Yoma 46b (מו:) — the Talmud in English

Therefore, with regard to

impurity

, since

its beginning

—the slaughter and the sprinkling of its blood—

is capable of overriding impurity

, it is fit to override impurity: if there is no pure koen available to sprinkle its blood, an impure koen is fit to sprinkle the blood. Therefore,

its end also overrides Shabbat

, meaning that its end—the burning of its limbs—also overrides Shabbat.

But with regard to

Shabbat, since its beginning is not capable of overriding Shabbat

, since the beginning of the daily offering—the slaughter and the sprinkling of its blood—of the daily offering of Shabbat eve is not fit to override Shabbat, as the slaughter of the daily offering of Shabbat eve and the sprinkling of its blood are performed only during the day, therefore

its end also does not override it

. Its end—the burning of its limbs—also does not override Shabbat.

With this, Rava explained his own position: the end of the daily offering overrides impurity but does not override Shabbat.

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

And

for Rav Ḥisda there is no difficulty

with your objection, because

“its end is like its beginning”

—

is not his view!

Rav Ḥisda does not hold that the law governing the end of the daily offering should be equated with that governing its beginning. Rather, he holds that there is another distinction between impurity and Shabbat:

Shabbat is “permitted” with regard to

public

offerings

entirely; therefore,

its end

, the burning of its limbs,

also overrides it.

But

impurity, which is “deferred” with regard to

public

offerings,

and was not entirely permitted, means that if it is possible to find a pure koen, one must seek him out in order to offer the offering in purity, therefore not all the services of the daily offering override impurity.

Rather, only

its beginning

, the sprinkling of the blood,

which is the principal

of the

atonement

,

overrides

impurity. But

its end

, the burning of the limbs, since

it is not the principal atonement

, as the principal atonement of the offering is achieved through the sprinkling of its blood,

does not override

impurity.

It was explained earlier in our discussion, on 45b, that the fire of the menorah and of the maḥtah—the pan into which coals for the incense in the Holy of Holies were placed—was taken from the coals on the outer altar.

And concerning the fire on the outer altar it is stated, in Leviticus 6:6: “A perpetual fire shall burn upon the altar; it shall not be extinguished.” From here it follows that one who extinguishes the fire on the altar violates the prohibition: “It shall not be extinguished.”

The Gemara now discusses one who takes coals in a pan from the outer altar for the menorah or the incense: Are the coals still considered “the coals of the altar,” so that one who extinguishes them violates the prohibition against extinguishing the coals of the altar? Or has the designation “the coals of the altar” ceased to apply to them, so that one who extinguishes them does not violate a prohibition?

It was stated: With regard to one who extinguishes the fire of the pan or the menorah

, after he took coals in a pan from atop the outer altar for the pan containing the incense or for the menorah, and extinguished the fire:

Abaye said: He is liable.

Rava said: He is exempt.

The Gemara explains their dispute:

In a case

where he extinguished it

, if he extinguished them while the pan was still

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

They disagree

—about what did they disagree? In a case

where he placed it on the ground and extinguished it

, where he placed the pan 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

once he detached it

from the altar and placed it on the ground,

he detached it

from being “the fire of the altar,” [and it is no longer subject to the verse: “A perpetual fire shall burn upon the altar; it shall not be extinguished.”]

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

But concerning that which Rav Naḥman said in the name of

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

—in accordance with whose opinion!?

Whose view does Rav Naḥman follow?

Does he follow

Abaye alone [for according to Rava, one who extinguishes the fire taken from the altar for the pan or the menorah, after placing it on the ground, is exempt]!?

And we answer:

Even if you say

, even if you say that he follows

Rava

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

For

there

, when one brings a coal down to the ground,

he did not detach it for its mitzva

; the detachment from the altar was not for the purpose of 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

, when one brings the fire of the pan or menorah down to the ground,

he detached it for its mitzva

. The fire was detached from the altar for the purpose of another mitzva, and through this the designation “the fire of the altar” ceased to apply to it.

There are those who say

that the dispute between Abaye and Rava [concerning one who extinguishes the fire of the pan or menorah] was stated in a different 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

, where he extinguished them while the pan was still

on top of the altar:

:

Abaye said: He is liable,

because it is still

the fire of the altar.

Rava said: He is exempt,

for

once he detached it

, the fire in the pan, from the fire of the arrangement,

he detached it

from being “the fire of the altar” [and the verse, “A perpetual fire shall burn upon the altar; it shall not be extinguished,” does not apply to it].

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

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

to the ground

and extinguishes it is liable

—in accordance with whose opinion

, whose view does Rav Naḥman follow?

Does he hold

neither like Abaye nor like Rava?!

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

And we answer:

There

, when one brings a coal down to the ground,

he did not detach it for its mitzva

. The detachment from the altar was not for the purpose 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 pan or menorah—

it was detached for its mitzva

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

We have completed [the chapter] “He drew the lot.”

Introduction of the Meiri:

We have already explained that all these chapters are arranged according to the order of the Temple services performed on Yom Kippur, all of them in exact sequence, one after the other.

In the third chapter we explained: the service of the daily offering and the first confession over the bull.

In the fourth chapter we explained: the matter of casting lots for the goats; tying the crimson tongue among them; his return to his bull; the second confession over it and over his fellow priests; its slaughter and the receiving of its blood; and the placing of coals in a firepan containing three kav for the incense service performed in the innermost chamber, which was unique to the service of the day.

Now, in this chapter, some of the remaining services will likewise be arranged in sequence, and accordingly the matters of the chapter will be divided into five sections:

The first: the incense service performed in the innermost chamber, 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 performed in the innermost chamber.

The third: the slaughter of the goat upon which the lot “For the Lord” fell, the receiving of its blood, and its sprinklings in the innermost chamber.

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

The fifth: if, Heaven forbid, some mishap occurred in the service, such as changing the order or spilling the blood, how the service is performed.