Explanation #1 (Rashi): Our Mishnah is like [Rebbi].

Explanation #2 (Ri): It is only like Rabanan. Since it taught "they do not ascend", this implies that if they ascended, Lo Yered. (If the law was Yered, it should have taught Yered, and obviously Lo Ya'alu!)

Implied question: Rabanan said "v'Hiktir', to include [bones, sinews...] even if they separated!

Answer: That is if they separated while on the Mizbe'ach.

Implied question: Why doesn't [Rebbi] establish the exclusion "v'Asisa Olosecha ha'Basar veha'Dam" when they descended below?

Answer: He prefers to teach a Chidush, that even when they are on the Mizbe'ach, it excludes Ikulei (partially burned) sinews, and likewise it excludes when they were not consumed [at all] if they descended below and separated.

Implied question: Above (83b) we needed to include Pok'in from "ha'Olah"!

Answer #1: That is because from here ["v'Asisa Olosecha..."], we know only when they are still on the Mizbe'ach, but not when they are below.

Answer #2: Just like we do not learn from "Asher Tochal ha'Esh" because we need it to exclude Ikulei Ketores, likewise [we do not learn] from the verse here, since we need it to exclude Ikulei sinews;

[The first Tana] disagrees with what it says above (83b) that we learn this automatically.

Implied question: Why does he need two verses, one to exclude Ketores and one to exclude sinews?

Answer: From the verse "Asher Tochal ha'Esh" we would exclude only Ikulei Ketores, which is not [ever offered] on the outer Mizbe'ach, but not Ikulei sinews;

From the verse here ["... ha'Basar veha'Dam"], we would not exclude Ketores, which is offered, similar to meat and blood. Therefore, we need both.

Explanation: [Towards below] means outside (away from the Ma'arachah), but towards above, i.e. to the side of the Ma'arachah [Lo Yered]. This is Rashi's text. It refers to the Beraisa.

Version #2: In some Seforim the text says "if they separated, Lo Ya'alu." It refers to our Mishnah.

Rebuttal #1: What is the relevance of closeness to Ikul, since it is below on the ground?!

Rebuttal #2: After this, [the Gemara] discusses the Perush of the Beraisa. Why did it interrupt [to teach about the Mishnah]?! (The Bach defends Version #2.)

Implied question: It says in Rosh Hashanah (28a) that one may not blow a Shofar from an Olah! (Here we totally permit the horns.)

Answer (Tosfos' Rebbi): That refers to [a Shofar from an animal] separated for Demei Olah (it will be sold, and they will buy an Olah with the money). Likewise [the Gemara there forbids blowing a Shofar] from a Shelamim, i.e. [an animal] separated for Demei Shelamim.

Me'ilah does not apply to Demei Shelamim, like we say in Pesachim (27b, that there is no Me'ilah in bread baked with Kodesh wood, for) we discuss wood (with Kedushas Damim) for Shelamim. (Kedushas Damim of animals and wood is the same.)

Question: Why did [Tosfos' Rebbi] explain unlike the connotation, to establish [the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah] to discuss [Kedushas] Damim? One can establish it to discuss [a Shofar] that separated [from the animal] in its lifetime, or before Zerikah, as long as Zerikah was not done!

However, one cannot establish it that it separated after Zerikah, for regarding Shelamim, there is no distinction. If Zerikah permits when it separated in its lifetime, the same applies if it is attached, just like [Zerikah] permits the meat, for why should we distinguish?

If so, also to blow is permitted! So it seems to me.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Even the meat is permitted, so all the more so its bones.

Question (and Explanation #2): Rashi himself questioned this below (98a). [The Gemara] learns from a Hekesh Zos ha'Torah - just like bones of Asham are permitted, also all bones are permitted, and we learn from "Lo Yihyeh" of Asham;

[Rashi] explained [so there,] because we cannot learn bones from a Kal v'Chomer from meat, because we can say that the Torah permitted only meat proper to eat;

If so, you are forced to say that it is obvious regarding Asham because it is written "Lo Yihyeh."

