Yoma 46a — the Talmud in English

But from this side and from that side,

from the two sides of the altar that are not opposite the entrance of the Sanctuary,

say not.

And I would say that one should not take coals from there.

For this reason it says, “from upon the altar,” to say that all the coals that are on the west of the altar are fit [and even the coals that are not ממש opposite the entrance].

And therefore

it is necessary;

the verse needed to write both things [“from upon the altar” and “from before the Lord”].

We learned above that, according to Rabbi Meir, there was a separate arrangement, upon which he placed the limbs and fats of yesterday that had not been consumed from the evening.

And now the Gemara explains this matter:

Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Bar Kappara: Rabbi Meir would say: The limbs of an olah

that remained

[that remained from yesterday] —

he makes for them a separate arrangement and arranges them. And even on Shabbat

he makes an arrangement for the limbs of yesterday, despite the fact that they belong to offerings of a weekday.

And from Rabbi Elazar’s words [in the name of Rabbi Meir] we learned two innovations:

a. For the limbs of an olah that remained from yesterday, he makes a separate arrangement on weekdays.

b. Even on Shabbat, when kindling a fire is forbidden, it is permitted to kindle a separate fire for the limbs of yesterday.

And we raise an objection to the beginning of Rabbi Elazar’s words:

What does he teach us,

what did Rabbi Elazar teach us by his first innovation, that they made a separate arrangement for the limbs and fats of yesterday?

After all,

we learned it;

we already learned this law in our Mishna in the name of Rabbi Meir:

“Every day there were four arrangements,”

and one of them was for the limbs and fats of yesterday [as the Tosefta, which is cited in the Gemara above, 45a, explained].

He said,

he answered,

Rabbi Avin:

It was necessary

Rabbi Elazar’s statement

only with regard to disqualified offerings.

To teach us that even offerings in which there is a disqualification [but concerning which it was stated: “If they ascended the altar, they do not descend”] , if they remained from yesterday, they made an arrangement for them and burned them.

And specifically when the fire had taken hold of them

[the fire], for then their prohibition was removed from them.

But when the fire had not taken hold of them —

no,

they did not make a separate arrangement for them; rather, they offered them on the large arrangement.

There are those who say: One,

offerings,

and one

offerings,

disqualified —

if the fire had taken hold of them, yes,

indeed he makes a separate arrangement for them.

But if not,

if the fire had not taken hold of them,

no.

And the Gemara raises an objection to Rabbi Elazar’s second innovation [according to Rabbi Meir]:

Rabbi Elazar said:

And even on Shabbat,

when kindling a fire on it is forbidden, it is permitted to kindle on it a separate fire for burning the limbs of yesterday.

And we raise an objection:

We learned it;

after all, we already learned this law in our Mishna in the name of Rabbi Meir:

“And today, five”

[on Yom Kippur there were five arrangements, and one of them was for the limbs of yesterday that had not been consumed from the evening]! But work is forbidden on Yom Kippur as on Shabbat, so why did Rabbi Elazar need to explain that on it they make a separate arrangement as on Shabbat?

Rav Aha bar Yaakov said

an answer:

It was necessary.

For

it might enter your mind to say,

you might have thought to say,

these words,

the words of the Mishna [which said in the name of Rabbi Meir that on Yom Kippur there was a separate arrangement for the limbs of yesterday], were stated only

where

[where]

Yom Kippur fell after Shabbat,

on Sunday, and because

the fats of

offerings of

Shabbat are offered on Yom Kippur,

which fell immediately after Shabbat.

But

if Yom Kippur fell

in the middle of Shabbat

[in the middle of the week],

no,

they do not make a separate arrangement for them, since kindling the arrangement for the limbs of a weekday does not override Yom Kippur, and likewise it does not override Shabbat.

Therefore,

he teaches us,

Rabbi Elazar taught us that they kindle a separate arrangement even for the limbs of a weekday.

Rava said: Who is this who does not take care for his flour!?

Who is this who does not check whether he is grinding wheat or refuse [and this is a metaphor].

How was it that Rav Aha bar Yaakov did not check his answer?

“Every day

there were four arrangements”

we learned!

And “every day” implies even Shabbat [that even on Shabbat they made an arrangement for offerings of a weekday]!

And we conclude:

It is difficult.

We learn from the words of Rabbi Elazar in the name of Bar Kappara and Rava that even on Shabbat they arranged an arrangement for burning the offerings of the previous day.

And it disagrees

the statement of Bar Kappara and Rava with the statement

of Rav Huna.

For

Rav Huna said: The offering of the

regular offering —

only

its beginning overrides

Shabbat.

When its beginning [its slaughter and the sprinkling of its blood] was on Shabbat [that is, the regular offering of Shabbat, all of whose services are performed on Shabbat], it overrides Shabbat in all its services, even the burning of the sacrificial parts.

But

its end —

does not override

Shabbat.

When only the end of the offering’s services [the burning of the sacrificial parts] is on Shabbat, that is, the regular offering of Friday evening [which was already slaughtered and whose blood was sprinkled on Friday], its burning does not override Shabbat; rather, its limbs must be placed upon the fire before Shabbat enters.

And Rav Huna’s words are unlike the words of Bar Kappara and Rava, who said that the burning of the limbs of the regular offering of a weekday is performed on Shabbat.

And since the Gemara brought Rav Huna’s statement in its wording without additional explanation, the Gemara now brings the words of the amoraim who explained Rav Huna’s statement:

The matter itself: Rav Huna said: The regular offering —

its beginning overrides.

Its end —

does not override.

And we inquire:

What,

what part of the regular offering’s end

does not override?

And the amoraim disputed the matter:

Rav Hisda said:

The end of the regular offering [the burning of the limbs] indeed

overrides Shabbat,

but nevertheless

does not override ritual impurity.

And if they did not find a ritually pure priest to burn the limbs of the regular offering, they do not burn it through a ritually impure priest.

And Rava said,

to the contrary: the end of the regular offering [the burning of the limbs]

overrides ritual impurity, but does not override Shabbat

[if its beginning was on Friday].

Abaye said to Rava:

Both

according to you

according to your words,

it is difficult, and

both

according to Rav Hisda it is difficult:

And Abaye explains his words:

According to you,

Rava,

it is difficult:

What is different about ritual impurity,

what is different and distinctive about ritual impurity, that it is overridden for the sake of burning the limbs of the regular offering? It is because

it is written

[in Numbers 28] concerning offering the regular offering:

“At its appointed time,”

which implies that it must be performed at its time in every manner, and its time must not pass,

even in a state of ritual impurity!

If so, with regard to

Shabbat also,

let us also expound from

“at its appointed time”

that it must be performed in every manner and its time must not pass,

even on Shabbat !

And why did Rava say that the end of the regular offering does not override Shabbat?

And according to Rav Hisda it is difficult:

What is different

what is different and distinctive

about Shabbat,

that it is overridden for the sake of burning the limbs of the regular offering? It is because

it is written

[in Numbers 28] concerning the regular offering:

“At its appointed time.”

And this implies that its time must not pass

even

if the day is

Shabbat!

If so, with regard to

ritual impurity also,

let us also expound from

“at its appointed time”

that its time must not pass,

and

it must be performed

even in a state of ritual impurity!

He said to him

Rava [to Abaye]—a response:

It is not difficult for me, and

so

it is not difficult for Rav Hisda either!

For me it is not difficult,

since there is a distinction to be made between the prohibition of offering in impurity and the prohibition of kindling on Shabbat:

For the law of its

end

of the offering [the burning of the limbs] is

like

the law of

its beginning [

its slaughter and the sprinkling of its blood].