Qualification: Granted, we conclude here that both sides of the opening are Kosher, this is only b'Di'eved. L'Chatchilah, it must be opposite the opening, like Zevachim 58a connotes.

Question: Why do we need a verse to teach that it is not Me'akev if he takes not opposite the opening?

What would be the source that it is Me'akev? The Torah did not repeat it to make it Me'akev!

Answer: It is because it says Chukah.

Question: According to R. Yehudah, who says that Chukah applies only to things done inside in the Bigdei Lavan, [the question remains;] why do we need a verse?

Answer: Since it is needed for inside, it is like inside.

Support: This is like a double handful of Ketores taken before Shechitas ha'Par. It did not help at all, even according to R. Yehudah, for what it is needed for inside, it is like inside. (Therefore, Chukah applies to it.)

Explanation: This is not only Pesulim. The same applies to Kesherim. If they did not catch fire, no (we do not make a Ma'arachah for them, for we may not burn them).

We expound "Olas Shabbos b'Shabbato", but not Olas Chol on Shabbos.

Question: It says in Shabbos (20a) that "b'Chol Moshvoseichem" comes to permit limbs and fats;

We must say that this refers to limbs and fats of Chol. If they are of Shabbos, we learn from Olas Shabas b'Shabato!

Answer #1 (R. Yosef Pores): It permits limbs and fats of Shabbos. We cannot learn from Olas Shabas b'Shabato, for that refers to Shechitah and Zerikah!

Rebuttal (Ri): If so, how do we learn (Shabbos 114a) from this verse that Chelev of Shabbos may be offered on Yom Tov or Yom Kipur?

If the verse discusses Shechitah and Zerikah, may a Korban of Shabbos be slaughtered on Yom Tov or Yom Kipur?!

Rather, you must say that we expound the verse regarding Haktarah of the Tamid of Shabbos, like in Pesachim (66a);

"Olas Shabas... Al Olas ha'Tamid" implies that the Tamid overrides Shabbos. Presumably, this refers to all its Korbanos.

"B'Shabato" is extra to teach that Chelev of Shabbos may be offered on Yom Tov according to one opinion, and [even] on Yom Kipur according to the other opinion.

Answer #2 (Riva and Ri): "Not Olas Chol on Shabbos" is when it did not catch fire. We permit limbs and fats when they caught fire;

Here in Version #1 we permit only if they caught fire, and only Pesulim, but not Kesherim.

Suggestion: Kesherim are different, i.e. they are permitted even if they did not catch fire.

Rejection: No. Rather, there is no need to teach that Kesherim are permitted if they caught fire.

However, even according to Version #1, we permit even Kesherim only if they caught fire.

Defense (of R. Pores): Surely, had the Torah not written "Lo Seva'aru [Esh b'Chol Moshvoseichem b'Yom ha'Shabbos]" to permit limbs and fats, we would have learned from Olas Shabas b'Shabato only Shechitah and Zerikah, which are Me'akev;

We would not permit Haktarah, since one may wait until the night;

We would expound Olas Shabas b'Shabato for a case in which due to Ones, they did not slaughter the Tamid of Shabbos on Shabbos, rather, on Yom Kipur, or on Yom Tov according to one opinion, when Yom Kipur or Yom Tov is on Motza'ei Shabbos;

Note: Si'ach Yitzchak explains that in this Hava Amina, there is Tashlumin for the Tamid if it was not offered on the day due to Ones.

However, after we expound "Lo Seva'aru" to permit limbs and fats of the Tamid of Shabbos, we establish Olas Shabas b'Shabato even for limbs and fats, to teach that Chelev of Shabbos may be offered on Yom Kipur or Yom Tov, according to the two opinions.

According to his Perush, we must say that he also agrees that even [limbs and fats of] Chol are permitted on Shabbos, if they caught fire, like our Sugya connotes according to everyone;

Difficulty: There is a difficulty according to all Perushim. We must explain that Version #1, which says that it is needed only for Pesulim, that "Pesulim" is not precise;

The same applies to Kesherim, just there is no Chidush regarding Kesherim.

Answer #3: It seems that "and not Olas Chol on Shabbos, and not Olas Chol on Yom Tov" refers to the night of Shabbos or Yom Tov;

At that time, there is no Korban that overrides Shabbos or Yom Tov.

Implied question: We said "it comes to permit limbs and fats"!

Answer: We can establish the verse to discuss what is most reasonable, i.e. close to morning, when he arranges the Ma'arachah of the day;

Since in any case he ignites fire of the Ma'arachah for the Temidim of the day, we say that the verse "Lo Seva'aru" comes to permit limbs and fats of Chol that were leftover.

It permits Kesherim even if they did not catch fire according to Version #1 here, and Pesulim if they caught fire.

According to Version #2, both Kesherim and Pesulim [are burned] only if they caught fire.

Explanation: We say that Chelev of Shabbos is offered on Yom Kipur and Yom Tov, i.e. even at the beginning of the night, one brings them up and burns them;

This does not apply to an Olah of Chol on Yom Kipur and Yom Tov.

