The gemara brings in Rabbi Elazar in the name of Bar Kapara who brings an expanded version of Rabbi Meir’s opinion (that there was an additional woodpile for the parts that didn’t burn completely the previous night). He says that it was used every day and even on Shabbat. What did Bar Kapara add that wasn’t already clear from our mishna? Does Rav Huna disagree with Bar Kapara as he seems to say that it wasn’t used on Shabbat? Raba and Rav Chisda each have different ways of understanding Rav Huna. One explains that he holds that it overrides Shabbat but not impurity and the other says the reverse. Abaye raises a question on both approaches – why should one distinguish between Shabbat and impurity? Raba explains why according to both his opinion and Rav Chisda’s. One cannot extinguish coals from the woodpile. What if it was no longer on the woodpile and removed to bring to burn the incense or light the Menora? Rava and Abaye disagree on the subject. Do you disagree when it has already been lowered from the altar or while one is still on the altar? If so, how do their opinions work with the words of Rav Nachman in the name of Raba Bar Avuha who said that if one removes coals to the ground, one is still obligated for extinguishing?
Yoma 46
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Yoma 46
אֲבָל מֵהַאי גִּיסָא וּמֵהַאי גִּיסָא אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא.
but from this side or from that side of the altar, both of which are not directly in front of the Sanctuary’s entrance, I would say that no, the fire may not be taken from there. Therefore, it is necessary to write both terms in order to teach this halakha.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מִשּׁוּם בַּר קַפָּרָא, אוֹמֵר הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר: אֵיבְרֵי עוֹלָה שֶׁנִּתּוֹתְרוּ — עוֹשֶׂה לָהֶן מַעֲרָכָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ וְסוֹדְרָן, וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת.
Rabbi Elazar said in the name of bar Kappara: Rabbi Meir would say: With regard to limbs of a burnt-offering that remained on the altar from the previous night and which were not fully consumed, one should make a separate arrangement of wood for them and arrange them upon it to be burned. And this is done even on Shabbat.
מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? תְּנֵינָא: בְּכׇל יוֹם הָיוּ שָׁם אַרְבַּע מַעֲרָכוֹת. אָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לִפְסוּלִין.
What is bar Kappara teaching us when he informs us that Rabbi Meir requires a separate arrangement to be made? Surely, we already learned this in the mishna that cites Rabbi Meir as saying: On every other day, there were four arrangements of wood there, upon the altar. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Avin said: Bar Kappara’s teaching is needed only in order to teach the requirement to set up a fourth arrangement, even though it is only for limbs of disqualified offerings. As certain disqualifications apply only ab initio, if the offering is nevertheless brought upon the altar it should not then be removed. Bar Kappara teaches that Rabbi Meir’s ruling applies in the event that limbs of such an offering were not fully consumed.
וְדַוְקָא שֶׁמָּשְׁלָה בָּהֶן הָאוּר, אֲבָל לֹא מָשְׁלָה בָּהֶן הָאוּר — לֹא.
The Gemara qualifies this: But this applies specifically when the fire has already taken hold of them and they have begun to burn. But if the fire has not yet taken hold of them, no, a separate arrangement is not made in order to burn them.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אֶחָד כְּשֵׁירִין וְאֶחָד פְּסוּלִין, אִי מָשְׁלָה בָּהֶן הָאוּר — אִין, וְאִי לָא — לָא.
There are those who say a different version of this qualification: Both with regard to the limbs of valid offerings and of disqualified offerings, if the fire has already taken hold of them and they have begun to burn, yes, a separate arrangement is made to burn them, but if the fire did not take hold of them, no, a separate arrangement is not made in order to burn them.
וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת — תְּנֵינָא: וְהַיּוֹם חָמֵשׁ!
Bar Kappara concluded: And this is done even on Shabbat. But surely, we already learned this in the mishna that cites Rabbi Meir as saying: But on this day, on Yom Kippur, there are five. This means that the arrangement for burning any remaining limbs is made also on Yom Kippur, despite the fact that all the Shabbat prohibitions apply.
אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּחָל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים לִהְיוֹת אַחַר הַשַּׁבָּת, דְּחֶלְבֵי שַׁבָּת קְרֵבִין בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, אֲבָל בְּאֶמְצַע שַׁבָּת — לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara answers: Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: Nevertheless, bar Kappara’s teaching is necessary, for it could enter your mind to say that this applies only when Yom Kippur occurs after Shabbat, i.e., on Sunday. Perhaps only in such a case is a separate arrangement made, based on the accepted law that leftover fats of Shabbat offerings are sacrificed and burned on Yom Kippur. However, if Yom Kippur occurs in the middle of the week, then perhaps no, a separate arrangement is not made in order to burn them. Therefore, bar Kappara teaches us that Rabbi Meir’s ruling applies in all cases.
אָמַר רָבָא: מַאן הַאי דְּלָא חָיֵישׁ לְקִמְחֵיהּ? הָא ״בְּכׇל יוֹם״ תְּנַן! קַשְׁיָא.
Rava said: Who is this that does not care about his flour, i.e., he does not truly care about what he says and speaks imprecisely? Did we not learn in the mishna: On every other day. This clearly implies that Rabbi Meir’s ruling applies equally to all days of the week. As such, Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov’s justification for bar Kappara’s teaching is already implied in Rabbi Meir’s words in the mishna. The Gemara comments: Indeed, it is difficult.
וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַב הוּנָא, דְּאָמַר: תְּחִילָּתוֹ דּוֹחָה, סוֹפוֹ אֵינוֹ דּוֹחֶה.
The Gemara comments: Both Rava and bar Kappara hold that a separate arrangement is made even on Shabbat. This disagrees with the opinion of Rav Huna, who said: The beginning of the sacrificial service of the daily offering, i.e., its slaughter, the sprinkling of its blood, and its burning overrides Shabbat; the end of its service, i.e., the burning of its sacrificial parts, does not override Shabbat.
גּוּפָא. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: תָּמִיד, תְּחִילָּתוֹ דּוֹחָה, סוֹפוֹ אֵינוֹ דּוֹחֶה.
The Gemara analyzes Rav Huna’s statement: Returning to the matter itself: Rav Huna said: The beginning of the sacrificial service of the daily offering overrides a halakha, whereas the end of its service does not override a halakha.
מַאי אֵינוֹ דּוֹחֶה? רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, וְאֵינוֹ דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַטּוּמְאָה. (וְרָבָא) אָמַר: דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַטּוּמְאָה, וְאֵינוֹ דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת.
Previously, the Gemara assumed that Rav Huna was discussing the possibility that the sacrifice of the daily offering overrides Shabbat. The Gemara now clarifies if this was his intention: What is meant by saying that the end of its service does not override the halakha? Rav Ḥisda said: Although the end of its service does override Shabbat, it does not override the halakha that it should not be brought in a state of ritual impurity. This is true although the beginning of the sacrificial service of the daily offering may, if necessary, be brought in a state of ritual impurity. And Rabba said: The end of its service overrides only the halakha that it should not be brought in a state of ritual impurity, but it does not override Shabbat.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי (לְרָבָא): לְדִידָךְ קַשְׁיָא, וּלְרַב חִסְדָּא קַשְׁיָא. לְדִידָךְ קַשְׁיָא: מַאי שְׁנָא טוּמְאָה, דִּכְתִיב ״בְּמוֹעֲדוֹ״ — וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּטוּמְאָה, שַׁבָּת נָמֵי — ״בְּמוֹעֲדוֹ״, וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת!
Abaye said to Rabba: It poses a difficulty to your opinion, and it poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda. It is difficult to your opinion as follows: What is different about the prohibition of bringing an offering in a state of ritual impurity that the daily offering overrides it? Because it is written with regard to the daily offering “in its season” (Numbers 28:2), to emphasize that it should be brought under all circumstances, even if that means that it will be brought in a state of ritual impurity. But, by that logic, the daily offering should also override Shabbat. Because the term “in its season” emphasizes that it should be brought under all circumstances, this means even on Shabbat.
