3 things were done on the altar above the red line - including libations of water and wine, and certain details of the bird olah (burnt-offering), and on the southeast corner. Also, specific directions or coordinates where the different parts of the offering must take place. Plus, a new mishnah! Specifically the details of the bird sin-offering. Including a vivid description of "melikah" of the bird - pinching the neck of the bird in such a way as to nearly separate the head from the body. And then all that blood would be placed (or dripped) on the altar. Also, a very long mishnah detailing various practices pertaining to the bird offerings, including that pinch on the neck -- and also the permutations of details that could go wrong with our without significant impact on the validity of the offering.

Two new mishnayot! 1 - What is the proper place of the fistful of grain of the grain-offering? Defining "kimtzah" -- scooping up the meal. That kimtzah was tantamount to the act of slaughtering of an animal sacrifice, in terms of the details surrounding it (of course, it's not animal), like where in the courtyard the procedure could be done. 2 - The bird offering - and other procedures that were done above the red line and below the red line, respectively. Plus, directing traffic on the ramp of the altar, and traversing the top of the altar too.

Building the Second Temple's altar - at which point, they already knew the outline of the building itself, but they weren't quite sure about the altar. How did the know? One suggestion is that the archangel Michael told them in a vision. Alternatively, the "ashes of Isaac" -- as seen in a vision -- were seen in the same place as the altar, namely, since that was also the location of the Binding of Isaac. Alternatively, the scent at the place was that of the offerings, instead of the scent of incense that was designed to improve the overall smell of the place. Plus 3 prophets revealed the necessary details of replacing the altar -- and maybe also to use the now-classic Torah scribal script for writing a Torah scroll. Also, the ramp to the altar were separated by a gap -- which means that the offering was thrown across the gap, and the practice of doing so was derived from a verse.

When the Tabernacle was in Shilo, the altar seems to have been made of stones, and not the copper that Moshe made. But if that's the case, how was there unceasing use of the same altar from Moshe to Shlomo (Moses to Solomon)? The Gemara, of course, attempts to resolve that contradiction to the satisfaction of both claims (no ceasing of the fire on the altar from Moses to Solomon and the ostensibly stone altar). Also, the size of the altar in the Second Temple (long after Solomon's altar in the First Temple), based on a mishnah in Middot. Plus, why the size was increased.

Using a textual comparison to connect the outer altar of Moses with that of Ezekiel - or alternatively interpreted to connect the outer altar of Moses with that of the inner altar of Moses. This inference raises the question of how far that kind of interpretation can go - in light of the specific measurements of these altars: is the altar a "vessel," or not? Plus, the question of whether the courtyard's floor was eligible as a place for the offerings - for example, could the blood really be sprinkled on the floor?! Which raises the concern of just how bloody this process was, and all the more for the night of Pesach sacrifice. Also, questions about the meal-offerings that needed to be eaten at the time of the other offerings -- apparently next to the altar, but that view is revised to establish: not if the altar was broken. Plus, a dive into ma'aser sheni - that was to be eaten in sanctity in Jerusalem - and how that requirement of being in the holy city compared to a requirement of the Temple itself being present at the time too.

If the altar is damaged, the offerings that were slaughtered there - where the damaged altar is - are invalid. Of course, the question then arises, what about the order of operations? Did the offering's slaughter take place before or after the damage to the altar? Also, what happens to an animal that has been rendered disqualified? For example, what if the altar were fixed? Would the offering become acceptable again? Note: The rejected offering is called "dichui." Also, considering how many offerings King Solomon brought on the day of inaugurating the Temple, how did they manage? Was the altar too small? Did the king sanctify the entire courtyard? Or was the phrasing just to be nicer to the altar, as it were?

Chapter 6! With a new mishnah - Is the status of the altar as if it's fully in the north, or only on the northerly portion of the altar itself? Keep in mind that being slaughtered in the north is essential to the sacrifice - namely, for it to be valid. At least, for the kinds of offerings that must be slaughtered in the north to be valid. One solution to the dispute, of course, is the fact that the offerings themselves had different requirements. Also, the Gemara looks for the sources for the northerly location. Plus, where the altar actually stood (not so simple), and the differences between what was relevant for the inside and outside. The details of the options of the antechamber vs. the main chamber are also essential here. All with an eye to the north.

Starting with the last mishnah (on the bottom of 56:) - the offerings of the first-born, the tithes, Passover sacrifice, and more... in terms of what is eaten by whom. Starting with the first-born and the tithing - where the Gemara finds a source for the details and time frame of these offerings. The sages in these discussions are earlier - Tannaim, not Amoraim - and Rabbi Tarfon himself is a kohen. Which makes him more familiar with the details, perhaps. And Rabbi Yossi HaGelili has some questions for him. With a comparison to the piece-offering. Also, why the Passover sacrifice was eaten only at night and only until midnight (or the midpoint of the dark of the night). And it's another dispute between Tannaim - in this case, Rabbi Elazar ben Azariyah and Rabbi Akiva.

The dimensions of the courtyard are key for determining where a person becomes liable for being impure in the courtyard. Plus, the impact on where the slaughtering can be done for kodshei kodshim and kodshei kalim. Also, when the sunset has begun, the blood can no longer before offered on the altar for that same day.

