intentions, Whose Words Might Invalidate the Sacrifice?

After describing further possible interpretations of problem cases, we are introduced to a new Mishna.  It teaches that sacrifices must be brought with our attention on six different intentions:

• zevach: the intention must be to sacrifice what has been brought in particular
• zoveiach: the intention must be for the owner of the sacrifice only
• HaShem: the intention must be based on G-d as the receiver of the sacrifice
• ishim: the intention must be to sacrifice the animal on the altar
• reiach: the intention must be to bring the sacrifice in a way that will raise its scent
• nichoach: the intention must be to fulfill what G-d has asked of us

Further, a sin-offering or a guilt-offering must be brought with a specific transgression in one's thoughts.

The Gemara teaches us that Rabbi Yosei prioritizes the intentions of the person who is preforming the service.  If the owner is someone different, s/he need not think of any of these ideas because these are rabbinic and not Torah-derived.  Rashi says that the Sages believed intention did not matter in such cases because a misstatement could invalidate the sacrifice.  Steinsaltz teaches us about Rav Avraham Chayyim Shor's opinion: only the priests are implicated as they bring the sacrifices and they would invalidate another person's offering if they make incorrect statements.  Rambam suggests that the owner must have these six issues in his/her head, and Rabbi Yosei asserts that we should not consider the owner at all but instead the kohen's thoughts for he is performing the service.

Zevachim 45: When Moshiach Comes, Forbidden Acts Do Not Exist

Some notes from today's daf:

• the rabbis continue to argue about piggul, thinking inappropriate thoughts regarding a particular sacrifice
• specifically the arguments regard timing, location (inner alter/outer courtyard)
• Rava asks if we are creating halacha for Messianic times
• Abaye asks whether we should bother learning any topics about the Temple service, for all of this is in fact about Messianic times
• Abaye argues we study all aspects of Torah because we are rewarded for Torah lishma, Torah studied for its own sake
• Rava says we should not strive for final rulings on Temple matters, for they are not practical at this time
• Tosafot suggest other places in the Gemara where a conclusion is decided upon regarding the Temple service, but this only happens in cases where the ruling will be practically applied as well
• Tosafot quote Rabbi Chayyim HaKohen who suggests there is a particular problem with halacha about forbidden acts in the Temple because there would be no need to rule about a forbidden act in Temple times!
• Thus the rabbis recognize that all of their rulings should be practically applicable and, if not, that Torah study is for its own sake, as we cannot predict when Messianic times might come
• Torah study is always good;
• Reaching a halacha is sometimes only practically required
• Thus we can study the laws of piggul
• It may be surprising to learn that there are final rulings about piggul laws since they will not have practical application until Messianic times, and at that time they would not be necessary

Zevachim 44: What Priests Cannot Burn as Sacrifice

Some very basic notes about today's daf:

• the Torah has taught that kohanim are able to use certain things; those items cannot be burned at the altar.  This includes ever offering, meal-offering, sin-offering, guilt-offering, whatever is given to G-d

• the Gemara discusses why the Torah added the word kol, every or all, before each type of offering listed

• we learn that we should include even things that we might have assumed would not be included

• the Gemara teaches that we also learn about the law that describes when the Torah permitted money that was stolen from a convert to be given to the priests; it is a gift that could be used to give to a woman in betrothal

• Usually stealing and taking a false oath is punished by bringing a guild-offering  and paying back what was stolen plus one fifth.  If the victim died, the thief would pay the money to the inheritors.  If there were no inheritors, the money was given to the priests. Any other Jew would have some surviving relative who would get the payment, thus this must refer to a convert

Zevachim 43: Preventing Karet by Preventing Piggul

We began learning a new Mishna in daf 42 and it continues in today's daf:

