Explanation: [It is the heaviest] due to the weight [so it will fall into the fire].

Implied question: R. Yonason is not concerned for weight, like Rava explained, that Tana'im argue about this, and R. Yonason is not concerned for weight [like Rebbi].

Note: It seems that in Tosfos' text, R. Yonason was mentioned also before Ravin. I explain according to Rashash, who says that in Tosfos' text, R. Yonason [and not R. Chanin in the name of Rav] taught that it is Kosher even if the cedar, hyssop and ribbon did not fall into the fire.

Answer: Perhaps Ravin holds like Abaye's answer [unlike Rava], who distinguishes between a high fire and a low crouching fire. (I.e. R. Yonason is Machshir only in the latter case. The ribbon must be heavy, lest there be a high fire and it will float above.)

Observation: In some texts, Ravin explained in the name of R. Yochanan. Even according to those texts, we must answer [the following question] like I said;

Implied question: Ravin explains according to R. Yonason, and [Rav Dimi reported that] he said "I heard about three ribbons [but I do not know which has which weight." Why does he say that the heaviest is of Parah? Rather, Rav Dimi holds like Rava, that R. Yonason is not concerned for weight, and Ravin holds like Abaye, that he is concerned for weight.]

Note: In our text, R. Yochanan heard about the three ribbons. Tosfos' text attributes this to R. Yonason (Maharsha), like R. Chananel's text.

Alternative answer (to the latter question): R. Yonason said "I heard about three ribbons", i.e. from the one who is concerned for weight, but R. Yonason himself disagrees. (Therefore, R. Yonason did not know how to explain. Ravin explained in the name of R. Yochanan according to the one from whom R. Yonason heard, who is concerned for weight.)

Rashi's opinion: Everywhere, Rashi explains that Shechitah is not an Avodah because it is Kosher through a Zar.

Question: In Zevachim (14b), [Abaye] asks "one cannot be Mevatel Shechitah, yet it is Kosher through a Zar", and we answered that Shechitah is not an Avodah.

What was the answer? He asked that it should be [considered an Avodah, and therefore] Pasul through a Zar, because one cannot be Mevatel it!

R. Yakov of Orlins' opinion: It is not considered an Avodah because it applies even to Chulin.

Question: If so, why did we ask there from Rav, who disqualifies Shechitas Parah Adumah through a Zar?

Granted, according to Rashi, this is a proper question. (This shows that Shechitah is Avodah.) However, according to R. Yakov, what was the question?

Granted, Shechitas Parah is Pasul through a Zar. Even so, it is not Avodah, since it applies also to Chulin!

Answer: We can resolve Rashi's opinion, and say that Shechitah is not an Avodah because it is Kosher through all those Pasul [for Avodah], even women, slaves and Tamei people;

Inference: Presumably, it is not considered Avodah in front of Hash-m, for whatever reason, either because it applies even to Chulin, or for another reason.

The Gemara then asked "what is your source that it is not Avodah - because all Pesulim are Kosher for it? There is a Shechitah Pasul through a Zar, i.e. Parah!"

R. Shimshon's opinion: Shechitah is not an Avodah, for regarding Kabalah the Mekabel must stand inside [the Azarah], but if the Shochet stood [outside] and stuck his hand in and slaughtered, it is Kosher;

This is like we expound (Chulin 32b) "Ben ha'Bakar Lifnei Hash-m" (but the Shochet need not be Lifnei Hash-m).

Question (R. Shimshon): According to Shimon ha'Temani, who argues there and says that the Shochet's hands must be inside (closer to the Heichal) from what is slaughtered (the Korban), how can we answer? (Why isn't Shechitah an Avodah?)

Answer: We can say that even Shimon ha'Temani holds that Shechitah is not an Avodah,

Regarding Kodshei Kodoshim, the Mekabel must be in the north. We read "v'Lakach" like Lo Yikach;

The Shochet need not stand in the north.

Citation: In Zevachim (14b) and Menachos (6b) we asked from Rav, who disqualifies Shechitas Parah Adumah through a Zar, and answered that Parah Adumah is different, for it is Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis.

Question: Why didn't we ask from Aharon's bull [of Yom Kipur], according to the opinion that it is Pasul through a Zar? We could not have answered so (that it is Bedek ha'Bayis)!

Answer (my Rebbi, R. Shmuel bar Shlomo, in the name of R. Yosef Kaltzon): We cannot ask from there, for there the Pesul is not due to Avodah. It is Pasul even through other Kohanim. Only the Kohen Gadol is Kosher for it!

Rather, the Torah revealed that we require the owner [to slaughter], just like Semichah, which is not Avodah, and we require the owner.

Observation: We say so also in Zevachim (14b), Menachos (6b) and Shevuos (11b).

Question: In Avodah Zarah 23b, Rashi explained that we infer that Parah Adumah is Kodshei Mizbe'ach, for if it were Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, it would not be disqualified through bestiality;

Citation - Question: If so, a Yotzei Dofen (it was born through Caesarian section) should be disqualified [according to everyone. Why do Tana'im argue about this?!]

