Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 27, 2021 | 讟状讝 讘住讬讜谉 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Yoma is sponsored by Vicky Harari in commemoration of her father's Yahrzeit, Avraham Baruch Hacohen ben Zeev Eliyahu Eckstein z'l, a Holocaust survivor and a feminist before it was fashionable. And in gratitude to Michelle Cohen Farber for revolutionizing women's learning worldwide.

This month's shiurim are sponsored by Josh Sussman in honor of both his wife, Romi鈥檚 50th birthday and son, Zeli. "He will, B鈥橢zrat HaShem, be making his first solo siyum on Masechet Yoma at his Bar Mitzvah in July".

And for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah.

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

Yoma 46

The gemara brings in Rabbi Elazar in the name of Bar Kapara who brings an expanded version of Rabbi Meir鈥檚 opinion (that there was an additional woodpile for the parts that didn鈥檛 burn completely the previous night). He says that it was used every day and even on Shabbat. What did Bar Kapara add that wasn鈥檛 already clear from our mishna? Does Rav Huna disagree with Bar Kapara as he seems to say that it wasn鈥檛 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 鈥 why should one distinguish between Shabbat and impurity? Raba explains why according to both his opinion and Rav Chisda鈥檚. 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?

讗讘诇 诪讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讜诪讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗


but from this side or from that side of the altar, both of which are not directly in front of the Sanctuary鈥檚 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.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪砖讜诐 讘专 拽驻专讗 讗讜诪专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬讘专讬 注讜诇讛 砖谞转讜转专讜 注讜砖讛 诇讛谉 诪注专讻讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讜住讜讚专谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转


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.


诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讛讬讜 砖诐 讗专讘注 诪注专讻讜转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇驻住讜诇讬谉


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鈥檚 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鈥檚 ruling applies in the event that limbs of such an offering were not fully consumed.


讜讚讜拽讗 砖诪砖诇讛 讘讛谉 讛讗讜专 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪砖诇讛 讘讛谉 讛讗讜专 诇讗


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.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗讞讚 讻砖讬专讬谉 讜讗讞讚 驻住讜诇讬谉 讗讬 诪砖诇讛 讘讛谉 讛讗讜专 讗讬谉 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗


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.


讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转 转谞讬谞讗 讜讛讬讜诐 讞诪砖


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.


讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讞诇 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诇讛讬讜转 讗讞专 讛砖讘转 讚讞诇讘讬 砖讘转 拽专讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讗讘诇 讘讗诪爪注 砖讘转 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara answers: Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: Nevertheless, bar Kappara鈥檚 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鈥檚 ruling applies in all cases.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗谉 讛讗讬 讚诇讗 讞讬讬砖 诇拽诪讞讬讛 讛讗 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 转谞谉 拽砖讬讗


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鈥檚 ruling applies equally to all days of the week. As such, Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov鈥檚 justification for bar Kappara鈥檚 teaching is already implied in Rabbi Meir鈥檚 words in the mishna. The Gemara comments: Indeed, it is difficult.


讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 转讞讬诇转讜 讚讜讞讛 住讜驻讜 讗讬谞讜 讚讜讞讛


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.


讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 转诪讬讚 转讞讬诇转讜 讚讜讞讛 住讜驻讜 讗讬谞讜 讚讜讞讛


The Gemara analyzes Rav Huna鈥檚 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.


诪讗讬 讗讬谞讜 讚讜讞讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜讗讬谞讜 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛讟讜诪讗讛 (讜专讘讗) 讗诪专 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转


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 岣sda 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.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 (诇专讘讗) 诇讚讬讚讱 拽砖讬讗 讜诇专讘 讞住讚讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讚讬讚讱 拽砖讬讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讻转讬讘 讘诪讜注讚讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讟讜诪讗讛 砖讘转 谞诪讬 讘诪讜注讚讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转


Abaye said to Rabba: It poses a difficulty to your opinion, and it poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav 岣sda. 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 鈥渋n its season鈥 (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 鈥渋n its season鈥 emphasizes that it should be brought under all circumstances, this means even on Shabbat.