• usually we are not liable for karet if we eat a damaged offering
• exceptions, says Rabbi Meir:
• an item permitted for consumption/the altar by another item
• handful of flour that permits eating the meal offering
• meal offering of priests
• the meal offering of the anointed priest
• the incense and the frankincense
• the blood which permits the offerings
• the libations brought as a separate offering
• The Rabbis argue:
• libations brought with an animal offering as well
• the log of oil brought with the guilt offering of a recovered leper
• regarding any item has permitting factors for consumption by a person or for burning at the altar, on is liable for eating it as it is prohibited by piggul prohibitions
• the blood of the burnt offering permits the flesh to be burned on the altar
• the bird burnt offering's blood permits its flesh and skin to be burned on the altar
• the bird sin offering's blood permits its meat for consumption by the priests
• bulls and goats burnt for unwitting communal sins (of idol worship, for goats) blood permits their sacrificial portions to be sacrificed on the altar
• Rabbi Shimon asserts that the blood of the above offerings are not brought to the the outer altar like a peace offering, and so one is not liable for eating them as they have not violated the laws of piggul

The Gemara begins with a conversation about the kometz, the handful of flour, oil and incense.  It permits the consumption of the offering.  It also permits the priestly offering which burns entirely on the altar.  That kometz and the priests' offering serve as insurance: The offerings cannot become piggul, and if eaten, one is not liable for karet.  For much of their later discussions, the rabbis focus on the meaning of ritual impurity and how that definition might change the consequences of one's acts of sacrifice.

Zevachim 41: Proof Texts, Leaders and Sprinkling of Blood

Referring to learnings in Masechet Horayot, we deepen our learning about the sin-offerings brought by leaders: the High Priest, the Great Sanhedrin, and the King or Nasi.  Both the offering of the High Priest and the Sanhedrin are brought to the inner altar.

The Torah instructs the High Priest to sacrifice the kidneys and the diaphragm.  This is not detailed in the mitzvah regarding the Sanhedrin offering.    Rabbi Yishmael's students compare this to a king who is angry at a beloved subject.  The king wishes to save the subject from embarrassment and so he does not repeat those details.  According to Rashi, this servant is actually the Jewish people as represented by the Great Sanhedrin.  According to the Maharsha, the subject is the High Priest and the Torah's details are mentioned to demonstrate that the sin is forgiven once the offering has been made.

The Torah's teaching about the High Priest's sin offering includes a description of the blood being sprinkled toward the curtain of the sanctuary.  The Torah does not mention he holiness of the curtain but instructs the Sanhedrin to sprinkle the blood toward the parochet, the curtain covering the Holy Ark.  This time, the rabbis compare this to ta king whose people are revolting against him.  The revolution will succeed if the majority of the people are involved.  When a Sanhedrin brings a sin-offering on behalf of the Jewish people when the majority of the people have sinned, it is as if the holiness of the Temple is gone - this is why the word hakodesh, the holiness, is left out.

Zevachim 40: A Roof Over the Courtyard? Idealizing the Temple Times

Some very brief thoughts about today's daf:

Continuing their discussion about the inner versus the outer courtyard, Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda argue about the instructions regarding sprinkling blood.  If one should sprinkle indoors but sprinkles outdoors, is this acceptable?  If it is discovered after the fact?  The rabbis disagree about the words that describe the courtyard.  Does the Temple courtyard have a roof that might be breached?  If so, would such a breach invalidate the sprinkling? 

Today's daf provides us with a solid example of the difficulties that our rabbis faced.  In their attempts to interpret texts written after the Temple's destruction, the rabbis must use their imaginations.  Different thinkers interpret the texts differently.  There is no way for us to know the actual practices of our ancestors when the Temple was standing.

It is fascinating that our tradition continues to consider the eras around the Temples to be our most coveted times.  So much of our texts consider the importance of Temple worship, rituals, halachot.  Since the second Temple's destruction, our prayers long for the times of the Temple.  Of course, because the Torah described how to build and worship in and around the Temple, it makes sense that the eras of the Temples are seen as important.  But how instructive should they be?  Do we believe that people actually practiced as they were told to practice?  Perhaps the reason that our rabbis focus on errors in sacrificial rituals is because they assume that many - if not most - offerings were characterized by erroneous practice.  