Citation (cont.) (Beraisa): A Yotzei Dofen is invalid for Parah. R. Shimon says, it is valid.

Answer: Parah is different. Since a blemish disqualifies it, and bestiality and idolatry disqualify it.

Rashi's opinion: Rabanan hold that it is Kodshei Mizbe'ach, therefore bestiality and Yotzei Dofen disqualify it;

R. Shimon holds that it is Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, therefore a Yotzei Dofen is Kosher.

Implied question: Why does R. Shimon agree that bestiality disqualifies it?

Answer: Since a blemish disqualifies it, also bestiality and idolatry disqualify it.

Question (against Rashi): If so, all the Stam Mishnayos throughout Shas, which say that Parah Adumah is Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, are like R. Shimon, and unlike Rabanan!

There (Avodah Zarah 23b DH Ela) I explained. In Chulin 11a (DH Chatas) in the Sugya of "what is the source that we follow the majority", I explained at length.

Question: Why does the Gemara ask what we exclude? Is there an obligation to exclude something?!

Suggestion: Shechitah and Sereifah are Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad (two verses, one of which teaches something that could have been learned from the other), which do not teach to elsewhere.

Note: Tosfos holds that Shenei Kesuvim teach that the law does not apply anywhere else!

Rejection: Just the contrary! They are not Ba'im k'Echad. Above we showed why we need both! (We could not learn either from the other.)

Answer: You must say that Hesech ha'Da'as does not disqualify all [Avodos of Parah]. If it did, why did the Torah need to write [that it disqualifies] Shechitah and Sereifah, which cannot be learned from each other?

The Torah should have written [that Hesech ha'Da'as disqualifies] regarding gathering the ashes, filling the water, or one of the others, which are not the initial Avodah, and not the Avodah that now is Machshir the Parah, and we would learn all Avodos from it!

Question: Why did the Torah rather write regarding two Avodos, each of which has an aspect of importance?

Answer: This shows that it is to exclude an Avodah without any importance. Hesech ha'Da'as does not disqualify it. This is why the Gemara asked "what do we exclude?"

Question: If so, why did we need verses regarding Shechitah and Sereifah? We should be able to learn one of them from two or three of the others!

Suggestion: Indeed, they were not needed. They are Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad, which do not teach [to elsewhere];

We said that we exclude casting [the wood and ribbon into the fire], because they are Sheloshah Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad, which do not teach!

Rejection #1: The Gemara connotes that the answer "we exclude casting the cedar and hyssop" resembles the initial suggestion that we exclude gathering the ashes;

The suggestion was that we exclude it due to an extra verse, and not due to Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad, like I explained (42a, DH Leme'utei).

Rejection #2: If we exclude casting cedar [and hyssop...] due to Shalosh Kesuvim, why did we need to give the reason because they are not [involved with] the body of the Parah?

Answer: We could not learn Shechitah from all of them, for they do not apply to Chulin. We cannot learn to Shechitah, which is not an Avodah, for it applies to Chulin;

Therefore, we say that Hesech ha'Da'as does not disqualify, just like [it does not disqualify] regarding Chulin.

Also Sereifah we could not learn from all of them. It is proper that Hesech ha'Da'as disqualify the others, for it is proper to sprinkle right after them;

Immediately after Shechitah, he receives the blood in order to sprinkle it [towards the Mikdash];

Similarly, it is proper to sprinkle [on a Tamei person] right after gathering the ashes, filling the water [and Kidush], but not right after Sereifah.

The Torah needed to write Mishmeres regarding gathering the ashes, filling the water and Kidush. We could not have learned them from all the others (Shechitah and Sereifah), for the others are invalid through a woman or at night.

Implied question: Why do we need to write Mishmeres regarding each of the three, i.e. gathering the ashes, filling the water and Kidush? It could have written one of them, and we would learn the others from it!

Answer: Any one of them that was not written, we would exclude it, and not exclude casting the cedar, like we do now [that the Torah wrote all three];

This is because these [three] are Kosher through a woman just like through a man, but if a woman cast the cedar, it is Pasul.

Question: Why don't we say that just like sprinkling the water is special, for it is an Avodah with the body of the Parah, we include all Avodos with the body of the Parah [and say that a man must do them during the day]?

We would include gathering the ashes, filling the water and Kidush, and exclude casting the cedar and hyssop, which is not Avodah with the body of the Parah!

We say so above regarding Hesech ha'Da'as!

Answer: It is reasonable to include casting the cedar, hyssop and red ribbon more than gathering the ashes, since these (the latter) are Kosher even through a woman, but these (the former) are important, and the Torah mandated a Kohen for them.

Note: Even though the verse says "v'Asaf Ish Tahor", we will say (43a) that this does not exclude a woman.

Also above, regarding Hesech ha'Da'as, had the Torah not explicitly disqualified Hesech ha'Da'as regarding gathering the ashes, filling the water and Kidush, we would have established the exclusion to apply to them, and not to casting the cedar,

Support: Above we initially said 'if you will say that we exclude gathering the ashes..."