Rashi's opinion: The beginning of the Tamid is Shechitah and Zerikah. It is Docheh Tum'ah. The end, i.e. Haktarah, is not Docheh Tum'ah;

However, even the end is Docheh Shabbos.

Rabah holds that the beginning is Docheh. The Tamid of Shabbos, its Shechitah and Zerikah are Docheh Shabbos and it is offered on Shabbos;

The end, i.e. the Tamid of Erev Shabbos, is not Docheh. Its limbs may not be burned. Rather, one brings them up during the day.

Rashi holds that this Perush is primary.

Question (Ri): A Mishnah (Pesachim 76b) teaches that five things come [even] in Tum'ah;

You must say that this includes even Haktaras Eimurim, for the Mishnah says "but they are not eaten b'Tum'ah";

Inference: Everything else comes b'Tum'ah - Shechitah, Zerikah and Haktarah. (The Mishnah refutes Rav Chisda!)

Question #2: The Omer was taught among them, i.e. Haktarah (for Shechitah and Zerikah do not apply to it)!

Question #3: Above (6a), we say that if one was offering Minchas Parim, Eilim and Kevasim, and it became Tamei... we tell him "be clever, and be quiet."

Inference: It is offered b'Tum'ah!

Answer (to Question #3): This is not difficult. Haktaras Kometz of a Minchah is in place of Zerikas Dam of a Zevach (animal);

Just like Zerikah is Docheh Tum'ah, also Haktarah of the Kometz, like we say in Zevachim (13b) that Haktarah is like Zerikah.

Answer (to Questions #1,2): "They are not eaten b'Tum'ah" is not difficult. We can say that the Gemara adopted an expression that applies to all of them;

All of them are not eaten b'Tum'ah, but for some of them, we do Haktarah b'Tum'ah, e.g. Minchas ha'Omer.

Question #1: However, it is difficult, for Rav Chisda explains the entire matter to discuss the Tamid of every day;

Its beginning, i.e. Shechitah and Zerikah is Docheh Tum'ah. Its end is not Docheh Tum'ah, i.e. Haktarah;

It does not discuss limbs that were leftover.

Rabah explains that the beginning is Docheh Shabbos, i.e. the Tamid of Shabbos. Its end is not Docheh, i.e. limbs that were leftover.

Note: This is difficult, for the Gemara connotes that they discuss the same matter!

Question #2: Why does it say that the beginning is Docheh Shabbos, i.e. Shechitah and Zerikah? Even the end is Docheh Shabbos, i.e. Haktarah of the Tamid of Shabbos!

Question #3: Also, according to Rabah, the beginning is Docheh Shabbos, i.e. even the end, i.e. Haktarah. According to Rav Chisda, the beginning is Docheh Tum'ah, i.e. only Shechitah and Zerikah! (It is difficult to say that they use the same words to refer to different matters.)

Suggestion: Also according to Rabah, the Tamid of Shabbos, its beginning is Docheh Shabbos, i.e. Shechitah and Zerikah, but its end, i.e. Haktarah, is not Docheh.

Rejection #1: It says in Pesachim (68b) "see how dear is a Mitzvah in its time. Haktarah of Chelev and Eimurim is Kosher the entire night, yet we do not wait until dark. (We offer them on Shabbos.)

Rejection #2: Also, why does Rabah say that regarding Shabbos, since the beginning cannot be Docheh Shabbos, also the end is not Docheh?

If "the end is not Docheh" means even the Tamid of Shabbos, why does he say that it is not Docheh Shabbos? It is Docheh Shabbos!

Ri's opinion: Rashi's second Perush is correct. "Beginning and end" both refer to Haktaras Chelev.

Rav Chisda says that Haktarah of Chelev that was leftover is Docheh Tum'ah. The end, i.e. leftover limbs, is not Docheh Tum'ah to make a Ma'arachah by itself and burn them b'Tum'ah;

Rather, he burns them taught on the big Ma'arachah. Since they are Tamei, they are not Docheh Tum'ah, for they are not considered like the Tamid of the day.

It is Docheh Shabbos like we learn (Shabbos 20a) from "b'Chol Moshvoseichem." We make a Ma'arachah by itself, since they are Kesherim.

Rabah holds that the beginning is Docheh Shabbos, i.e. limbs of the Tamid of the day.

Its end, i.e. leftover limbs, are not Docheh Shabbos to make a Ma'arachah by itself, even if they are Tehorim;

However, it is Docheh Tum'ah. If they were leftover on a weekday, one makes a Ma'arachah by itself, and burns them b'Tum'ah.

Explanation: This is the argument. Above, [on 46a, R. Elazar] said that even if they are Pesulim, we make a Ma'arachah just for them, even on Shabbos;

Rav Huna disagrees, both according to Rabah and Rav Chisda;

Rabah holds that the end is not Docheh Shabbos. He disagrees with Rava's question "the Mishnah says every day!" He holds that it means [every day] except for Shabbos.

