We say that v'Hikrivu refers to Kabalah. In Zevachim 4a, Rashi explained that we do not say that it is another Avodah, e.g. Holachah or Zerikah, for it says v'Shachat v'Hikrivu;

The Avodah right after Shechitah is Kabalah.

Question (Ri): In Zevachim (13a), there is a different reason!

Citation (Beraisa): "V'Hikrivu" refers to Kabalah.

Citation (cont.) Suggestion: Perhaps it refers to Zerikah!

Citation (cont.) Rejection: "V'Zarku" teaches about Zerikah. Rather, v'Hikrivu must refer to Kabalah.

This shows that it is not due to Rashi's reason!

Implied question: [According to the Ri] why don't we say that it is Holachah?

Answer: It is unreasonable to establish it to discuss Holachah, and say that from Holachah and onwards the Mitzvah is of Kohanim, because one can be Mevatel it (make it unneeded);

One can stand at the side of the Mizbe'ach and slaughter, and no Holachah is needed.

Implied question: In Zevachim (18a), we expound "ha'Kohanim" - in their Kehunah. If a Kohen Hedyot wore Bigdei Kohen Gadol and served, his Avodah is Pasul! (Here, we learn from it be Machshir a Zar to flay and dissect.)

Answer: Here we expound from Bnei Aharon.

Implied question: Why do we need a verse to learn about arranging the limbs, like we say that from Kabalah and onwards the Mitzvah is of Kohanim?

We should know this [from logic -] would it cross your mind that a Zar approaches the Mizbe'ach?!

Answer: One could stand on the ground and throw them on the Mizbe'ach, like we say below regarding kindling twigs [in order to light the Ma'arachah, "he could he stand on the ground and use a bellows."

Question: What is the source to infer this?

Perhaps the verse excludes taking wood [to the Mizbe'ach], and this verse excludes arranging two logs!

Answer: Since we need to exclude Holachah of wood, this teaches that arranging two logs requires Kehunah;

If it did not require Kehunah, why would we need a verse to exclude Holachah of wood?

Even arranging two logs does not require Kehunah, all the more so Holachah of wood!

Implied question: Had the Torah written only the above verse, we would not exclude arranging two logs, rather, Holachah of wood, which is more reasonable [to exclude]!

Answer: Even had the Torah written only the verse "v'Archu", we would exclude arranging two logs. Presumably, a verse discussing arranging excludes arranging.

Question (R. Eliyahu of Ivriyok): Above, R. Shimon requires two Kohanim for the two logs. What is his source to require Kohanim?

He cannot learn from here, for we need the verse for the law itself (Holachah of limbs to the ramp);

One might have thought that since one can be Mevatel it, it is Kosher through a Zar;

We say in Zevachim (14a) that R. Shimon and Chachamim argue about Holachah of a Zar;

Citation: R. Shimon holds that Avodah that one can be Mevatel is not Avodah, and it is Kosher through a Zar...

Citation (cont.) Question: One can be Mevatel Holachah of limbs to the ramp, and it is Pasul through a Zar!

Citation (cont.): It was taught "v'Hikriv ha'Kohen... ha'Mizbechah" refers to Holachah of limbs to the ramp;

Citation (cont.) Answer: Where the Torah revealed [that a Kohen is required], it revealed (but not elsewhere).

Summation of question: If so, since we need the verse for the law itself, what is the source to require Kehunah for arranging two logs?

Answer (Tosfos' Rebbi): This is like R. Shimon holds below (45a), regarding kindling twigs. He does not require a verse to require a Kohen, for would it cross your mind that a Zar approaches the Mizbe'ach?!

He disagrees with R. Yehudah, who says that he could stand on the ground and use a bellows.

Likewise, regarding arranging two logs, [he holds that] he cannot stand on the ground and throw them.

According to R. Yehudah, who says that he could stand on the ground and use a bellows, we could say that he holds that he may stand on the ground and throw logs on top of the Mizbe'ach;

Even so, he could learn that we require Kehunah from the mention of a Kohen regarding Holachah of limbs [to the ramp];

He does not require the verse for the law itself, for he holds that even if one can be Mevatel it, it is Avodah.

