(Mishnah): Initially, anyone who wanted to take [ashes] off the Mizbe'ach, he took off. When there were many [who wanted to], they ran and ascended the ramp. Whoever was before his colleague within four Amos [of the top of the ramp], he merited.

If two were equal, the appointee tells them to put out fingers. What do they put out? One or two, and we do not stick out a thumb in the Mikdash.

A case occurred in which two were running up the ramp, and one of them pushed the other and his leg broke. When Beis Din saw that they are coming to danger, they enacted that they take [ashes] off the Mizbe'ach only through a lottery;

There were four lotteries there. This was the first lottery.

(Gemara - R. Mana) Question: Why didn't they fix a lottery for Terumas ha'Deshen [from the beginning]?

Look at Shechitah - it is Kosher through a Zar, and you say that there is a lottery for it. Terumas ha'Deshen is forbidden through a Zar, and you say that there is no lottery for it?!

Answer (R. Mana): Shechitah is Kosher only during the day, but Terumas ha'Deshen is Kosher the entire night. If you will say that they cast lots, [a Kohen] will not rise early for a Safek [of meriting in the lottery].

What is your source to say so [that Terumas ha'Deshen is Kosher the entire night]? It says "Kol ha'Laylah v'Herim.'' This teaches that Terumas ha'Deshen is Kosher the entire night.

If a Zar was Torem, R. Yochanan says that he is liable, and Reish Lakish exempts.

What is Reish Lakish's reason? "Avodas Matanah'' (putting) excludes [Terumas ha'Deshen], which is taking off.

What is R. Yochanan's reason? "L'Chol Devar ha'Mizbe'ach'' [includes it].

(R. Yosi bei R. Bun citing Rav): Four Avodos for which [even] a Kohen is liable outside, a Zar is liable for them inside. What are they? They are Haktarah, Zerikah, Nisuch ha'Mayim and Nisuch ha'Yayin. This is like Reish Lakish;

(Levi): [A Zar is liable] even for Terumas ha'Deshen. This is like R. Yochanan.

[If a Zar] stoked coals, R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue [about whether or not he is liable].

[If he] removed other ashes, R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue about this.

Observation: This (saying that they argue about removing other ashes) is like the opinion that "[v'Lavash Begadim] Acherim'' are inferior [Bigdei Kehunah, but a Kosher Kohen must remove the ashes];

However, according to the opinion that "Acherim'' includes Ba'alei Mumim, a Zar is just like a Ba'al Mum!

All agree that if a Zar arranged the Ma'arachah of logs (the pile on the Mizbe'ach), he is liable;

(R. Ze'ira): This is only [if he arranged] the two logs that the Torah warns that it is an Avodah of Kehunah - "v'Nasnu Bnei Aharon ha'Kohen Esh Al ha'Mizbe'ach v'Archu Etzim.''

(Beraisa #1 - R. Yehudah): What is the source for lighting the Alyasah (kindling wood of the Ma'arachah), that a Kosher Kohen must do it, and with Kli Shares? It says "v'Nasnu Bnei Aharon ha'Kohen Esh Al ha'Mizbe'ach.''

R. Shimon: (We do not need a verse for this.) Would it cross one's mind that a Zar approaches on the Mizbe'ach?!

If so, why does it say "v'Nasnu Bnei Aharon ha'Kohen Esh Al ha'Mizbe'ach''? This teaches that lighting the fire must be done on top of the Mizbe'ach. (One may not do it from the ground, e.g. through a bellows.)

What is R. Yehudah's source for this? (SHA'AREI TORAS ERETZ YISRAEL) "Veha'Esh Al ha'Mizbe'ach Tukad Bo Lo Sichveh'' teaches that lighting the fire must be done on top of the Mizbe'ach. R. Yehudah says so.

Question: R. Yehudah contradicts himself! There (Beraisa #1) he needs [a verse to require] a Kosher Kohen, and here he [expounds that it is on top of the Mizbe'ach, so he] does not [need another verse to] require a Kosher Kohen!

Answer (R. Tanchum bar R. Yudan): How do you infer [so, just because he expounds the top of the Mizbe'ach]? We can say that it is on top of the Mizbe'ach, and a Zar [may do so! Only R. Shimon said that one cannot say so.]