וּלְרַב חִסְדָּא קַשְׁיָא: מַאי שְׁנָא שַׁבָּת, דִּכְתִיב ״בְּמוֹעֲדוֹ״ — אֲפִילּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת, טוּמְאָה נָמֵי — ״בְּמוֹעֲדוֹ״, וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּטוּמְאָה?
And it is difficult to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda: What is different about Shabbat that the daily offering overrides it? Because it is written “in its season,” to emphasize that it should be brought under all circumstances, even on Shabbat. But by that logic, the daily offering should also override the prohibition of bringing an offering in a state of ritual impurity. Because the term “in its season” emphasizes that it should be brought under all circumstances, this means even in a state of ritual impurity.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא לְדִידִי קַשְׁיָא, וְלָא לְרַב חִסְדָּא קַשְׁיָא. לְדִידִי לָא קַשְׁיָא: סוֹפוֹ כִּתְחִילָּתוֹ,
Rabba said to him: It is not difficult to my opinion and it does not pose a difficulty to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda. It is not difficult to my opinion, because I hold that the end of its sacrificial rite is like its beginning.
טוּמְאָה, דִּתְחִילָּתוֹ בַּר מִידְחֵא טוּמְאָה הוּא — סוֹפוֹ נָמֵי דָּחֵי. שַׁבָּת, דִּתְחִילָּתוֹ לָאו בַּר מִידְחֵא שַׁבָּת הוּא — סוֹפוֹ נָמֵי לָא דָּחֵי.
Therefore, with regard to overriding the prohibition to bring an offering in a state of ritual impurity, since the beginning of the sacrifice of the daily offering is fit to override the prohibition of offering it in a state of ritual impurity, so too, its end also overrides the prohibition. However, in the case of Shabbat, the beginning of a daily offering of the weekday is not fit to override Shabbat, since by definition it must be brought on its appropriate day. Therefore, its end also does not override Shabbat in the event that limbs remain from Friday’s daily offering.
לְרַב חִסְדָּא לָא קַשְׁיָא: סוֹפוֹ כִּתְחִילָּתוֹ (תְּחִילָּתוֹ) לֵית לֵיהּ. שַׁבָּת דְּהוּתְּרָה הִיא בְּצִיבּוּר — סוֹפוֹ נָמֵי דָּחֵי.
And it is also not difficult to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, because he does not hold that its end is like its beginning. Rather, he has the following reasoning: The prohibitions of Shabbat are not merely overridden in the case of a communal offering, but they are actually permitted, such that there is no need to try to avoid performing the necessary labors when sacrificing it. Therefore, its end also overrides Shabbat.
טוּמְאָה, דִּדְחוּיָה הִיא בְּצִיבּוּר, תְּחִלָּתוֹ דְּעִיקַּר כַּפָּרָה — דָּחֵי, סוֹפוֹ דְּלָאו עִיקַּר כַּפָּרָה — לָא דָּחֵי.
However, in the case of the prohibition to bring an offering in a state of ritual impurity, which is merely overridden in the case of a communal offering, it is preferable to avoid doing so. Therefore, the beginning of its sacrifice, i.e., its slaughter and the sprinkling of its blood, and its burning, which is the essential stage that provides atonement, overrides the prohibition and should be done even in a state of ritual impurity. However, its end, i.e., the burning of the sacrificial parts, which is not the essential stage that provides atonement, does not override the prohibitions.
אִיתְּמַר: הַמְכַבֶּה אֵשׁ מַחְתָּה וּמְנוֹרָה, אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: חַיָּיב, רָבָא אָמַר: פָּטוּר.