Zevachim 39: Outer and Inner Altar Sprinkling Errors

Some brief points about today's daf:

• Our Mishna has been discussed for days
• sin-offerings brought on the outer altar, ex. sin offerings of a nasi, king or ordinary person, one sprinkling is accepted even if 2 or 4 sprinklings are required
• sin-offerings brought on the inner golden altar, ex. sin offerings of a High Priest or the great Sanhedrin representing the entire congregation, all sprinklings must be done properly or the sacrifice was invalid
• Today's Gemara looks for proof texts regarding stringencies about the inner altar
• The rabbis conclude that all instructions must be followed for the high Priest - and thus others who bring offerings to the inter altar - must be exact in his sprinkling
• The base of the altar may not refer to only the bottom of the altar
• If a person has an inappropriate thought after the first sprinkling, the offering remains valid

Zevachim 38: The Blood of Offerings: Errors and Consequences

Our daf begins with prooftext which are argued to justify why offerings made incorrectly can affect atonement.  Examples include errors in where the blood is placed, where the blood is sprinkled, when the offering is made, etc.  The priest is said to both make atonement and be forgiven.  One example mentions women who bring offerings to the Temple after childbirth.  We are told that the length of days a woman should wait between childbirth and offering is disputed regarding the birth of a girl.  It is unclear whether she should wait ten weeks or seventy days, among other interpretations.  The rabbis create a halacha based on their best compromised guess.  

There are so many errors that we might make.  We could sprinkle the blood upward instead of downward.  We could make an offering piggul by having incorrect intent in some part of the process of offering.  The rabbis discuss meanings of words to ensure that they understand the precise meanings of each commanded action.  

Beit Hillel are said to be more lenient and Beit Shammai more stringent in their interpretations of placements of sin offerings.  They disagree as to how many intentions must be 'off' to make the offering piggul.  The numerous placements of blood for the sin offering are agreed to be most important at the start and at the end of this ritual.  We are reminded that time is important, for blood cannot be used for atonement after dark.  

We end our daf with a discussion about laundry.  When should a garment be laundered?  When is it rendered ritually impure by the blood of an offering?  The rabbis consider a garment to be ritual pure and not in need of laundering if it is sprayed directly by the blood of an animal without first touching an intermediary object (namely a vessel).  The rabbis also discuss whether a garment should be laundered if it sprayed by the blood directed toward the altar or the cover of the altar.  

Zevachim 34: Kashrut and Sacrifices

Some brief notes about today's daf:

• animal sacrifices are specific:
• an ordinary sin offering is brought only from a female sheep or goat
• what if a different animal is brought as the offering?
• what if a non-kosher animal is presented as the offering?
• how severe is the penalty for bringing the wrong animal as an offering?
• no substitutions are permitted and yet the punishment for bringing the wrong animal may not be karet
• Reish Lakish says that one who brings a non-kosher animal to the Temple altar is liable to receive malkot, lashes
• Rabbi Yochanan argues that there is no punishment for this action
• Rabbi Yochanan uses the proof text (Vayikra 1:2) to support the idea that this could be a mitzvah aseh, a positive commandment, which is why there is no formal punishment (there is no formal punishment associated with neglecting to fulfill a positive commandment)
• Reish Lakish says that this is a lav haba michlal ase, a negative commandment derived from a positive commandment
• Reish Lakish considers this to be a negative commandment
• Rabbi Ya'akov says that both Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan agree that a negative commandment derived from a positive commandment is actually a positive commandment, and so there is no punishment for bring a non-kosher animal onto the Temple altar
• Instead Rabbi Yaakov states the their argument is about someone who brought a chayyah, a kosher wild animal (ex. a deer, an antelope) onto the altar
• Rabbi Yochanan says that the Torah limits sacrifices to bechemot, domesticated animals; a wild animal goes against the mitzvah to bring an animal offering
• Reish Lakish says that thought the mitzvah teaches us to bring a bechema but a kosher wild animal is acceptable 
• Steinsaltz teaches that Rashi notes that a non-kosher animal are not permitted based on a proof that teaches that sacrifices must be animals that are kosher

Zevachim 33: By the Nicanor Gate

A very brief note about today's daf:

The rabbis detail what should be done when a person is ritually impure and s/he needs to bring an offering to the Temple or to approach the Temple.

