Chapter 4, Mishna 2, 3, 4

What is the halakhic principle of intent and location (inside vs. outside the sanctuary) discussed regarding when an offering becomes piggul?
How does the daf deepen our understanding of how intention, action, altar service and permitting-factors interact in the laws of sacrifices?
What does the opening discussion mean when it asks whether the halakhah is “for the Messianic period”?
How does the baraita extend the mishna’s rule about the non-Jew’s offerings in terms of deriving benefit, liability for me’ilah, piggul, notar and tum’ah?
What rationale is given for why one may not derive benefit from items consecrated by gentiles from the outset?
How is the halakhah of piggul derived through a verbal analogy (gezerah shavah) in this daf?
How is the halakhah of notar connected to ritual impurity via verbal analogy, according to the Gemara here?
Why does the Gemara ask whether the prohibition of eating consecrated food while impure applies even to items lacking a “permitting factor” (matir)?
How does the Gemara explain the difference in liability when a sacrifice’s blood becomes impure negligently versus intentionally?
What is stated about the liability of a sacrifice brought by a gentile for atonement when the blood is impure, whether unwittingly or deliberately?
How does the Gemara explain that gentiles cannot render an animal a substitute (temurah) and what textual link is used?
In what way does the verse “Any man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel that will sacrifice his offering to the Lord” play into the debate between Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon concerning gentile offerings?
What practical takeaway does the opening remark of the daf suggest about studying these sacrificial laws today even though they are not currently practiced?

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!