The Torah prohibits the fire on the altar to be extinguished: “A perpetual fire shall be kept burning on the altar, it shall not go out” (Leviticus 6:6). With regard to this prohibition, an amoraic dispute was stated: With regard to one who extinguishes the fire of the coals that are taken with the coal pan for the incense on Yom Kippur or the fire of the coals that are taken in order to light the candelabrum, Abaye said: He is liable. Rava said: He is not liable.
דְּכַבְּיַיהּ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּחַיָּיב. כִּי פְּלִיגִי דְּאַחֲתַיהּ אַאַרְעָא וְכַבְּיַיהּ. אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: חַיָּיב, אֵשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ הוּא, רָבָא אָמַר: פָּטוּר, כֵּיוָן דְּנַתְּקַהּ — נַתְּקַהּ.
The Gemara elaborates on the dispute: In a case where one extinguished a coal while still standing upon the top of the altar, everyone agrees that he is liable. This is because the verse explicitly is referring to extinguishing a flame “upon the altar.” When they disagree, it is in a case where he brought the coals down to ground level and extinguished a coal there. Abaye said: He is liable, since it is still considered fire of the altar. Rava said: He is not liable, because once it has been removed from the altar it is considered removed and no longer part of the altar’s fire. Therefore, the prohibition does not apply to it.
אֶלָּא הָא דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: הַמּוֹרִיד גַּחֶלֶת מֵעַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְכִיבָּהּ חַיָּיב, כְּמַאן? כְּאַבַּיֵּי!
The Gemara asks: But if so, with regard to this ruling that Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: One who takes down a coal from upon the altar and extinguishes it is liable, in accordance with whose opinion is he ruling? Could he possibly be ruling in accordance with the opinion of Abaye? Certainly not. In disputes between Abaye and Rava, the halakha follows Rava.
אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא כְּרָבָא, הָתָם לָא אִינְּתִיק לְמִצְוָתַהּ, הָכָא אִינְּתִיקָה לְמִצְוָתַהּ.
The Gemara explains: You can even say his ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rava by making the following distinction: There, in the ruling of Rav Naḥman, the coal was not removed to fulfill its mitzva. Therefore, it is still considered to be part of the fire of the altar and the prohibition still applies. Whereas, here, in the dispute between Abaye and Rava, this is a case of coal that was removed to fulfill its mitzva. Therefore, it is associated with its mitzva and no longer considered the fire of the altar.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי.
There are those who say a different version of the dispute:
דְּאַחֲתַיהּ אַאַרְעָא וְכַבְּיַיהּ, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּפָטוּר. כִּי פְּלִיגִי, דְּכַבְּיַּיהּ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ, אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: חַיָּיב, אֵשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ הוּא, רָבָא אָמַר: פָּטוּר, כֵּיוָן דְּנַתְּקַהּ — נַתְּקַהּ.
In a case where he brought the coals down to the ground and extinguished a coal there, everyone agrees that he is not liable. When they disagree it is in a case where one extinguished a coal while still standing upon the top of the altar. Abaye said: He is liable, since it is still considered fire of the altar. Rava said: He is not liable, because once it has been removed from the altar it is considered removed and no longer part of the altar’s fire. Therefore, the prohibition does not apply to it.
אֶלָּא הָא דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: הַמּוֹרִיד גַּחֶלֶת מֵעַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְכִבָּהּ — חַיָּיב, כְּמַאן? לָא כְּאַבַּיֵּי וְלָא כְּרָבָא! הָתָם לָא אִינְּתִיק לְמִצְוָתַהּ, הָכָא אִינְּתִיק לְמִצְוָתַהּ.