There was one gate, the northern gate, which allowed people to get as close to the Temple courtyard as possible without actually stepping into the courtyard and defiling the sacred objects there.  The rabbis ask whether or not there might have been a small door next to the door of those gates.  A zav, for example, would have to approach the Temple with the blood of his offering evident on his right ear, thumb and big toe.  To approach the Temple at that point in time would lessen the sanctity of the courtyard.  Thus he might put parts of his body into the Temple courtyard, briefly, to fulfil the halacha regarding becoming ritually pure again.  

The Nicanor gate is mentioned many times in the Talmud.  Interestingly, the rabbis' conjecture about the role of this gate is imbued with their own ideas about how G-d's word must have been interpreted.  We will never know exactly how people deemed ritually impure behaved when near - or within - the Temple courtyard.  It is difficult to know whether we are learning history or anthropology.

Zevachim 32: When a Mistake is Made, Correct it

Our Mishna continues: 

• in a case where blood is collected with the intent to offer it beyond its designated time or outside of its designated area, 
• if there is blood of the soul that remains in the animal, the priest fit for Temple service should again collect the blood and sprinkle it on the altar  
• If that priest collected the blood in a vessel and gave the vessel to an unfit priest, it should be returned to the fit priest 
• If the priest collected the blood in a vessel in his right hand and moved it to his left hand, he should return it to his right hand 
• If the priest collected the blood in a sacred vessel and placed it in a non-sacred vessel, he should return the blood to a sacred vessel 
• If the blood spilled from the vessel onto the floor and he gathered it from the floor, it is valid 
• If an unfit person placed the blood on the ramp or the wall of the altar that is not opposite the base of the altar 
• or if he placed the blood above the red line,
•  or if he placed the blood outside the sanctuary, 
• or if the wrong blood is placed inside of the sanctuary, 
• or if there is the blood of the soul that remains in the animal, 
• the priest fit for Temple service should again collect the blood and sprinkle it on the altar.

The Gemara begins to discuss this Mishna.  The rabbis question why we would interpret that anyone, even a woman, for example, would be fit to slaughter an animal.  Should this be only after the fact?  The rabbis wonder whether 'anyone' must be ritually pure.  

The Gemara considers one who touches a consecrated item.  A ritually unfit person who puts one of his hands into the space of the Temple courtyard is punished severely.  He is compared with a woman who is ritually unfit because of her contact with menstrual blood.  Does she not impart ritual impurity onto the items she touches?  

The rabbis consider cases where people are not yet ritually pure but only because they have not yet finished the day.  These are cases of 'in-between' status, and the rabbis try to create halacha that applies to these difficult cases. However, we learn that these cases do not match the cases that we have been studying. 

Zevachim 31: Joined by Intention

Some notes on today's daf:

• intentions can be joined: eating one half bulk of an olive now and another later, for example
• ritual impurity follows similar rules: if two items are placed together and one part has first degree and the other has second degree ritual impurity, they both have first degree ritual impurity (if separated and joined again, their status returns to what it was and then becomes first-degree again)
• if something is eaten or offered in two different ways, they are not joined, for ex. consuming one part and burning the other part
• the rabbis debate whether or not it is permitted to have two people share consumption, for example - each eating one half of an olive-bulk of the offering
• does it matter how long it takes for one to eat consecrated food?  Offerings?
• Is it typical to consume in one way or another?  Does this affect whether or not two parts can be joined by intention?

Today's daf ends with a new mishna and the beginning of Perek III.  The mishna teaches that those who are unfit for Temple services who slaughtered offerings find their offerings valid.  This is based on the fact that offerings are valid after the fact even when performed by non-priests, by women, by Canaanite slaves and by people who have the status of 'ritually impure'.  This halacha holds regarding all offerings including the most sacred offerings.  However, we must know that those who are ritually impure will not touch the flesh of the slaughtered animal thus rendering it ritually impure, too.  This suggests that these unfit people can disqualify the offerings based on prohibited intent, for example if one intended to partake of the offering before or outside of its designated time.

Zevachim 30: Two Intentions

Sometimes a person has more than one intent over the course of the act of offering.  This could happen in many ways - one changes one's mind, for example.  Today's daf demonstrates the rabbis' understanding of and discomfort with this 'in between' place.

