Question: But that reference to the Kohanim is not superfluous!?

Answer (R. Shimi b. Ashi, citing Abaye, who was teaching this Derashah to his sons): This is how Chizkiyah is to be understood.

First he taught the Beraisa which teaches the Shechitah can be done by a Zar.

This is learned from the reference to Kohanim by Kabalas Dam, and not by Shechitah, demonstrating that only from Kabalah onward requires a Kohen, whereas the owner who is Somech may also be Shochet.

If, Abaye went on to explain, Kabalah and forward is the Mitzvah of Kohanim, then why are we taught that they must place the fire on the Korban?

It must be to permit Hefshet and Nituach by a Zar.

Question: But, still, we would need to be taught that the Kohen must place the fire (even though it is after Kabalah)?

Since the fire is not Me'akev Kaparah, it might not need a Kohen.

And, as it teaches us this Din, we cannot make other inferences from this P'sul to Hefshet and Nituach.

Answer: The source is "ve'Archu ...ha'Kohanim ... ".

Since from Kabalah onward is known as the realm of the Kohanim, why do I need this Pasuk?

It must exclude Hefshet and Nituach.

Question: But perhaps this Pasuk excludes Sidur Eitzim?

Answer: It more likely excludes a similar Avodah (done on the animal itself, unlike the Sidur Eitzim).

Question: To the contrary, Sidur Eitzim is more likely excluded, since they both involve arrangements of the fire!

Answer: We really would not have thought that Sidur Eitzim does not require a Kohen, once the Pasuk excludes bringing the Eitzim.

Thus, "ve'Archu" must exclude Hefshet and Nituach.

Question: Then what is the purpose of "ve'Hiktir ha'Kohen" (who would have thought that Haktarah does not require a Kohen)?

Answer: Indeed, "ve'Hiktir" is that which excludes Hefshet and Nituach.

The Pasuk teaches that bringing the Eivarim to the Kevesh requires a Kohen, but not bringing the Eitzim (and, by inference, the Sidur Eitzim does require a Kohen).

"ve'Nasnu" teaches its own requirement (since it is not Me'akev the Kaparah).

We may derive from the Pasuk "ve'Archu" that a T'le requires six Kohanim.

Question: There is a challenge to R. Elazar since the Pasuk of "ve'Archu" speaks of a Ben Bakar, which requires 24 Kohanim!

Answer: The end of the Pasuk (speaking of Eitzim) teaches that the six Kohanim are not dealing with the Ben Bakar, but with the T'le, about which the Torah requires that Eitzim be prepared each morning.

(Rav): A Zar who does Sidur Eitzim on the Ma'arachah is Chayav Misah.

Question: What can be done to repair such a Ma'arachah.

Answer: He takes it apart and puts it back together.

Question: How will that help if the Zar puts it back?

Answer: The Zar dismantles it and the Kohen rearranges it.

Question (R. Zeira): How could an Avodah of the night (such as Sidur ha'Ma'arachah) be forbidden to a Zar!?

Answer: Yes, witness the Eivarim and Pedarim (Kosher all night yet forbidden to a Zar)!

Question: But these are the end of the day's Avodah.

Answer: Yes, but witness the Terumas ha'Deshen (Kosher at night yet forbidden to a Zar).

Terumas ha'Deshen is the beginning of the day's Avodah (as taught in the name of R.Yochanan that once a Kohen does Kidush Yadayim for the Terumas ha'Deshen, he is set for the day's Avodah).

Question: Then R. Zeira's claim is a question on R. Yochanan!

Answer: R. Yochanan meant that a Zar would be Chayav if he did Sidur of the two Gizrei Eitzim (Avodas Yom).

Question (Rava): Then this Sidur should require a Payis!?

Rava forgot the answer from the Beraisa which provides that the one who wins the Terumas ha'Deshen also wins Sidur of the Ma'arachah as well as the two Gizrei Eitzim.

Question: Would only an Avodas Yom get a Payis, what about Eivarim and Pedarim which are in the fourth Payis!?

Answer: That is the end of the day's Avodah.

Question: But what about the Terumas ha'Deshen!?

Answer: That was because of the incident.

Question: Are we to infer that there is a Payis only for Avodas Yom, and that which is forbidden to a Zar, then why is there a Payis for Shechitah!?

Answer: Shechitah is given distinction since it is the start of the Avodas ha'Korban.

Question: But we have a Mishnah which indicates that Sidur of the two Gizrei Eitzim is not part of Avodas Yom (since they did not look for daybreak to do it)?

Answer: The Mishnah only mentioned looking for daybreak for that Avodah which, if inadvertently done before daybreak, is irreparable.