Rather, it teaches that Kehunah is required for the logs, like it says in our Sugya.

Implied question: At the beginning of our Perek, he (R. Yochanan) said [that the Kohen who did Terumas ha'Deshen need not wash again in the morning,] since he was already Mekadesh at first for Avodah;

We concluded that really, it is Avodah of the night!

Answer: The Makshan here asked according to the other version above, which explains that [he must wash again] due to Ones of sleep;

According to that version, we do not amend R. Yochanan's words, and we say that he was already Mekadesh at the beginning of the Avodah.

Implied question: Below, we ask that Terumas ha'Deshen is night Avodah, and I explained there that we ask according to the first version above. Here, the Stam Gemara asks according to the latter version above!

Answer: Surely, this is correct. Both here and below, we want to resolve all the versions above.

Question: What is the question? Why don't we answer that it is the beginning of the day's Avodah, like we answered above?

Answer: Here we come to require both of them, i.e. Avodas ha'Yom and [Chiyuv] Misah for a Zar [who does it].

It seems that the Gemara understands that Rava, who asks "if so...", means "now that you are Mechayev a Zar, it should require a lottery";

Also, "if so" connotes "since you call it Avodas Yom..." This implies that it must have both to require a lottery;

[The Gemara asks] even though a Zar is liable for limbs and fats, in any case it is Avodas Laylah!

It then asks from Terumas ha'Deshen, if he holds like Rav, that a Zar is not liable for Avodah of removing. This shows that even though a Zar is exempt, it requires a lottery.

Note: Tosfos' question below implies that here Tosfos means "if he, i.e. R. Yochanan, holds like Rav..." R. Akiva Eiger questioned Tosfos, for it seems that the Gemara asks "if Rava holds like Rav..."!

Support: Also Rashi explains "this implies that Avodas Yom for which a Zar is Chayav Misah requires a lottery."

Objection: One cannot say that we asked "if you will say that he holds like Rav..." The Yerushalmi says that if a Zar did Terumas ha'Deshen, R. Yochanan says that he is liable!

Tosfos' opinion: Rather, we ask according to the first version above, which says that it is Avodas Laylah.

Question: Dishun of the inner Mizbe'ach and of the Menorah [require a lottery, even though a Zar is exempt for them]!

Answer: Just like we answered that Shechitah is the beginning of Avodah, we can say also that Dishun of the inner Mizbe'ach is the beginning of Avodah of Haktarah, and Dishun of the Menorah is the beginning of Avodah of Hadlakah.

Question: Rabanan of R. Eliezer ben Yakov say that the one who brings limbs to the ramp does not bring them onto the Mizbe'ach;

If so a Zar is not Chayav Misah for them, since another Avodah follows this. If so, why is there a lottery for it?

Answer #1: We say that when a Zar is not Chayav for it, there is no lottery, i.e. a lottery by itself;

These (Dishun of the inner Mizbe'ach and of the Menorah) are in a lottery that is primarily for Shechitah. Twelve other Kohanim merit along with him (the one who merited Shechitah)!

Rejection: This is not clear.

Answer #2: Since the only Avodah after them (Dishun of the inner Mizbe'ach and of the Menorah) is like final [Avodah] of Holachah of limbs [to the ramp. We have a lottery for Avodos followed by final Avodah of Holachah], therefore they are no worse due to this regarding a lottery.

Explanation: It seems that this refers to [the first version of] what R. Yochanan said above, that a Zar who arranged the Ma'arachah is liable...

Version #1: [Above] R. Zeira asked that there is no Avodah Kosher at night that is Pasul through a Zar;

Version #2: Now, the Gemara says that some say that R. Zeira asked that there is no Avodah followed by Avodah, such as this, which is followed by arranging two logs, that is Pasul through a Zar;

Question: The Gemara is astounded at R. Zeira's question. We find that limbs...!

Explanation: I.e. the Gemara asks that even such Avodah (followed by Avodah) is Avodah Tamah (complete). We find that [a Zar is liable for Haktarah of] limbs and fats, even though Terumas ha'Deshen is afterwards;

[This is] even though Terumas ha'Deshen needs [to follow] consumption of limbs and fats, like it says "Hi ha'Olah Al Mokdah", i.e. limbs and fats, and it says afterwards "v'Herim Es ha'Deshen Asher Tochal ha'Esh Es ha'Olah"...