How do we respond when  a person changes his mind?  Do we honour his first stated intention?  The rabbis run through a number of different offerings and intentions.  Should both intentions be honoured and all commitments met (an animal is sold and the money received is used to buy two different offerings).

In a very Jewish note, we learn that Abaye asks if Raba bar bar Channah cited Rav Yochanan to say that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosi do not argue.  This is debated.  In fact, the argument is what was argued about but not about whether or not we follow the first thing intention that was stated. Toward the end of our daf the rabbis are curious about specific understandings.

Zevachim 29: Wrong Time, Wrong Place

Some notes from today's daf:

• "piggul" is used to refer to a an offer that is made intending to eat outside of its designated area
• the rabbis use different hermeneutic tools to determine that an offering eaten outside of the designated area is not permitted (may be consumed) but not punishable by karet
• a zav/a (one who is ritually impure because of sexual/genital changes) counts seven clean days after their discharge ends and then immerses in a mikvah
• a woman who experiences "uterine bleeding" outside of menstruation, she must wait one clean day and then immerse in the mikvak
• if a woman immerses and then bleeds again before nightfall, the interim time is considered to have been ritually pure
• one instance of "uterine bleeding" for one day alone does not render her a zava; three days with breakthrough breathing render her a zava
• the rabbis compare tithes and other time-bound offerings with bringing a first-born animal offering late (after its first year of life)
• if one slaughters, collects blood, brings blood, sprinkles blood with the proper intent - ex. burning an item that should be burned on the altar - and the intent was to do this action outside of the designated area (even just an olive-bulk away), the offer is disqualified but the owner is not liable to be karet
• if the intent is to do this action after the designated time, the offering is piggul and the owner is liable to be karet
• if one eats or burns less than an olive-bulk of the offering with the intent of being in an inappropriate place or time, is there any violation?
• are the rites separated into two actions that are each liable, or are they combined into one rite?

Zevachim 27: Blood

If one slaughters an animal and then severs its legs, the blood from the legs might be confused with the blood of the animal that is collected for sprinkling.  Would this possibility disqualify the offering?  We also learn about the rabbis' thinking regarding blemishes in similar cases: if one cuts the flesh of an animal but not the bone, would this count as a blemish?  Further questions regarding an animal and its legs are posed.

A new Mishna tells us about blood for sprinkling that has been put in inappropriate places.  In these situations, the offering is disqualified but the owner is not liable for karet.  

Our daf goes on to describe different ways that an animal offering might be disqualified; ways that blood might be placed in a manner that is offensive or unfit in some way.  The focus on blood is particularly interesting.  What is the philosophy that underlies this importance of blood?  

We know that some blood is considered to be tamei, ritually impure.  Some types of blood are so tainted that they are contagious.  If one has contact with that blood, that person becomes ritually impure as well.   Occasionally the rabbis mention that the blood holds the soul of an animal about to be sacrificed.  How does blood hold a soul?  How does blood simultaneously hold something with such negative power?  I am wondering what has been written about Jewish understandings of blood.

Zevachim 26: Blood on the Altar, Forbidden Blood/Piggul Items

The rabbis begin our daf with their discussion about the status of an animal that has been slaughtered and then had its legs removed.  The answer to this question has to do with the contact; the other factors that influence how the blood might be collected, etc.

We learn that the more significant offerings are slaughtered at the northernmost point of the Temple.  Less important offerings are offered anywhere in the Temple courtyard.  The rabbis consider whether or not an offering is affected by movement during the service.  For example, if one's head and upper body move into the northern part of the Temple courtyard.  Further, Shmuel and his father argue about whether or not an offering is permitted if it has two legs in the proper area and two legs in a different area.

A new Mishna teaches us about blood and its placement on the altar.  Each offering's blood must be distributed in a particular manner in a particular place.  If a priest places the blood in the wrong place, or in the wrong manner, the offering is disqualified.  The owner is not liable to be punished with karet, however. 

