Ending chapter 13: On the case that a sin-offering is lost, replaced, and then the first one is found - to what may it be compared? A question that itself is called into question. And what is happened to the animal that is not offered as the sin-offering, when it is not yet disqualified as an offering anyway? The parallel is made to suggest a burnt-offerring, though that has its own challenges. Also, the first - and entirety of - mishnah for chapter 14: Beginning with 2 offerings that were supposed to be sacrificed outside the Temple courtyard. Plus, animals that are disqualified that are sacrificed, as it were, outside the Temple courtyard. Plus offerings that were not disqualified by being offered outside of the Temple courtyard. Plus, the distinction between communal offerings and individual offerings, and when there was a possibility of both a private and a public "bamah," outside of the Temple (or Mishkan, as the case may have been).

When the remnants of an offering's blood are brought outside of the Temple - that's a liability for violating offering outside of the Temple. This aspect of the blood is considered essential to the offering - with many subsequent implications (and subject to dispute). Also, a new mishnah - on melikah of the birdsa and also slaughtering - when the action taken outside the Temple is problematic and when it is not. Also, the Gemara shifts focus from preparation of the offering to the liability for it, when offered outside of the Temple. Plus, another mishnah: On collecting the blood of a sin-offering - what happens when the blood is in one cup and then brought to an altar outside of the courtyard, or inside - that's liable.

Mishnayot! Mishnah 1 - More on grain-offerings, when the offering is brought outside of the Temple courtyard - when the kohen's fistful has not been removed prior to the offering - that isn't a complete offering. But what if it is (the fistful of grain has been removed), and then it is offered incorrectly? Mishnah 2 - When the fistful and the levonah (frankincense) is offered outside, perhaps liability won't kick in until both are burned outside (only one might not be enough). The Gemara asks whether the fistful of grain being burned might be sufficient, even without the levonah. Mishnah 3 - If sacrificial blood, water libations, Also, the discussion shifts to the water libations of sukkot, in contrast to wine libations, and where they need to be offered. And note the "Halakhah le-Moshe mi-Sinai" about the water libations.

Two mishnayot! 1 - Circumstances of liability for offerings outside of the Temple and what happens those offerings are then invalidated. Plus, the return of pigul and notar as disqualifications. 2 - Moving on to the grain offering - a list of different circumstances of a grain offering, where it is brought outside of the Temple. Also, various other ways these offerings can go wrong, including dealing with the minimal requirements of a measure for the offering. Plus, when the person who handles these offerings wrongly is exempt, what is the rationale for that exemption?

On the case of one who is ritually impure and eats from the sacrificial foods, whether they are pure or impure, may or may not be liable for the violation. Except that Rabbi Yosi HaGalillee says that person would only be liable if the food he ate was pure. Also, a new mishnah: The stringency of slaughtering outside of the Temple and the offering up there, as well as its leniency. Plus, what happens in the case of lapses in awareness of the offering up outside of the courtyard? It's a dispute - whether that person needs to bring a sin-offering for each separate offering out of that lack of awareness, or not. Also, incomplete offerings - do they incur a liability of the sin-offering, or is one exempt because of the lack of completeness?

After we've established how we know that slaughtering outside of the Temple violates a prohibition and likewise offering outside of the Temple, there's an investigating of the offerings that are meant to be burnt and offered in various places. Also, a focus on Rabbi Yishmael's and Rabbi Akiva's views regarding sprinkling the blood outside the Temple, and moving into discussion of offerings that were to be brought inside, and then incomplete and finished outside of the Temple. Plus, the sources they respectively derive their opinions regarding these issues from. Also, what about making such an offering outside of the Temple courtyard - in the era of "now" - when there is no Temple? Was the sanctification of the Temple and Jerusalem forever, or just for the time that the Temple stood?

Chapter 13! On offering sacrifices in locations that are not specified, and therefore also prohibited for sacrifices. The new mishnah raises the cases of offering outside the Temple. With a difference of approach between Rabbi Yossi HaGalilee and the sages. Plus, a ritually pure person who ate that which was impure would be exempt from a sin-offering, and the mishnah provides the explanation why. Also, the sources for all this in verses. Also, a focus on why this kind of offering outside of the Mishkan (or Temple) can't carry a "karet" punishment as derived from logic - though the Gemara first attempts to show how that logic would be upheld (by Rabbi Avin - and then knocked down by Rava).

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

Rabbi Shimon's position of the acute mourner and the Pesach offering - and ways of resolving the apparent contradictions in his respective positions. Specifically, must the kohen become impure for the death of a close relative or does he have permission to do so? A clear dispute. But the need for a "met mitzvah" - perhaps that is not disputed, and the kohen must become impure for the sake of that need to bury. Also, a deeper dive into the view that says the acutely mourning kohen must partake of the Pesach offering.

On kohanim who weren't eligible to eat from the sacrificial meats - beginning with a t'vul yom, one who has immersed in the mikveh for purity, but the sun has not yet set, so he isn't pure yet, for the purposes of eating from the offerings. [What's What: Mishmarot] Plus, the question of a "ba'al mum" - the degree to which even the "blemished" kohen is still a kohen in many important and privileged ways. Also, a kohen who is in acute mourning - and therefore cannot serve in the Temple at that time, but still may (or may not?) partake of the foods that were eaten by the kohanim. For example, sacrificial meats. And the Pesach offering in contrast to them... He still has to be purified by the time of eating, but there are stringencies in place with regard to these foods.

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.

What if the garment that the blood from a sin-offering sprayed onto was an impure garment? With the phrasing of the question giving away the premise of the sage who asks it. Also, a new mishnah - a list of the animals from which blood would not require laundering if it were absorbed in the kohen's garment. Also, there's a need to have the "right" amount of blood consecrated - a minimum for the sake of the need of laundering - and the question then is how is that known, with the conclusion of Halakhah le-Moshe mi-Sinai. But what proportions are necessary for the water, for the purification process? And how does dipping one's fingers to sprinkle the blood have impact on the need to do so again (more dipping, more sprinkling)? Plus, another mishnah: On the gathering of the blood and the impact of that on the need for laundering.