讜诇专讘 讞住讚讗 拽砖讬讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 砖讘转 讚讻转讬讘 讘诪讜注讚讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转 讟讜诪讗讛 谞诪讬 讘诪讜注讚讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讟讜诪讗讛


And it is difficult to the opinion of Rav 岣sda: What is different about Shabbat that the daily offering overrides it? Because it is written 鈥渋n its season,鈥 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 鈥渋n its season鈥 emphasizes that it should be brought under all circumstances, this means even in a state of ritual impurity.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 诇讚讬讚讬 拽砖讬讗 讜诇讗 诇专讘 讞住讚讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讚讬讚讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 住讜驻讜 讻转讞讬诇转讜


Rabba said to him: It is not difficult to my opinion and it does not pose a difficulty to the opinion of Rav 岣sda. It is not difficult to my opinion, because I hold that the end of its sacrificial rite is like its beginning.


讟讜诪讗讛 讚转讞讬诇转讜 讘专 诪讬讚讞讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讜讗 住讜驻讜 谞诪讬 讚讞讬 砖讘转 讚转讞讬诇转讜 诇讗讜 讘专 诪讬讚讞讗 砖讘转 讛讜讗 住讜驻讜 谞诪讬 诇讗 讚讞讬


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鈥檚 daily offering.


诇专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 住讜驻讜 讻转讞讬诇转讜 (转讞讬诇转讜) 诇讬转 诇讬讛 砖讘转 讚讛讜转专讛 讛讬讗 讘爪讬讘讜专 住讜驻讜 谞诪讬 讚讞讬


And it is also not difficult to the opinion of Rav 岣sda, 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.


讟讜诪讗讛 讚讚讞讜讬讛 讛讬讗 讘爪讬讘讜专 转讞诇转讜 讚注讬拽专 讻驻专讛 讚讞讬 住讜驻讜 讚诇讗讜 注讬拽专 讻驻专讛 诇讗 讚讞讬


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.


讗讬转诪专 讛诪讻讘讛 讗砖 诪讞转讛 讜诪谞讜专讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 专讘讗 讗诪专 驻讟讜专


The Torah prohibits the fire on the altar to be extinguished: 鈥淎 perpetual fire shall be kept burning on the altar, it shall not go out鈥 (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.


讚讻讘讬讬讛 讘专讗砖讜 砖诇 诪讝讘讞 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讞讬讬讘 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗讞转讬讛 讗讗专注讗 讜讻讘讬讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讗砖 讛诪讝讘讞 讛讜讗 专讘讗 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 讻讬讜谉 讚谞转拽讛 谞转拽讛


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 鈥渦pon the altar.鈥 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鈥檚 fire. Therefore, the prohibition does not apply to it.


讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讛诪讜专讬讚 讙讞诇转 诪注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 讜讻讬讘讛 讞讬讬讘 讻诪讗谉 讻讗讘讬讬


The Gemara asks: But if so, with regard to this ruling that Rav Na岣an 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.


讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讻专讘讗 讛转诐 诇讗 讗讬谞转讬拽 诇诪爪讜转讛 讛讻讗 讗讬谞转讬拽讛 诇诪爪讜转讛


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 Na岣an, 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.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬


There are those who say a different version of the dispute:


讚讗讞转讬讛 讗讗专注讗 讜讻讘讬讬讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚驻讟讜专 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讻讘讬讬讛 讘专讗砖讜 砖诇 诪讝讘讞 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讗砖 讛诪讝讘讞 讛讜讗 专讘讗 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 讻讬讜谉 讚谞转拽讛 谞转拽讛


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鈥檚 fire. Therefore, the prohibition does not apply to it.


讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讛诪讜专讬讚 讙讞诇转 诪注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 讜讻讘讛 讞讬讬讘 讻诪讗谉 诇讗 讻讗讘讬讬 讜诇讗 讻专讘讗 讛转诐 诇讗 讗讬谞转讬拽 诇诪爪讜转讛 讛讻讗 讗讬谞转讬拽 诇诪爪讜转讛


The Gemara asks: But if so, with regard to this ruling that Rav Na岣an 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 Na岣an, 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.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讟专祝 讘拽诇驻讬

Masechet Yoma is sponsored by Vicky Harari in commemoration of her father's Yahrzeit, Avraham Baruch Hacohen ben Zeev Eliyahu Eckstein z'l, a Holocaust survivor and a feminist before it was fashionable. And in gratitude to Michelle Cohen Farber for revolutionizing women's learning worldwide.

This month's shiurim are sponsored by Josh Sussman in honor of both his wife, Romi鈥檚 50th birthday and son, Zeli. "He will, B鈥橢zrat HaShem, be making his first solo siyum on Masechet Yoma at his Bar Mitzvah in July".

And for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah.

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Yoma 45 – 51 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will complete the 4th chapter in Masechet Yoma and begin the 5th. We will continue learning the...
talking talmud_square

Yoma 46: The Temple Fires

On the different fires in the Temple. With a focus on R. Huna's position, on the conflation of issues between...

Yoma 46

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yoma 46

讗讘诇 诪讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讜诪讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗


but from this side or from that side of the altar, both of which are not directly in front of the Sanctuary鈥檚 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.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪砖讜诐 讘专 拽驻专讗 讗讜诪专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬讘专讬 注讜诇讛 砖谞转讜转专讜 注讜砖讛 诇讛谉 诪注专讻讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讜住讜讚专谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转


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.


诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讛讬讜 砖诐 讗专讘注 诪注专讻讜转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇驻住讜诇讬谉


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鈥檚 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鈥檚 ruling applies in the event that limbs of such an offering were not fully consumed.


讜讚讜拽讗 砖诪砖诇讛 讘讛谉 讛讗讜专 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪砖诇讛 讘讛谉 讛讗讜专 诇讗


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.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗讞讚 讻砖讬专讬谉 讜讗讞讚 驻住讜诇讬谉 讗讬 诪砖诇讛 讘讛谉 讛讗讜专 讗讬谉 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗


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.


讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转 转谞讬谞讗 讜讛讬讜诐 讞诪砖


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.


讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讞诇 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诇讛讬讜转 讗讞专 讛砖讘转 讚讞诇讘讬 砖讘转 拽专讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讗讘诇 讘讗诪爪注 砖讘转 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara answers: Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: Nevertheless, bar Kappara鈥檚 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鈥檚 ruling applies in all cases.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗谉 讛讗讬 讚诇讗 讞讬讬砖 诇拽诪讞讬讛 讛讗 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 转谞谉 拽砖讬讗


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鈥檚 ruling applies equally to all days of the week. As such, Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov鈥檚 justification for bar Kappara鈥檚 teaching is already implied in Rabbi Meir鈥檚 words in the mishna. The Gemara comments: Indeed, it is difficult.


讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 转讞讬诇转讜 讚讜讞讛 住讜驻讜 讗讬谞讜 讚讜讞讛


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.


讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 转诪讬讚 转讞讬诇转讜 讚讜讞讛 住讜驻讜 讗讬谞讜 讚讜讞讛


The Gemara analyzes Rav Huna鈥檚 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.


诪讗讬 讗讬谞讜 讚讜讞讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜讗讬谞讜 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛讟讜诪讗讛 (讜专讘讗) 讗诪专 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转


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 岣sda 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.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 (诇专讘讗) 诇讚讬讚讱 拽砖讬讗 讜诇专讘 讞住讚讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讚讬讚讱 拽砖讬讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讻转讬讘 讘诪讜注讚讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讟讜诪讗讛 砖讘转 谞诪讬 讘诪讜注讚讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转


Abaye said to Rabba: It poses a difficulty to your opinion, and it poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav 岣sda. 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 鈥渋n its season鈥 (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 鈥渋n its season鈥 emphasizes that it should be brought under all circumstances, this means even on Shabbat.