We have 3 mishnayot today - with one at the very bottom of the previous daf. 1. The guilt-offerings (ashamot) together with the peace-offerings, but with a focus on the former - the mishnah delineates the terms of where to slaughter the offering, where to bring the blood, and so on. 2. The mishnah specifies "kodshim kalim," the less holy of the offerings, where the terms were a little more flexible, such as slaughtering the offering anywhere in the Temple courtyard, instead of only in the northern part. Including details about who can be present when the kohanim eat from these offerings in the outer courtyard - or even elsewhere in Jerusalem. 3. Nearly an exact repetition of the previous mishnah, with the focus on the peace-offerings (shelamim). Also, the Gemara explains the location of where the slaughter should happen - noting the opening of the Ohel Mo'ed - the Tent of Meeting - indicate that all areas of the Temple courtyard would be acceptable.

The southeast corner of the altar didn't have a base - but what does that mean? Was there no physical base or does it mean that the base there couldn't be used for the blood? Perhaps it's because of the divide in the property in the portions of Yehudah and Binyamin - where the sacrifice had to be done in Yehudah's portion. Also, the selection of David and Samuel of the place on the hill upon which the Temple would be built - as among the highest places around, "between the shoulders."

2 mishnayot! On sin-offerings - the procedure of how the slaughter, blood, altar, and eating the portions of the offering were all handled. This itemization includes the route the kohen would take on ascending the altar and walking around it (on the top) for the sake of putting the blood on the corners of the altar, with two views on how precisely those placements that needed to happen. Plus, a discussion of the red line that separates between the upper blood and the lower blood on the altar, and the source for it. Also - delineating kodshei kodshim and kodshei kalim, the gradations of holiness of the different sacrifices. Plus, how the division of the land according to tribes is manifest in the Temple - with part of it in Yehudah's portion and part of it in Binyamin's portion.

More on the pouring the remaining blood after sprinkling on the base of the altar.... And the way to conclude the requirements regarding this blood - via logical inference instead of biblical text making the point. The concern being whether this pouring would disqualify the offering, though it seems that everyone agrees that it will not. Which raises the question as to the blood of a bird offering, which might be disqualifying (it's a machloket), moving a step or two away from the original premise of a question. Also, there is, of course, a view that the pouring of the blood is essential (meaning, if it were not done, it would disqualify the offering after all) - as found in a long baraita. But all that material really comes to teach the point of the essential nature of the pouring. Which, of course, is then refuted - or the attempt is made. Plus, a slew of practical questions for which we don't have immediate answers.

Exegetical prowess: "binyan av" - learning the narrow case from a more general case. This category is added to the others: gezerah shavah, kal va-chomer, and hekesh. And the Gemara uses a baraita about disqualified blood as learned from a "binyan av" to probe whether it could then be applied to another binyan av. But that would mean deriving a law regarding that which was improperly done to that which was properly done, and that is difficult. And binyan av is determined to be a less used approach. Also, back to the halakhot about pouring the remaining blood - after the sprinkling - on the western side of the base of the external altar. And what might have been thought to do otherwise. But does the blood really need to be poured out there, when it doesn't bring about atonement or prevent it if it weren't done?

More on rabbinic interpretation of the biblical text and the rules about how that works - by means of gezarah shavah, kal va-chomer, hekesh. What happens when the sages themselves aren't sure that they're inferences and analogies work in the derivation of halakhot? When can logic triumph over textual inference?

Shifting focus to the guilt-offering (the "asham"), and the fact that it too is to be slaughtered in the northern part of the Temple courtyard - along with the blood collection and sprinkling and so on. And, again, the details are derived from the Torah's verses and inferences from one verse to another. Also, the guilt-offering slaughtered by the person who is coming off tzara'at also needs to be in the north of the Temple courtyard. And this derivation is then used to understand certain exegetical rules that apply to elsehwere in the Torah as well. The claim is that the Torah is written in this way to make sure that we learn the halakhah in this way.

The sin-offerings and others needs to be slaughtered in the northern part of the Temple courtyard -- as derived by biblical verses. Plus, the collecting of the blood, the sprinkling of the blood, and the placement of the person collecting the blood. Also, the way "he shall slaughter it" comes to exclude. And the laying on of hands comes into play as a possible exclusion, rather than it being about the northern location for the slaughtering. With a deep dive as to whether the person handling the offering needs to stand in the north too.

Finishing the 4th chapter, with a new mishnah: A sacrifice is slaughtered for the sake of 6 things -- all of which are far less tangible than the animal itself. The kohen's intentions have been preoccupying the Gemara for all these chapters, but now the shift, at the very end, is to the owner's intentions - that is, those of the person offering the sacrifice, even though it's handled professionally, as it were, via the kohanim. Also, starting the 5th chapter, with a new mishnah: The worship of certain sacrifices, from slaughter to collecting of blood to sprinkling of blood, needs to be specifically located in the Temple - in the northern part of the courtyard. To the extent that failing to do so correctly disqualifies the offering. But if the disposal of the blood is not as prescribed, it won't disqualify the offering. Specifically, the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur. Plus, what seems to be the carcasses would be removed to the ash pile outside of the Temple.

How is sacrificial blood excluded from the prohibition against "notar" and impurity? As derived from verses, that is. Likewise, how is blood not subject to me'ilah, after atonement (or even before atonement). Also, how these details are derived from verses that seem indirect or insufficient, when we might have wanted more. Also, why does the Torah mention "karet," the punishment of being cut off, three disctinct times? Each teaches another factor - with a dispute between Rabbi Yochanan and Shimon.

Two mishnayot! When an idolator brings an offering in the Temple... yes, that turns out to be something that could happen. Jewish people can't get benefit from those offerings, but there's no "misuse" of consecretion in those offerings. Likewise, there's no concern of impurity or exchanging the offering. The Gemara, of course, has some level of dispute over the stringencies applied to this kind of case. Also, those practices that were not subject to a violation of pigul may still be relevant for concerns of "notar" - leftovers, in terms of timing - and impurity.