2,711 pages of Talmud. A gem a day.

We learn most by what we witness. Perhaps the next best way to learn is by stories.

On our daf today, the gemara asks why the mishnah taught a story and what we can learn from it.

The mishna teaches: Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, says: My father would reject blemished animals from upon the altar. The Gemara asks: What is Rabbi Ḥanina teaching us? What can we learn from this story?

We can learn two things, 1) The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that Rabbi Ḥanina teaches us an incident, to express that this halakha was not only stated theoretically but applied practically as well. 2) And if you wish, say instead: What is the meaning of the term: Would reject? It means that he would remove blemished animals from the altar in a backhanded manner, i.e., privately rather than publicly, so as not to disgrace the honor of the altar.

How much did we learn by watching our parents? By watching our friends and colleagues? Here, Hanina teaches what he learned from watching his dad, sharinf=g those lessons with us today . . .

The daf continues to discuss mistakes the priests might make when offering sacrifices. Today’s daf discusses bringing an animal sacrifice upon the alter and quickly realizing the animal was not “fit.”

The altar sanctifies only items that are suited to it. Rabbi Yehoshua says: Any item that is suited to be consumed by the fire on the altar, e.g., burnt offerings and the sacrificial portions of other offerings, which are burned on the altar, if it ascended upon the altar, even if it is disqualified from being sacrificed ab initio, it shall not descend.

So, as long as the animal was a sheep, ram, or other animal that might have been okay to be sacrificed, you leave it. It might not have been good enough in the beginning to be chosen for the offering, but once it’s on the altar it’s holy and you don’t remove it.

This reminds me of Yoma 69b when we learned that while a human king won’t use vessels that are not perfect, God only uses imperfect vessels.

None of us are “good enough” to serve God, but once we offer ourselves we become holy, kosher vessels.

Sneaky stuff on the daf!

Rather, Abaye says: This mention of “within” is necessary only for a case where the blood entered the Holy of Holies not via the Sanctuary but in a roundabout manner, e.g., from the roof or the loft of the Holy of Holies, without having entered the Sanctuary. Rava said to Abaye: But an expression of bringing is written in the verse: “Behold, its blood was not brought into the sacred place within,” which indicates a standard manner of bringing it into the Holy of Holies. Rather, Rava says: In any circumstance where the priest intended to bring the blood inside the innermost sanctum, it is not disqualified when it is only in the Sanctuary, and therefore it was necessary for the verse to teach both disqualifications.

That’s right, the daf is worrying about a priest sneaking a sacrifice through the roof!

So, the lesson is not to do what you’re not supposed to do . . . and don’t you think about trying to be sneaky about it.

What is this baraita teaching us? Is it teaching that the blood of offerings that ascend to the altar do not nullify one another?

Today, we are again speaking about mixtures of different sacrifices. The daf teaches us that offerings brought do not nullify each other.

This reminds me of giving compliments. Sometimes people think that if you compliment them, and then someone else, somehow what you said to them is now nullified. Or, you can take it back to school days and having more than one friend – sometimes we feel if our friend has another friend they care for us less – that’s not necessarily so! The point is that going good (like offering a sacrifice), giving, and positivity does not lessen by doing more good, being more generous. Positivity does not cancel positivity.

It’s clear that taking away from the commandments is a bad thing. You can’t just decide that you don’t like that whole “don’t murder” thing and call yourself a Torah living Jew. But did you also know that it’s prohibited to add to the commandments?

Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Yehoshua: According to your opinion, the priest violates the prohibition of: Do not diminish . . . Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabbi Eliezer: According to your opinion, the priest violates the prohibition of: Do not add.

While the rabbis are arguing about sprinkling a concoction that is a combo of sacrificial bloods, one that should be sprinkled only once while the other needs to be sprinkled 4 times – the concept is one that applies in all contexts – do not add or subtract.

The danger of “adding” to the laws comes right in the story of the first two people: Adam and Eve. God tells Adam not to eat the fruit from the tree. Adam tells Eve not to touch it or she will die. When the snake makes Eve touch the fruit and she doesn’t die, she thinks that since it’s okay to touch, it’s also okay to eat. We all know how that story ends. So, don’t add, you might end up subtracting if you do!

Today’s daf talks about the Hillel sandwich that we eat on Passover! It teaches us that we can do multiple mitzvot at the same time. And a deeper lesson about redemption.

The Gemara adds: Whom did you hear who says that items used in the performance of mitzvot do not nullify one another? It is Hillel, as it is taught in a baraita: They said about Hillel the Elder that when eating the Paschal offering, matza, and bitter herbs on the first night of Passover, he would wrap them all at once and eat them together, because it is stated with regard to the Paschal offering: “They shall eat it with matzot and bitter herbs” (Numbers 9:11), which indicates that these three foods should be eaten together. Hillel was not concerned that the taste of the bitter herbs would nullify the taste of the matza.

One thing the Hillel sandwich reminds us is that redemption is always a mixture of bitterness and sweetness. Change always involves loss. And sometimes, the bitterness can overwhelm us, just like the bitter in the Hillel sandwich might overpower the other flavors.

We learn a great rule today – when someone does something wrong, you need to be able to articulate what they did if you’re going to hold them liable.

And finally, conclude from it that an uncertain forewarning, e.g., one in which the witnesses cannot be sure which prohibition the transgressor is about to violate, is not considered a forewarning.

As a parent, it’s instinct to say “don’t do that!” to a child. But the child won’t get it unless you explain to them what “that” is and why it’s against your rules. Same with relationships, we need to be able to tell those we care about what behaviors cross the line, be specific and give real examples of violations, otherwise we are holding people to standards they are uninformed about!

Today’s daf is a battle between Rabbi Eliezer and other rabbis as to what one can sacrifice if limbs of a sacrifice get intermingled with limbs of an animal that had a blemish.

There are two values here: purity and not wasting.

Often, being “kosher” means being wasteful. People won’t eat the meal served because they are kosher (even if a vegetarian option is available – because it does not have a hechshure/kosher marking) and then eat a meal wrapped in extensive plastics form plastic dishes with plastic utensils.

People will “kasher” their kitchen for Passover by covering it in tin foil.

Does this allow for purity? Yes. But, is it wasteful – no doubt about it.

Our rabbis on the daf have two conflicting values. So do we. If we have to make choices, what should we prioritize? The guarantee of absolutely no contamination? Or the planet?

A kosher for Passover kitchen

An individual kosher meal.

We get. anew expression/lesson on the daf today: תַּקּוֹנֵי גַּבְרָא שָׁאנֵי which means “the remedy of a man is different.”

This expression is an aphorism often used to convey the idea that treatments, solutions, or approaches must be tailored to the individual, as what works for one person may not work for another. The context in which it appears often relates to practical advice regarding health, legal matters, or ethical considerations, highlighting the importance of individualized judgment and care. (On today’s daf, it has to do with a leper’s sacrifice.)

What a beautiful lesson – that we have to see one another and understand that what works for one perosn may not work for the next. So much in life needs to be tailored.