Yoma 46b — the Talmud in English

And therefore, with regard to

impurity

: since

its beginning

of the daily offering [its slaughter and the sprinkling of its blood]

is capable of setting aside impurity

, it is fit to set aside impurity, for if there is no pure priest to sprinkle its blood, an impure priest is fit to sprinkle the blood. Therefore,

its end also sets aside Shabbat

, its end as well [the burning of its limbs] sets aside Shabbat.

But with regard to

Shabbat, since its beginning is not capable of setting aside Shabbat

, since the beginning of the daily offering [its slaughter and the sprinkling of its blood] of the daily offering of the eve of Shabbat is not fit to set aside Shabbat, for the slaughter of the daily offering of the eve of Shabbat and the sprinkling of its blood are performed only during the daytime, therefore

its end also does not set aside

, its end as well [the burning of its limbs] does not set aside Shabbat.

And with this Rava explained his position, that the end of the daily offering sets aside impurity but does not set aside Shabbat.

And now Rava explains the position of Rav Ḥisda, who holds that the end of the daily offering sets aside Shabbat but does not set aside impurity:

And

for Rav Ḥisda it is not difficult

, your difficulty, because

“its end is like its beginning”

—

he does not hold

.

Shabbat, with regard to which “it is permitted”

in

communal

sacrifices entirely, therefore

its end

, the burning of its limbs,

also sets aside

.

But impurity, with regard to which “it is deferred”

in

communal sacrifices

, and it was not permitted entirely, and if it is possible to find a pure priest, they are obligated to seek him out in order to offer the sacrifice in purity, therefore not all the services of the daily offering set aside impurity.

Rather, only

its beginning

, the sprinkling of the blood,

for the principal

of the

atonement

it

sets aside

impurity. But

its end

, the burning of the limbs, since

it is not the principal atonement

, for the principal atonement of the sacrifice is through the sprinkling of its blood,

it does not set aside

impurity.

Above, in our sugya [page 45b], it was explained that the fire of the menora and of the censer [into which they brought coals for the incense in the Holy of Holies] was taken from the coals upon the outer altar.

And concerning the fire upon the outer altar it is stated [Leviticus 6:6]: “A perpetual fire shall burn upon the altar; it shall not be extinguished.” And from here, that one who extinguishes the fire upon the altar violates the prohibition of “You shall not extinguish.”

And now the Gemara discusses one who takes coals [in a censer] from the outer altar for the sake of the menora or the incense: are the coals still considered “the coals of the altar,” and one who extinguishes them violates the prohibition against extinguishing the coals of the altar, or has the designation “the coals of the altar” departed from them, and one who extinguishes them does not violate the prohibition?

It was stated: One who extinguishes the fire of the censer and the menora

, after he took coals in a censer from upon the outer altar, for the sake of the censer [of the incense] and the menora, extinguished the fire:

Abaye said: He is liable.

Rava said: He is exempt.

And the Gemara explains their dispute:

In what circumstance?

When he extinguishes

them while the censer is still

upon the top of the altar, everyone agrees that he is liable.

They disagree

—over what did they disagree? In a case

where he placed it on the ground and extinguished it

, in a case where he placed the censer on the ground and then extinguished the coals:

Abaye said: He is liable,

because it is still

the fire of the altar.

Rava said: He is exempt,

for

since he detached it

from the altar and placed it on the ground—

he detached it

from being “the fire of the altar” [and it was no longer said concerning it, “A perpetual fire shall burn upon the altar; it shall not be extinguished”].

And we raise an objection:

But that which Rav Naḥman said in the name of

Rabba bar Avuha: One who brings down a coal from upon the altar and extinguishes it is liable

—according to whom!?

According to whom does Rav Naḥman hold?

Does he hold

like Abaye

alone [for according to Rava, one who extinguishes the fire taken from the altar for the sake of the censer and menora, on the ground, is exempt]!?

And we answer:

Even if you say

, even if you say that he holds

like Rava

[that one who extinguishes the fire of the censer and menora on the ground is exempt], it is still possible to uphold Rav Naḥman’s statement that one who brings down a coal from upon the altar and extinguishes it is liable:

For

there

, one who brings down a coal to the ground—

it was not detached for its mitzva

, the detachment from the altar was not for the sake of another mitzva, and therefore the coals are still considered “the fire of the altar” [and one who extinguishes them is liable, in accordance with Rav Naḥman’s statement].

But

here

, one who brings down the fire of the censer and menora to the ground—

it was detached for its mitzva

. The fire was detached from the altar for the sake of another mitzva, and through this the designation “the fire of the altar” departed from it.

There are those who say

, there are those who say that the dispute between Abaye and Rava [concerning one who extinguishes the fire of the censer and menora] was stated in another manner:

Where he placed it on the ground and extinguished it

, in a case where he brought the coals down to the ground and extinguished them—in this case,

everyone agrees that he is exempt.

They disagree

, where did they disagree? In a case

where he extinguished it

, in a case where he extinguished them while the censer was still

upon the top of the altar

:

Abaye said: He is liable,

because it is still

the fire of the altar.

Rava said: He is exempt,

for

since he detached

the fire in the censer from the fire of the arrangement,

he detached it

from being “the fire of the altar” [and it was not said concerning it, “A perpetual fire shall burn upon the altar; it shall not be extinguished”].

And we raise an objection:

But that which Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabba bar Avuha: One who brings down a coal from upon the altar

to the ground,

and it is extinguished, is liable

—according to whom

, according to whom does Rav Naḥman hold?

Does he hold

neither like Abaye nor like Rava?!

For both of them agree [according to this formulation] that when he placed the fire of the menora and the censer on the ground and extinguished it there, he is exempt!

And we answer:

There

, one who brings down a coal to the ground—

it was not detached for its mitzva

. The detachment from the altar was not for the sake of fulfilling another mitzva. Therefore the coals are still considered “the fire of the altar” [and one who extinguishes them is liable, in accordance with Rav Naḥman’s statement].

But

here

, one who extinguishes the fire of the censer and the menora—

it was detached for its mitzva

. The fire was detached from the fire of the arrangement for the sake of fulfilling another mitzva, and through this the designation “the fire of the altar” departed from it. Therefore one who extinguishes it is exempt.

We will return to you, Taraf ba-Kalpi.

The Meiri's introduction:

We have already explained concerning these chapters that all of them are arranged according to the forms of the order of the services on Yom Kippur, all in order, one by one.

And we explained some of them in the third chapter: the service of the daily offering and the first confession concerning the bull.

And in the fourth we explained: the matter of the lottery of the goats, and the tying of the tongue of crimson wool on them, and his return to his bull, and the second confession concerning it and concerning those near it, and its slaughter and the receiving of its blood, and the taking of coals in a firepan holding three kav for the incense before and within, designated for the service of the day.

And now, in this chapter, some of the remaining services will likewise be arranged in order; and on this basis, the matters of the chapter will be divided into five parts:

The first: concerning this incense, which is performed before and within, on the firepan between the staves of the Ark.

The second: his return to the blood of the bull, which he had already placed in the bowl, and the sprinklings connected with it before and within.

The third: the slaughter of the goat upon which the lottery had risen “for Hashem,” and the receiving of its blood and its sprinklings before and within.

The fourth: his return to the blood of the bull, to sprinkle from it outside upon the curtain, and likewise that of the goat; and the mixing of the two bloods, and the sprinklings from their mixture, and the pouring of the bloods.

The fifth: if, Heaven forbid, some mishaps occurred in the service, such as that he changed the order or the blood was spilled, how it is performed.