יומא 46 — parallel

46:1

but not to one side or to the other, therefore it was necessary [to have both phrases]. R. Eleazar said in the name of Bar Kappara: R. Meir used to say: For any of the limbs of the [daily] burnt-offering which remained over, a special pile is to be arranged, even on the Sabbath. What is he teaching us? Have we not learnt: Every day there were four piles of wood there? — R. Abin said: It was necessary [to state it] for those which became [somewhat] invalidated. [This however] is only when the fire has already touched them, but not when the fire has not taken hold of them. Some there are who say: Whether they were valid or invalid [the same rule applies]: If the fire had touched them, a special pile is needed but if not, not. [You say] ‘Even on the Sabbath’. [Surely] we have learnt thus: AND TODAY FIVE [PILES OF WOOD]! — R. Aha b. Jacob said: It was necessary [to mention that]. The thought might have arisen in you that this applied only when the Day of Atonement fell [immediately] after Sabbath, because the fat-pieces of the Sabbath may be offered up on the Day of Atonement, but not [if it fell] in the middle of the week, therefore he informs us [that it applies then too]. Raba said: Who is it that does not care what flour he grinds? Have we not learnt: On all other days? [These were four]-This is a real difficulty. Now he [Bar Kappara] disputes with R. Huna who holds: The continual offering suspends the Sabbath only at its beginning, but not at its end. [To turn to] the main text: The continual offering suspends the Sabbath only at its beginnings not at its end. What does it not suspend? — R. Hisda says: It suspends the Sabbath, but not the law of levitical impurity. Rabbah said: It suspends the law of levitical impurity, but not the Sabbath. Said Abaye to Rabbah: There is a difficulty on your view as well as on the view of R. Hisda. According to you, there is a difficulty: Why does it suspend the law of levitical impurity? Because Scripture said: In its due season i.e., even in levitical uncleanness, [it should suspend also] the Sabbath, [since] ‘in its due season’ [implies] even on the Sabbath? — And according to R. Hisda there is a difficulty. Wherefore the difference [in law in the case of] Sabbath touching which it is written: ‘In its due season’ [i.e.] even on the Sabbath; the same should apply to levitical impurity, since ‘In its due season’ [implies] even in levitical uncleanness. He answered: There is no difficulty according to my view, nor is there any difficulty according to R. Hisda. There is no difficulty on my view; for the beginning is like the end

—

46:2

[consequently] in the case of the law of levitical impurity, since it is suspended at the beginning it is also suspended at the end, but with regard to the Sabbath, since it is not suspended at the beginning it is also not suspended at the end. Nor is there any difficulty according to R. Hisda: He does not hold that the end is like the beginning: [consequently] with regard to the Sabbath, since it is inoperative when a community sacrifice is concerned, it is suspended also at the end of the sacrifice, whereas as regards the law of levitical uncleanness, since in the face of a community sacrifice it is only suspended, it is suspended only at the beginning which is essential for [the obtainment of] atonement, but not at the end, which is not essential for atonement. It was stated: If one puts out the fire of the coal-pan or of the candlestick, Abaye holds him guilty, Raba holds him not guilty. If he put it out on the top of the altar, all agree that he is guilty, they dispute it only if he brought it down to the ground and put it out there. Abaye holds him guilty ‘because it is fire of the altar’; whereas Raba holds him guilty, ‘since he snatched it away, he has snatched it’. According to whose opinion will be, then, what R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: ‘One who takes an ember down from the altar and puts it out is guilty’ shall we say it will be in accord with Abaye? — You may also say that it is in accord with Raba, for in the one case it was not snatched away’ for its ordained use, in the other case it was snatched away’ from the altar for its ordained use. Some there are who say: None disputes the case where he took it down to the floor and put it out there, [all agreeing] that he is not guilty, the dispute concerns but the case where he put it out on the top of the altar. Abaye holds he is guilty ‘because it is the top of the altar’, whereas Raba holds him guilty, ‘since he snatched it away, he has snatched it’. According to whose opinion, then, will be the teaching of R. Nahman in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha viz.: ‘One who brings an ember down from the altar and puts it out is guilty’, — will you not say it will be in accord with neither Abaye nor Raba? — [No], there it was not snatched away for its ordained use, here it was snatched away’ for its ordained use. [

—