Rabbi Yehoshua holds that a bird burnt offering that is slughtered in the place of the bird sin offering and in the way the sin offering is done and with the intent of it being a sin offering, there is no law of meila (misuse of consecrated property). There is a debate between him and Rabbi Eliezer, each bringing arguments and counter-arguments. Rav Ada bar Ahava explains that Rabbi Yehoshua holds that the offering transforms into a sin offering. The gemara asks if the reverse would hold true for a sin offering offered as a burnt offering. Mishnayot in masechet Kinim are brought to question Rav Ada bar Aghava’s understanding of Rabbi Yehoshua.
Different interpretations are brought for Rabbi Elazar the son of Rabbi Shimon’s opinion that one can sever both simanim of the bird sin offering even though the Torah seems to indicate otherwise. If a bird sin offering is done in the manner of a bird burnt offering or with the intent that it be a bird burnt offering or in the location that the bird burnt offering is done, it is disqualified. The reverse holds true for the bird burnt offering. The gemara tries to figure out which act is done intheh wrong location – the melika or the mitzoi/hazaah?
How were the bird burnt offerings performed? How did they differ from the bird sin offerings?
There were two small ramps alongside the big ramp – what were they for? Where were the meal offerings brought? Six things were done on the southwest corner of the altar – 3 on the bottom half (from the floor) and 3 from above the midpoint of the height of the altar. The derivations for the three below are brought.
When they rebuilt the second temple how did they know where the location of the altar was supposed to be? What parts of the altar are necessary for performing sacrificial rites? On which side was the ramp located? What were its dimensions? There was a space in between the altar and the ramp – the source and purpose of that space is explained.
Can kodshim kalim be eaten when there is no altar? An alternative opinion is brought. Was the altar in the mishkan in Shilo made of stone? Different opinions are brought. A mishna is brought which says that the altar in the time of the seconbd temple was larger than the first temple. Why?
The answer brought for the contradiction against Rav was that Rava said that Rabbi Yehuda admitted that when it came to sprinkling the blood, the altar was needed. Where did Rava make that statement? A long argument between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi is brought to give background. Then a proof is brought for Rava but then rejected. Sources are brought to derive the need for the altar for remains of the minachot, kodshai kodashim and kodshai kalim.
A third interpretation of the mishna quoted previously is brought – that it was not Rabbi Yossi’s opinion but Rabbi Yosi the Galilean who held the altar was in the north and a source is brought from which it can be derived that Rabbi Yosi the Galilean, in fact, holds that position. Rav and Rabbi Yochanan have a debate regarding the status of sanctified animals that were designated and then the altar becomes broken. From there the gemara tangents to a debate between Rrabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi regarding the size of the altar in the time of Moshe.
In the mishna Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Yosi the son of Rabbi Yehuda debate whether kodshai kodashim can be slaughtered on the whole altar or only on the northern half. Rabbi Yochana derived from here that Rabbi Yosi holds that the altar must have been fully on the northern side of the azara. Rabbi Zeira questions this. He then tries to derive from a mishna that Rabib Yossi holds this way but his proof is rejected.
What are the exact areas of the azara? There are three laws that are specifically done in the azara only – slaughtering kodshim kalim, kohanim eating kodshai kodashim and being obligated if one is impure and enters the area. Are the boundaries of what is considered the azara the same for each of these three laws? If not, why is there a distinction? Laws regarding the cut off point for sprinkling the blood, eating the meat, etc are discussed – also as they relate to pigul. Comparisons are made between meat of the sacrifices that can be eaten for one day and those that can be eaten for two days – and a question is raised regarding the status of the night after the second day for those that can be eaten for two days.