讜诇专讘 讞住讚讗 拽砖讬讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 砖讘转 讚讻转讬讘 讘诪讜注讚讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转 讟讜诪讗讛 谞诪讬 讘诪讜注讚讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讟讜诪讗讛


And it is difficult to the opinion of Rav 岣sda: What is different about Shabbat that the daily offering overrides it? Because it is written 鈥渋n its season,鈥 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 鈥渋n its season鈥 emphasizes that it should be brought under all circumstances, this means even in a state of ritual impurity.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 诇讚讬讚讬 拽砖讬讗 讜诇讗 诇专讘 讞住讚讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讚讬讚讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 住讜驻讜 讻转讞讬诇转讜


Rabba said to him: It is not difficult to my opinion and it does not pose a difficulty to the opinion of Rav 岣sda. It is not difficult to my opinion, because I hold that the end of its sacrificial rite is like its beginning.


讟讜诪讗讛 讚转讞讬诇转讜 讘专 诪讬讚讞讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讜讗 住讜驻讜 谞诪讬 讚讞讬 砖讘转 讚转讞讬诇转讜 诇讗讜 讘专 诪讬讚讞讗 砖讘转 讛讜讗 住讜驻讜 谞诪讬 诇讗 讚讞讬


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鈥檚 daily offering.


诇专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 住讜驻讜 讻转讞讬诇转讜 (转讞讬诇转讜) 诇讬转 诇讬讛 砖讘转 讚讛讜转专讛 讛讬讗 讘爪讬讘讜专 住讜驻讜 谞诪讬 讚讞讬


And it is also not difficult to the opinion of Rav 岣sda, 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.


讟讜诪讗讛 讚讚讞讜讬讛 讛讬讗 讘爪讬讘讜专 转讞诇转讜 讚注讬拽专 讻驻专讛 讚讞讬 住讜驻讜 讚诇讗讜 注讬拽专 讻驻专讛 诇讗 讚讞讬


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.


讗讬转诪专 讛诪讻讘讛 讗砖 诪讞转讛 讜诪谞讜专讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 专讘讗 讗诪专 驻讟讜专


The Torah prohibits the fire on the altar to be extinguished: 鈥淎 perpetual fire shall be kept burning on the altar, it shall not go out鈥 (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.


讚讻讘讬讬讛 讘专讗砖讜 砖诇 诪讝讘讞 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讞讬讬讘 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗讞转讬讛 讗讗专注讗 讜讻讘讬讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讗砖 讛诪讝讘讞 讛讜讗 专讘讗 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 讻讬讜谉 讚谞转拽讛 谞转拽讛


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 鈥渦pon the altar.鈥 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鈥檚 fire. Therefore, the prohibition does not apply to it.


讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讛诪讜专讬讚 讙讞诇转 诪注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 讜讻讬讘讛 讞讬讬讘 讻诪讗谉 讻讗讘讬讬


The Gemara asks: But if so, with regard to this ruling that Rav Na岣an 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.


讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讻专讘讗 讛转诐 诇讗 讗讬谞转讬拽 诇诪爪讜转讛 讛讻讗 讗讬谞转讬拽讛 诇诪爪讜转讛


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 Na岣an, 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.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬


There are those who say a different version of the dispute:


讚讗讞转讬讛 讗讗专注讗 讜讻讘讬讬讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚驻讟讜专 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讻讘讬讬讛 讘专讗砖讜 砖诇 诪讝讘讞 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讗砖 讛诪讝讘讞 讛讜讗 专讘讗 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 讻讬讜谉 讚谞转拽讛 谞转拽讛


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鈥檚 fire. Therefore, the prohibition does not apply to it.


讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讛诪讜专讬讚 讙讞诇转 诪注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 讜讻讘讛 讞讬讬讘 讻诪讗谉 诇讗 讻讗讘讬讬 讜诇讗 讻专讘讗 讛转诐 诇讗 讗讬谞转讬拽 诇诪爪讜转讛 讛讻讗 讗讬谞转讬拽 诇诪爪讜转讛


The Gemara asks: But if so, with regard to this ruling that Rav Na岣an 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 Na岣an, 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.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讟专祝 讘拽诇驻讬

Scroll To Top