The Gemara begins a conversation about whether the entire altar offers atonement or whether atonement requires that dealing with blood follows the exact directions given.  What should we do if we err?  Should the blood be collected a second time?  Is there the opportunity to sprinkle blood more than once?  And what about intent?  Is the wrong intent enough to disqualify an offering?  The rabbis engage in long conversations about the specific places that blood might fall: beyond the curtain, under the curtain.  

The recreation of these Temple rites is considered with rigour and precision.  But the rabbis cannot know exactly how these rituals were enacted, and yet they describe the actions in vivid detail.  

Our daf ends with a new Mishna.  We learn that one who slaughters the offering with the intent to 
-sprinkle its blood outside the Temple 
-sprinkle its blood outside the Temple
-burn its sacrificial portions outside the Temple
-partake of its meat outside the Temple
-partake of an olive-bulk of its meat outside the Temple
or partake of an olive-bulk of the skin of the tail outside of the Temple, the offering is disqualified.  That person is not punished with karet.

However, if a person intended to 
-sprinkle its blood the next day, or part of its blood the next day, 
-burn its sacrificial portions the next day, or part of its sacrificial portions the next day, 
-eat its meat the next day or an olive-bulk of its meat or the skin of its tail the next day, 
the offering is piggul, forbidden because of the prohibition on eating detestable or unfit food.  That person is liable to receive karet for burning or eating it. 

Zevachim 25: Gezera Shava, Impure Airspace, Blemishes

The rabbis assert that a gezera shava, an analogy based on shared words, explains a number of teachings.  Kemitza, the offering of three fingersful of barley flour, is based on "yad-yad", finger-finger.  Chalitza, the marriage of a widow to her brother-in-law, is based on "regel-regel", foot-foot.  When a slave chooses to stay with the master who then pierces his/her ear, "ozen-ozen", ear-ear, is the reference used.  

Each of these is discussed and questioned.  One of the points mentioned is whether or not the left hand can be used for kemitza.

The rabbis consider why blood spilled on the floor - not collected in a vessel - is patul, unfit because of a defect.  This particularly unpleasant section discusses different types of blood, how that blood should be disposed of, and what should be done with the veins and arteries that hold the blood being collected.  

The rabbis then consider the airspace, which is patul, and how it might affect a consecrated item that passes from one sanctified place to another.  It might be blood being poured from a vessel to another vessel, for example.   The rabbis go on to discuss other imperfections and their in-between status.  Small blemishes might be the end of some offerings, but they might be salvageable with some creative thinking.

Zevachim 24: The Holy Ground, Left Hand vs. Right Hand

Some brief points about today's day:

• the floor of the azarah, the outer courtyard, is holy
• can one stands on a stone that came loose from the azarah?
• the rabbis cannot solve this dilemma, but it is suggested that under the floor was sanctified as well
• why is receiving the blood with one's left hand patul, unfit because of an imperfection?
• the rabbis argue about whether or not the left hand can be used for different rites, ex. receiving the blood, by looking for connections between words used in different situations
• A number of different rites are compared in order to understand why the right hand must be used in some situations but not in all situations

Zevachim 23: Ritual Impurity, Priests & Owners

The rabbis compare those who become ritually impure due to contact with a creeping animal with those who become ritually impure due to contact with a corpse.  What if a priest were ritually impure because of contact with a corpse and the owner is ritually impure because of contact with a creeping animal?  Does the priest's frontplate offer acceptance?

And what about a priest or an owner who become ritually impure because of a seminal discharge; a ghonerea-like condition rendering him a zav?  If he becomes ritually pure through time and immersion and then develops ziva again,  he would have been impure retroactively.  

Zevachim 22: The Basin

The rabbis discuss the basin that holds and releases water for ritual washing.  Its water is considered to be pure - but is it pure enough to be shared with water for the mikvah? We know that water for the mikvah can be used for the basin.  The rabbis also consider how the basin is weighted down, with a wheel, and how that would make a sound.  We are told that a basin may have enough water to complete washing for four priests. 

A priest must be ritually pure which includes being circumsized in the flesh. Of course, a priest must be ritually pure in a number of ways.  If a priest has touched a corpse, is the manner of becoming ritually pure again any different?  We are reminded that the second Pesach exists, and in this case the second Pesach is used for priests who were impure during the first Pesach offering.  

