Chapter 4, Mishna 1, 2

If improper intent occurred during only some of the sprinklings, for example, one of the four, is the offering pigul or only invalid?
What lesson can we take away from these challenges to various rulings based on assumptions regarding the rulings of earlier sages?
What sacrificial components does the Mishnah initially list as not liable for the status of piggul?
What is the reasoning given in the Mishnah for why those listed items cannot become piggul?
How does the Mishnah state the general principle that underlies its list: “whatever has something else that makes it permitted…”?
In the Gemara, how does Ulla interpret the statement that a handful from a piggul meal-offering offered on the altar loses its piggul status?
Why does the Gemara regard the idea of the altar’s fire removing a forbidden status (such as piggul, notar or impure flesh) as surprising?
What question does Rav Hisda raise about the altar acting like a mikveh?
How is the role of fire (the altar) contrasted to the role of a mikveh in the discussion?
How is the notion of a portion of a sacrifice being “permitted by something else” significant in making it liable for piggul?
In what way is the handful of flour from a meal-offering treated differently from the rest of the flour in relation to piggul and the “matir” principle?
Why does the blood of the guilt offering pose a special case, according to the Mishnah and the debate between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis?

Opening song: Moshe Storch leads Hallel at Beis Medrash Hancock Park

❤️ Support our work and dedicate an episode of AT Daily to the healing/honor/memory of a loved one.
🤗 Sign up for our free weekly newsletter!