The Gemara asks: But if so, with regard to this ruling that Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: He who takes down a coal from upon the altar and extinguishes it is liable, in accordance with whose opinion is his ruling? It would appear that it is neither in accordance with the opinion of Abaye, nor in accordance with the opinion of Rava. The Gemara explains: You can even say that his ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rava by making the following distinction: There, in the ruling of Rav Naḥman, the coal was not removed to fulfill its mitzva; it is therefore still considered to be part of the fire of the altar and the prohibition applies. Whereas, here, in the dispute between Abaye and Rava, this is a case of coal that was removed to fulfill its mitzva, and it is therefore associated with its mitzva and no longer considered the fire of the altar.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ טָרַף בַּקַּלְפִּי
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Raanana, Israel
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Philadelphia, United States
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Maale Adumim, Israel
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, United States
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
אפרת, Israel
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Lexington, MA, United States
Oceanside NY, United States
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Virginia, United States
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Jerusalem, Israel
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Karmiel, Israel
I heard about the syium in January 2020 & I was excited to start learning then the pandemic started. Learning Daf became something to focus on but also something stressful. As the world changed around me & my family I had to adjust my expectations for myself & the world. Daf Yomi & the Hadran podcast has been something I look forward to every day. It gives me a moment of centering & Judaism daily.
Denver, United States
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Tampa, United States
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Jerusalem, Israel
Minnesota, United States
Yoma 46
אֲבָל מֵהַאי גִּיסָא וּמֵהַאי גִּיסָא אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא.
but from this side or from that side of the altar, both of which are not directly in front of the Sanctuary’s entrance, I would say that no, the fire may not be taken from there. Therefore, it is necessary to write both terms in order to teach this halakha.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מִשּׁוּם בַּר קַפָּרָא, אוֹמֵר הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר: אֵיבְרֵי עוֹלָה שֶׁנִּתּוֹתְרוּ — עוֹשֶׂה לָהֶן מַעֲרָכָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ וְסוֹדְרָן, וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת.
Rabbi Elazar said in the name of bar Kappara: Rabbi Meir would say: With regard to limbs of a burnt-offering that remained on the altar from the previous night and which were not fully consumed, one should make a separate arrangement of wood for them and arrange them upon it to be burned. And this is done even on Shabbat.
מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? תְּנֵינָא: בְּכׇל יוֹם הָיוּ שָׁם אַרְבַּע מַעֲרָכוֹת. אָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לִפְסוּלִין.
What is bar Kappara teaching us when he informs us that Rabbi Meir requires a separate arrangement to be made? Surely, we already learned this in the mishna that cites Rabbi Meir as saying: On every other day, there were four arrangements of wood there, upon the altar. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Avin said: Bar Kappara’s teaching is needed only in order to teach the requirement to set up a fourth arrangement, even though it is only for limbs of disqualified offerings. As certain disqualifications apply only ab initio, if the offering is nevertheless brought upon the altar it should not then be removed. Bar Kappara teaches that Rabbi Meir’s ruling applies in the event that limbs of such an offering were not fully consumed.
וְדַוְקָא שֶׁמָּשְׁלָה בָּהֶן הָאוּר, אֲבָל לֹא מָשְׁלָה בָּהֶן הָאוּר — לֹא.
The Gemara qualifies this: But this applies specifically when the fire has already taken hold of them and they have begun to burn. But if the fire has not yet taken hold of them, no, a separate arrangement is not made in order to burn them.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אֶחָד כְּשֵׁירִין וְאֶחָד פְּסוּלִין, אִי מָשְׁלָה בָּהֶן הָאוּר — אִין, וְאִי לָא — לָא.
There are those who say a different version of this qualification: Both with regard to the limbs of valid offerings and of disqualified offerings, if the fire has already taken hold of them and they have begun to burn, yes, a separate arrangement is made to burn them, but if the fire did not take hold of them, no, a separate arrangement is not made in order to burn them.
וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת — תְּנֵינָא: וְהַיּוֹם חָמֵשׁ!
Bar Kappara concluded: And this is done even on Shabbat. But surely, we already learned this in the mishna that cites Rabbi Meir as saying: But on this day, on Yom Kippur, there are five. This means that the arrangement for burning any remaining limbs is made also on Yom Kippur, despite the fact that all the Shabbat prohibitions apply.
אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּחָל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים לִהְיוֹת אַחַר הַשַּׁבָּת, דְּחֶלְבֵי שַׁבָּת קְרֵבִין בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, אֲבָל בְּאֶמְצַע שַׁבָּת — לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara answers: Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: Nevertheless, bar Kappara’s teaching is necessary, for it could enter your mind to say that this applies only when Yom Kippur occurs after Shabbat, i.e., on Sunday. Perhaps only in such a case is a separate arrangement made, based on the accepted law that leftover fats of Shabbat offerings are sacrificed and burned on Yom Kippur. However, if Yom Kippur occurs in the middle of the week, then perhaps no, a separate arrangement is not made in order to burn them. Therefore, bar Kappara teaches us that Rabbi Meir’s ruling applies in all cases.
אָמַר רָבָא: מַאן הַאי דְּלָא חָיֵישׁ לְקִמְחֵיהּ? הָא ״בְּכׇל יוֹם״ תְּנַן! קַשְׁיָא.
Rava said: Who is this that does not care about his flour, i.e., he does not truly care about what he says and speaks imprecisely? Did we not learn in the mishna: On every other day. This clearly implies that Rabbi Meir’s ruling applies equally to all days of the week. As such, Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov’s justification for bar Kappara’s teaching is already implied in Rabbi Meir’s words in the mishna. The Gemara comments: Indeed, it is difficult.
וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַב הוּנָא, דְּאָמַר: תְּחִילָּתוֹ דּוֹחָה, סוֹפוֹ אֵינוֹ דּוֹחֶה.
The Gemara comments: Both Rava and bar Kappara hold that a separate arrangement is made even on Shabbat. This disagrees with the opinion of Rav Huna, who said: The beginning of the sacrificial service of the daily offering, i.e., its slaughter, the sprinkling of its blood, and its burning overrides Shabbat; the end of its service, i.e., the burning of its sacrificial parts, does not override Shabbat.
גּוּפָא. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: תָּמִיד, תְּחִילָּתוֹ דּוֹחָה, סוֹפוֹ אֵינוֹ דּוֹחֶה.
The Gemara analyzes Rav Huna’s statement: Returning to the matter itself: Rav Huna said: The beginning of the sacrificial service of the daily offering overrides a halakha, whereas the end of its service does not override a halakha.
מַאי אֵינוֹ דּוֹחֶה? רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, וְאֵינוֹ דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַטּוּמְאָה. (וְרָבָא) אָמַר: דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַטּוּמְאָה, וְאֵינוֹ דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת.
Previously, the Gemara assumed that Rav Huna was discussing the possibility that the sacrifice of the daily offering overrides Shabbat. The Gemara now clarifies if this was his intention: What is meant by saying that the end of its service does not override the halakha? Rav Ḥisda said: Although the end of its service does override Shabbat, it does not override the halakha that it should not be brought in a state of ritual impurity. This is true although the beginning of the sacrificial service of the daily offering may, if necessary, be brought in a state of ritual impurity. And Rabba said: The end of its service overrides only the halakha that it should not be brought in a state of ritual impurity, but it does not override Shabbat.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי (לְרָבָא): לְדִידָךְ קַשְׁיָא, וּלְרַב חִסְדָּא קַשְׁיָא. לְדִידָךְ קַשְׁיָא: מַאי שְׁנָא טוּמְאָה, דִּכְתִיב ״בְּמוֹעֲדוֹ״ — וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּטוּמְאָה, שַׁבָּת נָמֵי — ״בְּמוֹעֲדוֹ״, וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת!
Abaye said to Rabba: It poses a difficulty to your opinion, and it poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda. It is difficult to your opinion as follows: What is different about the prohibition of bringing an offering in a state of ritual impurity that the daily offering overrides it? Because it is written with regard to the daily offering “in its season” (Numbers 28:2), to emphasize that it should be brought under all circumstances, even if that means that it will be brought in a state of ritual impurity. But, by that logic, the daily offering should also override Shabbat. Because the term “in its season” emphasizes that it should be brought under all circumstances, this means even on Shabbat.