Question: Rashi said that the first Perush is primary. It seems that he found the second Perush difficult, for it says that the beginning is the primary Kaparah;

If this refers to limbs, they are not the primary Kaparah!

Answer: There is Kaparah also through Haktarah. The primary Kaparah is the Tamid of the day;

We said a more extreme statement above (27a);

Citation (27a): One might have thought that since this Avodah is not Me'akev Kaparah... However, flaying and dissection, which are Me'akev Kaparah, require Kehunah!

Observation: Even flaying and dissection are called primary Kaparah compared to putting mortal fire, even though the primary Kaparah is through the blood;

All the more so, we can say that Haktarah of the day is called the primary Kaparah compared to leftover limbs!

Question (R. Simchah): Above (44b), we said that a Kav of coals scattered, and he swept them to the Amah;

Rashi explained that this refers to Amas ha'Mayim (a stream) that runs through the Azarah. If so, this is difficult for Abaye [for this extinguishes the coals]!

Answer #1 (R. Simchah): Above, Amah is not a stream. Rather, it is a place.

Answer #2 (Tosfos): This is not difficult. He is not liable, for he intentionally scoops with a pan that holds four Kavim and pours into a pan that holds three Kavim, and one Kav scatters;

What scatters is not destined to be gathered. Even Abaye agrees that once they were uprooted [from the Mitzvah], they were uprooted [and one is exempt for them].

However, fire of the Machtah and for the Menorah discusses when they were brought down to the ground in a Kli, and they are proper for the Mitzvah. Therefore, Abaye is Mechayev;

Rava exempts. He is Mechayev only on top of the Mizbe'ach, or even below, when it is destined to be returned, e.g. one who takes a coal down and extinguishes it. It was proper to return it.

Support: I later found that Tosfos on Tamid of R. Baruch b'Ribi Yitzchak asked this question, and answered like I answered.

Answer #3 (R. Baruch): He sweeps them to the Amah after they extinguished.

Question (R. Nisim, in a hidden scroll): The coals are Kedoshim. In a Mishnah (Chagigah 23b), R. Akiva added that if a Tevul Yom touched any of the fine flour, Levonah or coals, he disqualified all of them;

If so, how can he sweep them to the Amah? He wastes Kodshim!

Answer #1 - Question: The Yerushalmi asked this in Chagigah - "granted, Ketores and Levonah. What about the coals?"

Explanation #1: It asks why he disqualified all of them, for they are not Kedoshim!

Citation (Yerushalmi) Answer (R. Bun bar Rav Kahana): The Mishnah discusses coals of Yom Kipur. In the same [Kli] that he scoops [from the Mizbe'ach], he enters them [into the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim];

Citation (cont.): This does not apply to coals of every day, like a Mishnah says, that a Kav of coals scattered, and he swept them to the Amah;

Explanation: The coals of Yom Kipur, in the Kli in which he scoops them [from the Mizbe'ach], he enters them [into the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim]. Therefore, the Kli joins them;

The silver Machtah [used on other days] is not their Kli [in which they are brought into the Heichal], so it does not join them, and they are not Kedoshim, therefore he sweeps them to the Amah.

Note: All this was from the hidden scroll of R. Nisim.

Explanation #2 (of the Yerushalmi - R. Baruch): It asked why [the Tevul Yom] disqualified all of them. We do not need all [of the coals], for a Kav of coals scattered;

Even according to the opinion (Chagigah 24a) that a Kli joins even what does not need the Kli, this is according to the opinion that Tziruf is mid'Oraisa;

Then, Chachamim added even if they do not need the Kli;

However, according to the opinion that Tziruf is mid'Rabanan, we do not say so. This is clear from Menachos 24a;

It answered that it discusses Yom Kipur, on which all [of the coals] are Kedoshim.

Alternative answer: The Yerushalmi could have answered that we discuss the second Machtah of three Kavim. Nothing scattered from it.

Answer #2 (to Question f:1, why we may dispose of the coals - R. Tam, to R. Yakov Yisrael): We sweep them to the Amah because a Kli Shares is Mekadesh only with intent, and these coals [that spilled out] were not Mekudash.

Question: If so, this is difficult according to the opinion that (Sukah 49b) that a Kli Shares is Mekadesh without intent!

Answer: In Menachos (7a), R. Yochanan derived from a Beraisa "this teaches that a Kli Shares is Mekadesh only with intent";

Perhaps [the Tana of the Beraisa 44b] holds like that Beraisa [in Menachos].

Suggested Answer #3: The first Machtah of four Kavim was not a Kli Shares. (Therefore, we may dispose of the coals.)

Rejection #1: "V'Lakach Melo ha'Machtah Gachalei Esh" connotes that it was a Kli Shares!

[Even though] the verse discusses Yom Kipur, you cannot say that it was Kadosh only on Yom Kipur. (Si'ach Yitzchak - we learn from Yom Kipur to the entire year that one must take coals from opposite the opening.)

Rejection #2: Also, since they were on the Mizbe'ach, it is Mekadesh what is proper for it;

It would be difficult to say that this is only regarding Korbanos.