that they are arranged upon the altar, and if the space on the altar cannot hold them, that they are arranged upon the ramp or upon the ledge that protrudes from the altar, until the large arrangement is made the following day and then they are arranged upon it? The verse states: “That which the fire will consume of the burnt-offering, on the altar” (Leviticus 6:3). This is taken to mean that those items that the fire already consumed are once again placed upon the altar.

And how does Rabbi Meir expound this verse? He derives from it that if parts of a burnt-offering that were already partially consumed on the altar fell off the altar, you should return them to continue burning; but you do not return incense that was consumed and fell off of the inner incense altar. As Rabbi Ḥananya bar Minyomi from the school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov taught in a baraita: The verse states: “That which the fire will consume of the burnt-offering on the altar” (Leviticus 6:3). This teaches that if parts of a burnt-offering that were partially consumed fell off the altar, you should return them; but you do not return incense that was partially consumed and fell off the altar.

At any rate, everyone assumes there is an additional arrangement of wood that they add on that day, i.e., Yom Kippur, for the incense that is burned in the Holy of Holies. From where do they derive this? They derive it from the verse “And the fire upon the altar” (Leviticus 6:5). The apparently superfluous words “and the” allude to an additional fire. And even one who does not generally expound the word “and” does expound the phrase “and the.”

The Gemara notes that there is an additional mention of the altar fire, which has not yet been explained: The phrase “a perpetual fire”(Leviticus 6:6), for what halakha does it come to teach? It is required for the halakha that was taught in the following baraita: The verse states: “A perpetual fire shall be kept burning on the altar, it shall not go out” (Leviticus 6:6). This teaches about the second arrangement of wood to produce coals for the incense, that it is set up only on the outer altar.

From where is it derived that coals of fire that are taken with a coal pan for the incense on Yom Kippur and for the fire for lighting the candelabrum must also be from the outer altar? It is a logical derivation. “Fire” is stated with regard to the daily incense offering, and “fire” is stated with regard to the incense coal pan and the candelabrum. Just as there, in the case of the daily incense offering, the fire is taken from upon the outer altar, so too here, in the case of the incense coal pan and the candelabrum, the fire should be taken from upon the outer altar.

If the matter is derived through reasoning, it is also possible to posit an alternative argument: Or, alternatively, one could go this way. “Fire” is stated with regard to the daily incense offering, and “fire” is stated with regard to the incense coal pan and the candelabrum. Just as there, in the case of the daily incense offering, the fire is taken from a place near to it, i.e., the outer altar, so too, in the case of the incense coal pan and the candelabrum, the fire should be taken from a place near to it, i.e., the inner altar.

Since there are two equally logical derivations, a verse is required to teach the halakha. The verse states: “A perpetual fire shall be kept burning on the altar, it shall not go out” (Leviticus 6:6). The “perpetual fire” that I told you, i.e., the fire of the candelabrum, about which the Torah states “a lamp to burn continually” (Exodus 27:20), should be lit only from a fire that is upon the top of the outer altar.

We have therefore learned the source for the fire for the candelabrum. From where do we derive the same halakha for the fire for the incense coal pan on Yom Kippur? It is a logical derivation. “Fire” is stated with regard to the incense coal pan on Yom Kippur, and “fire” is stated with regard to the candelabrum. Just as there, in the case of the candelabrum, the fire is taken from upon the outer altar, so too, here, in the case of the incense coal pan, the fire should be taken from upon the outer altar.

If the matter is derived through reasoning, it is also possible to posit an alternative argument: Or, alternatively, one could go this way: “Fire” is stated with regard to the daily incense offering, and “fire” is stated with regard to the incense coal pan on Yom Kippur. Just as there, in the case of the daily incense offering, the fire is taken from a place near to it, i.e., the outer altar, so too, here, in the case of fire for the incense coal pan, the fire should be taken from a place near to it, i.e., the inner altar.

Since there are two equally logical derivations, a verse is required to teach the halakha: The verse states: “And he shall take a pan full of coals of fire from upon the altar from before the Lord” (Leviticus 16:12). The description of the altar being “from before the Lord” suggests it is not entirely before the Lord. Which altar is only partially before the Lord, but not all of it is before the Lord, i.e., part of it lies directly parallel to the Sanctuary, but part of it does not? You must say that this is the outer altar. Only the western side of it lies parallel to the entrance to the Sanctuary. In contrast, the inner altar is entirely within the Sanctuary and so is considered entirely before the Lord.

And it is necessary to write “from upon the altar” and it is necessary to write “from before God” because if the Merciful One had written only “from upon the altar” I would have said: What altar is the verse referring to? The inner altar. Therefore, the Merciful One writes “from before God.” And if the Merciful One had written only “from before God,” I would have said it means specifically from the part of the altar that lies before God, i.e., from the northwestern corner, which lies directly parallel to the entrance of the Sanctuary;