וּלְרַב חִסְדָּא קַשְׁיָא: מַאי שְׁנָא שַׁבָּת, דִּכְתִיב ״בְּמוֹעֲדוֹ״ — אֲפִילּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת, טוּמְאָה נָמֵי — ״בְּמוֹעֲדוֹ״, וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּטוּמְאָה?
And it is difficult to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda: What is different about Shabbat that the daily offering overrides it? Because it is written “in its season,” to emphasize that it should be brought under all circumstances, even on Shabbat. But by that logic, the daily offering should also override the prohibition of bringing an offering in a state of ritual impurity. Because the term “in its season” emphasizes that it should be brought under all circumstances, this means even in a state of ritual impurity.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא לְדִידִי קַשְׁיָא, וְלָא לְרַב חִסְדָּא קַשְׁיָא. לְדִידִי לָא קַשְׁיָא: סוֹפוֹ כִּתְחִילָּתוֹ,
Rabba said to him: It is not difficult to my opinion and it does not pose a difficulty to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda. It is not difficult to my opinion, because I hold that the end of its sacrificial rite is like its beginning.
טוּמְאָה, דִּתְחִילָּתוֹ בַּר מִידְחֵא טוּמְאָה הוּא — סוֹפוֹ נָמֵי דָּחֵי. שַׁבָּת, דִּתְחִילָּתוֹ לָאו בַּר מִידְחֵא שַׁבָּת הוּא — סוֹפוֹ נָמֵי לָא דָּחֵי.
Therefore, with regard to overriding the prohibition to bring an offering in a state of ritual impurity, since the beginning of the sacrifice of the daily offering is fit to override the prohibition of offering it in a state of ritual impurity, so too, its end also overrides the prohibition. However, in the case of Shabbat, the beginning of a daily offering of the weekday is not fit to override Shabbat, since by definition it must be brought on its appropriate day. Therefore, its end also does not override Shabbat in the event that limbs remain from Friday’s daily offering.
לְרַב חִסְדָּא לָא קַשְׁיָא: סוֹפוֹ כִּתְחִילָּתוֹ (תְּחִילָּתוֹ) לֵית לֵיהּ. שַׁבָּת דְּהוּתְּרָה הִיא בְּצִיבּוּר — סוֹפוֹ נָמֵי דָּחֵי.
And it is also not difficult to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, because he does not hold that its end is like its beginning. Rather, he has the following reasoning: The prohibitions of Shabbat are not merely overridden in the case of a communal offering, but they are actually permitted, such that there is no need to try to avoid performing the necessary labors when sacrificing it. Therefore, its end also overrides Shabbat.
טוּמְאָה, דִּדְחוּיָה הִיא בְּצִיבּוּר, תְּחִלָּתוֹ דְּעִיקַּר כַּפָּרָה — דָּחֵי, סוֹפוֹ דְּלָאו עִיקַּר כַּפָּרָה — לָא דָּחֵי.
However, in the case of the prohibition to bring an offering in a state of ritual impurity, which is merely overridden in the case of a communal offering, it is preferable to avoid doing so. Therefore, the beginning of its sacrifice, i.e., its slaughter and the sprinkling of its blood, and its burning, which is the essential stage that provides atonement, overrides the prohibition and should be done even in a state of ritual impurity. However, its end, i.e., the burning of the sacrificial parts, which is not the essential stage that provides atonement, does not override the prohibitions.
אִיתְּמַר: הַמְכַבֶּה אֵשׁ מַחְתָּה וּמְנוֹרָה, אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: חַיָּיב, רָבָא אָמַר: פָּטוּר.
The Torah prohibits the fire on the altar to be extinguished: “A perpetual fire shall be kept burning on the altar, it shall not go out” (Leviticus 6:6). With regard to this prohibition, an amoraic dispute was stated: With regard to one who extinguishes the fire of the coals that are taken with the coal pan for the incense on Yom Kippur or the fire of the coals that are taken in order to light the candelabrum, Abaye said: He is liable. Rava said: He is not liable.
