Question: What was Rav Nachman's proof from here? Rav Sheshes was able to reject it [easily];

Just the contrary! It is more of a proof for Rav Sheshes, like it says "this is reasonable", and Rav Nachman needed to give a poor answer!

Answer: [in Tamid, the Mishnah] before this discusses those who merited [in the lottery] to do Avodah. "R. Eliezer ben Yakov says, the one who takes limbs to the ramp, he brings them on the Mizbe'ach";

Afterwards, it says "they gave them to the Chazanim." This is why Rav Sheshes said "what is my source?", and did not bring a support from what he said here "it is more reasonable [like my rejection...]"

We cannot learn from here, for there is reason to say that it is like each of them.

Question: This is difficult for Riva, who explained that a Kohen Hedyot's turban is called Migba'as, because it is wide, and a Kohen Gadol's turban is called Mitznefes, because it is narrow, because he needed [room] to wear Tefilin and the Tzitz.

Answer: Chachamim do not always use words the way the Torah uses them. The Torah always calls the Kohen Gadol's turban Mitznefes;

We find in Gitin (7a, that the Gemara assumes that Mitznefes is of the Kohen Gadol). "Haser ha'Mitznefes v'Harem ha'Atarah" - when the Mitznefes is on the Kohen Gadol's head, there may be crowns on others' heads. When the Mitznefes is removed from the Kohen Gadol's head, crowns are removed from others' heads.

Question: In Zevachim (16a), we say that one who sits may eat [Kodshim], but if he served [sitting], he disqualified the Avodah...

Why may he eat [sitting]? One may not sit in the Avodah!

Answer #1: He eats Kodshim Kalim, which may be eaten in the entire city.

Answer #2 (Riva): Even though only kings from Beis David may sit in the Azarah, this refers to matters not needed for the Avodah;

Eating is needed for the Avodah. "V'Achlu Osam Asher Kupar Bahem" - Kohanim eat and the owners get atonement. Therefore, it is permitted [while sitting].

Support: In Zevachim (19b) we asked why Kohanim do not sit while washing their hands and feet from the Kiyor;

Even though it is in the Azarah [and one may not sit there, we asked this, because] what is needed for the Avodah is permitted.

We do not consider the lottery here a need of Avodah. It is possible without a lottery.

Answer #3: One may sit and eat Kodshim because it says about eating Kodshim l'Mashchah - for greatness, the way kings eat, i.e. sitting.

Suggestion: Perhaps one may eat in chambers built in Chol that open to the Kodesh (Azarah). They are like the Azarah for eating Kodshei Kodoshim. The Torah included many Chatzeros;

One may sit there, just like they are not considered like the Azarah to be liable for Tum'ah, like it says in Zevachim (56a).

Rejection of suggestion: For in our Sugya it is implied that regarding the prohibition of sitting, it is considered like the Azarah itself and (therefore) forbidden to sit there.

Question: Since the lottery must be in the Kodesh, why wasn't it in the Azarah itself, which is more Kodesh [than Lishkas ha'Gazis]?

Answer #1 (R. Tam): Since they took the turban of one of them it would be disgraceful to stand without a Mitznefes in the Azarah.

Answer #2 (R. Yitzchak bar Baruch): Since they stood in a circle, if the lottery were in the Azarah, the backside [of some of them] would face Hash-m's Heichal.

Question: What is the proof from R. Yehudah? We can bring a proof oppositely from the first Tana!

Answer #1: We prove that even the first Tana argues only about Ketores, for it is not frequent, and it richens. Normally, he agrees.

Answer #2: R. Yehudah must hold that the one who merited the Machtah (incense pan) did not merit at all through the lottery, i.e. [do not say that] because Ploni merited to do the Ketores, the Kohen to his right merited the Machtah;

Rather, the Kohen who merited to do the Ketores decides. If he wants to do everything, he takes the Ketores and the pan;

This is like we find on Yom Kipur, that the Kohen Gadol alone does the entire matter, even though there it is a great exertion, for he must bring Ketores in his hands cupped together, like we say below (47a);

All the more so here, that it is not a great exertion, he may do the entire matter by himself.

However, since it is somewhat of an exertion, it was common to tell another "merit the pan with me";

It was common to tell the Kohen to his right due to enmity, so the other Kohanim will not be upset [that he did not pick them].

However, if he wants to deviate [from the norm], he may do everything by himself, or tell the one to his left, or even one who is not standing next to him at all "merit with me."

Support: The Mishnah says "the Kohen who merited the pan says..."

It does not say "the one standing next to him is drawn with him", like it says below "his 12 fellow Kohanim are drawn with him."

Support: In the Tosefta, after R. Yehudah's words here, it teaches the words of R. Eliezer ben Yakov brought below, "there was not a lottery for the limbs. Rather, the one who brought them to the ramp puts them on the Mizbe'ach";

Inference: R. Yehudah holds similarly to R. Eliezer ben Yakov, that there was no merit through the lottery for the pan.

Therefore, [here] there is a good proof from R. Yehudah. You are forced to say that Rabanan argue with him only about whether the Kohen who merited the Ketores decides;

However, they agree that they do not make another lottery. Rather, the one to his right merits due to the lottery.

Below, R. Eliezer ben Yakov argues with him and says that they do another lottery for the sake of the pan only in order to complete four lotteries. There is some reason not to have less than four lotteries;

Below (26a) we ask several times "if so, they are missing a lottery." If so, all agree about the second lottery, since it was done at once, there was not a [separate] lottery for each Avodah.

Question: If so, why doesn't the Mishnah list the Peder with the head?

Answer: Since we cannot be Maktir the head without the Peder, and this is honorable [to cover Beis ha'Shechitah with the Peder], it is included in the head.

Question: We should learn from this verse that Peder is before all the Nesachim (parts of the animal)! Since the head is before [the other Nesachim], also the Peder on it is before!

Answer #1: One might have thought that the Peder covers Beis ha'Shechitah until bringing it to the top of the Mizbe'ach, and then he removes the Peder and leaves it, and is Maktir the head by itself, and he is Maktir the Peder with the innards.

Answer #2: If not for this verse [Es Pidro], we would expound [Es ha'Rosh v'Es ha'Pader] only to teach that the head and Peder precede all limbs [but not that he covers the head with the Peder]. In Chulin (27a) I wrote more. It is not relevant here.