Zevachim 20: Location, Sanctification and Immersion

Some basic ideas from today's daf:

• must the basin's water be changed every night so that it does not sit and become disqualified for sanctification?
• the bull should stand with its head to the south and it's face turned to the west; the priest stands to the east of the bull and faces west when he puts his hands over the bull
• What is north?  The rabbis say that north is from the northern wall of the altar to the northern wall of the Temple courtyard
• The rabbis discuss whether a priest should sanctify his feet a second time in one day if he first sanctifies his feet for the ashes
• Must a priest sanctify his feet a second time if he leaves the Temple after the first sanctification?
• A priest who reenters the Temple after leaving to "cover his legs", which is a euphemism for having a bowel movement, must immerse and sanctify his hands and feet first
• A priest who reenters the Temple after leaving to urinate must sanctify his hands and feet first
• If a priest becomes ritually impure, he is sometimes permitted to immerse his feet without also sanctifying them before entering the Temple 
• The rabbis look at ritual slaughter that occurs outside of the Temple to discuss when sanctification is required

Zevachim 19: On Belts, Interpositions, Sanctification, and OCD

We stay on the topic of priestly clothing.  The beginning of our daf focuses on the belt.  Where should it sit?  What if the belt was too high or too low?  The rabbis consider the permission given for a priest to wear a reed around his finger if it has been cut before a Torah service.  The rabbis consider whether or not this or other items might be standing in the way; interposing.  

A conversation emerges regarding other potential interpositions: would a louse between a priest and his clothing count as an interposition?  If it is alive, it is moving, and thus might it be permitted?  What about a gust of wind that might lift the vest which has been described as being on the priest's body?  Of course, dirt interposes.  But what about the "dust of dirt", dust that cannot be seen?  Or the area under the armpit which is always left uncovered?  Or one's hair, which might slip out and interpose between the vestments and the body of the priest?  What if a priest touches his own chest?  The rabbis spend more significant time discussing tefillin: an interposition between the priest's clothing and his body?

The Gemara details a debate about hand and foot washing - sanctification - before the morning and evening services.  Would imprecise hand or foot washing invalidate a priest's service?  What type of washing is necessary?  At which times?  How many priests could be accommodated at the basin at one time for kosher sanctification?  How much water was held in the basin?  The rabbis determine that ministration of sanctification was done while standing, as stated in the proof text: Deuteronomy (18:5), "To stand to minister".

Toward the end of our daf, the rabbis further consider when a priest should sanctify his hands and feet.  Is once each day enough?  What if it is done only in the morning?  Or only in the evening?  What if certain types of work were done in the hours that followed sanctification?  

Again, I recognize commonalities between Talmudic debate and symptoms of obsessive compulsive disorder.  The rabbis are searching; yearning for a definite answer.  But how is there ever a lasting ritual purity?  Once the moment of sanctification has passed, how long can we consider ourselves ready for prayer?  

Zevachim 18: Garments that Invalidate Priestly Service

If a priest does not wear all four of his garments, he invalidates his service.  The rabbis look for a prooftext for this assertion.  One source suggests that we know that one who drinks wine while serving in the Temple should not be allowed to serve.  This stands as a law for all times.  

Similarly, a priest who is wearing incomplete garments is unable to serve, and this is also forbidden for all time.  We learn that 'incomplete garments' include one who wears extra garments: two belts, two pairs of pants, etc.  Both a robe that is too high and one that is frayed from walking while wearing it are not allowed.  Other rabbis argue that it is sprinkling, etc., that would seriously affect a effectiveness of a priest's service.  

The rabbis spend much of their energies on describing different garments and how that clothing might be damaged.  We learn about linen and fine linen, which is made of flax that has been processed and twisted in a particular manner.  

Bottom line: a priest must wear the four parts of his garments and he must not drink alcohol to ensure that his service will be valid.  And because prayer takes the place of sacrifice, we must wear special garments for prayer - or at least we should dress in a special way when we pray.  

Some related notes: a Torah scroll must be wrapped in a beautiful garment.  Also, we should not rip our garments too much when we are mourning because we will be praying soon and our clothing should not be terribly torn when we pray. t