דְּכַבְּיַיהּ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּחַיָּיב. כִּי פְּלִיגִי דְּאַחֲתַיהּ אַאַרְעָא וְכַבְּיַיהּ. אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: חַיָּיב, אֵשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ הוּא, רָבָא אָמַר: פָּטוּר, כֵּיוָן דְּנַתְּקַהּ — נַתְּקַהּ.
The Gemara elaborates on the dispute: In a case where one extinguished a coal while still standing upon the top of the altar, everyone agrees that he is liable. This is because the verse explicitly is referring to extinguishing a flame “upon the altar.” When they disagree, it is in a case where he brought the coals down to ground level and extinguished a coal there. Abaye said: He is liable, since it is still considered fire of the altar. Rava said: He is not liable, because once it has been removed from the altar it is considered removed and no longer part of the altar’s fire. Therefore, the prohibition does not apply to it.
אֶלָּא הָא דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: הַמּוֹרִיד גַּחֶלֶת מֵעַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְכִיבָּהּ חַיָּיב, כְּמַאן? כְּאַבַּיֵּי!
The Gemara asks: But if so, with regard to this ruling that Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: One who takes down a coal from upon the altar and extinguishes it is liable, in accordance with whose opinion is he ruling? Could he possibly be ruling in accordance with the opinion of Abaye? Certainly not. In disputes between Abaye and Rava, the halakha follows Rava.
אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא כְּרָבָא, הָתָם לָא אִינְּתִיק לְמִצְוָתַהּ, הָכָא אִינְּתִיקָה לְמִצְוָתַהּ.
The Gemara explains: You can even say his ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rava by making the following distinction: There, in the ruling of Rav Naḥman, the coal was not removed to fulfill its mitzva. Therefore, it is still considered to be part of the fire of the altar and the prohibition still applies. Whereas, here, in the dispute between Abaye and Rava, this is a case of coal that was removed to fulfill its mitzva. Therefore, it is associated with its mitzva and no longer considered the fire of the altar.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי.
There are those who say a different version of the dispute:
דְּאַחֲתַיהּ אַאַרְעָא וְכַבְּיַיהּ, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּפָטוּר. כִּי פְּלִיגִי, דְּכַבְּיַּיהּ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ, אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: חַיָּיב, אֵשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ הוּא, רָבָא אָמַר: פָּטוּר, כֵּיוָן דְּנַתְּקַהּ — נַתְּקַהּ.
In a case where he brought the coals down to the ground and extinguished a coal there, everyone agrees that he is not liable. When they disagree it is in a case where one extinguished a coal while still standing upon the top of the altar. Abaye said: He is liable, since it is still considered fire of the altar. Rava said: He is not liable, because once it has been removed from the altar it is considered removed and no longer part of the altar’s fire. Therefore, the prohibition does not apply to it.
אֶלָּא הָא דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: הַמּוֹרִיד גַּחֶלֶת מֵעַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְכִבָּהּ — חַיָּיב, כְּמַאן? לָא כְּאַבַּיֵּי וְלָא כְּרָבָא! הָתָם לָא אִינְּתִיק לְמִצְוָתַהּ, הָכָא אִינְּתִיק לְמִצְוָתַהּ.
The Gemara asks: But if so, with regard to this ruling that Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: He who takes down a coal from upon the altar and extinguishes it is liable, in accordance with whose opinion is his ruling? It would appear that it is neither in accordance with the opinion of Abaye, nor in accordance with the opinion of Rava. The Gemara explains: You can even say that his ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rava by making the following distinction: There, in the ruling of Rav Naḥman, the coal was not removed to fulfill its mitzva; it is therefore still considered to be part of the fire of the altar and the prohibition applies. Whereas, here, in the dispute between Abaye and Rava, this is a case of coal that was removed to fulfill its mitzva, and it is therefore associated with its mitzva and no longer considered the fire of the altar.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ טָרַף בַּקַּלְפִּי