Inference: Even though Terumas ha'Deshen needs consumption of limbs, and it is their final Avodah, even so it is considered Avodah Tamah, and a Zar is liable for it (Haktarah of limbs);

This is because the time for limbs and fats begins during the day, and one may choose to burn them yesterday (i.e. during the day) or at night, and Terumas ha'Deshen is only at night, like we said above "Kol ha'Laylah v'Herim";

All the more so, arranging the Ma'arachah, since its time is only at night, like it says "Al Mokdah Al ha'Mizbe'ach Kol ha'Laylah", from which we learn (33a) arranging the Ma'arachah...

Note: Tosfos is in the middle of showing that arranging the Ma'arachah is Avodah Tamah.

Arranging the two logs is only during the day, like it says "u'Vi'er Aleha ha'Kohen Etzim ba'Boker", from which we learn (33a) arranging two logs;

Only Avodas Yom followed by Avodas Yom is not considered Tamah, e.g. Kabalah and Holachah, which are followed by Zerikah, for both of them are Avodas Yom;

Here, one is at night, and one is during the day. It is proper to say that it (arranging the Ma'arachah) is Avodah Tamah!

Answer: The Gemara answers that it (Haktarah of limbs) is the end of Avodas Yom;

Really, arranging the Ma'arachah is not Avodah Tamah, since arranging two logs follows it, which completes the arrangement, even though this (arranging the Ma'arachah) is at night, and this (arranging two logs) is during the day.

Question: We had a question from [Haktarah of] limbs and fats! (It is Avodah Tamah, even though Terumas ha'Deshen is afterwards.)

Answer: There is different. Terumas ha'Deshen does not pertain to it. It is not the final Avodah [of Haktarah]. It is secondary to it.

Strengthening of answer: Just the contrary! Bringing up limbs [on the Mizbe'ach] itself is secondary to the Avodas Yom that precedes it.

The question from Terumas ha'Deshen: Terumas ha'Deshen is followed by Hotza'as ha'Deshen, which R. Yochanan himself considers Avodah according to the first Tana of R. Eliezer, who disqualifies a Ba'al Mum for it. Even so, Levi holds that a Zar is liable for it;

Even Rav exempts only because it is Avodas Siluk, but [he agrees that] it is Avodah Tamah.

Question: Why is this? Hotza'ah follows it!

Answer: Since Terumas ha'Deshen is only at night, and one may do Hotza'ah during the day or at night, it is called Avodah Tamah.

All the more so arranging the Ma'arachah, which is only at night, is Avodah Tamah, even though arranging two logs follows it, since the former is only at night and the latter is only during the day.

The Gemara's answer: Terumas ha'Deshen is the beginning of Avodas Yom. I.e. Hotza'ah does not apply to it, and it is not its final Avodah;

Terumas ha'Deshen is the beginning of Avodas Yom. One need not do any Avodah after it other than Avodas Yom.

Hotza'as ha'Deshen is not an Avodah of every day. It is only when needed;

We say in Tamid (28b) that during the festivals, they would not remove the ashes, for it is beauty of the Mizbe'ach [to show how many Korbanos were offered].

Rava's Question: Rava asked that it (arranging two logs) should require a lottery. All this is from the second version above [of R. Yochanan, in which he obligates a Zar for arranging two logs]. There is another version of Rava's question in the latter version [of R. Zeira's question].

Implied question: In the first version, why didn't Rava ask like here, that it should have a lottery by itself?

Answer: Here we understand that he says [that it should require a lottery] because it is Avodah Tamah, which never has Avodah after it;

We are thinking that only an Avodah like it (arranging two logs), which never has an Avodah after it during the day [is called Tamah]. Since it is so important, he asks that it should have its own lottery.

This is why he asked "this implies that Avodah Tamah, which never has Avodah after it, requires a lottery, but if not, it does not;

Regarding limbs and fats, sometimes, when they are done (burned) at night, Terumas ha'Deshen is after them. They should not require a lottery!"