Implied question: Why did it mention Asham more than Chatas? Also Chatas is written in that verse - "ka'Chatas ka'Asham Torah Achas Lahem la'Kohen Asher Yechaper Bo Lo Yihyeh"!

Answer #1: Because the verse primarily discusses Asham, [the Gemara] mentioned Asham.

Answer #2: It is written "Lo Yihyeh" in the singular. We should establish it for Asham, which was the last [Korban] mentioned in the verse.

Implied question: Why don't we learn Olah from the Hekesh below?

Answer: It is because we can establish it for matters that are eaten [in other Korbanos that are eaten], similar to Asham.

Question: I am unsure why we need the Gezeirah Shavah of Olah. In [Olah] itself it is written "Lo Yihyeh", and we can expound that it is to permit the bones!

Answer: Perhaps we would have established it for a different Drashah.

Version #1: This is Rashi's text.

Version #2: In some Seforim the text is "Me'ilah applies to them until Zerikah."

Consequence: According to that text, [only] the end of the teaching argues, for [R. Elazar] said that after Zerikah one may not benefit, but Me'ilah does not apply to them.

Question: According to Rabanan, who hold that even if they separated, Ya'alu, why is there no Me'ilah?

Answer #1: That is when they separated before Zerikah, but after Zerikah, Zerikah permitted them if they separated.

Answer #2: According to the Ri above (DH Man), it is even if they separated after Zerikah, e.g. they separated below, for we establish Rabanan's teaching when they are still on the Mizbe'ach.

Question: In Terumos (11:5), it says that pits of Terumah, if one gathered them, they are forbidden. If he cast them, they are permitted. The same applies to bones of Kodshim. If one gathered them, they are forbidden. If he cast them, they are permitted;

Answer: My Rebbi explained there that it discusses bones of Kodshim that are eaten, similar to Terumah, and there is still meat on them;

[The Mishnah] says that if one gathered them and stores them, if so he considers them important, and they still have the name of Kodshim, and they are forbidden. However, if he cast them, they cease to have the name of food;

Similarly, pits of Terumah discusses when there is food on them, and it is explained like this.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This refers to both to Pesulim, and to sinews and bones.

Implied question: Our Mishnah taught "he does not return them", and in the Gemara (above, 85b, Ula) said that if they caught fire, Ya'alu!

Answer #1: We can say that "they flew off" in our Mishnah is after they were consumed a little, similar to limbs that flew off in our Mishnah, which we establish in the Gemara to discuss Shriri (meat that became hard like wood due to the fire);

However, "they caught fire" means that they caught fire a little, and their Mitzvah was not done. Therefore, he returns them.

Answer #2: Rashi explained that "he does not return them" means that he need not return them. If so, there is no question. We can say that "Ya'alu" is if he wants, but there is no obligation to bring them up.

Answer #3: "They flew off" [in our Mishnah] means that they flew off by themselves. "If they descended, Ya'alu" [in the Gemara] connotes that someone took them down. We can distinguish between [descending] by themselves and through others;

This is like in Yoma (46b). It says that if one took a coal from the Mizbe'ach and it extinguished, he is liable, because it was not uprooted from its Mitzvah. This shows that he can bring it up;

Our Mishnah taught that it flew off, he does not return it, and Me'ilah does not apply to it.

Explanation #2: If we would explain that "all of them" does not refer to Pesulim (rather, only to sinews and bones), this does not answer the question at all, for in any case it is difficult for the opinion (Rav Chanina of Sura, 85b) who says that [Ula] taught about the Seifa.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Also Shriri are proper for Haramah.

Rebuttal (and explanation #2): It seems that they are not proper for Haramah, for they are not ashes;

Rather, "half for Haramah" is not real Haramah. Rather, it is like Haramah, for it is not proper for Haktarah.

Support: It connotes like this in Me'ilah (9b. The Gemara) deduces there [from our Mishnah] "and similarly a coal that flew off the Mizbe'ach, he does not return it." This implies that if it is on the Mizbe'ach, he returns it;

Note: There, it says that Rav and R. Yochanan agree that Me'ilah applies to ashes before Terumas ha'Deshen is done. R. Yochanan says that there is Me'ilah even afterwards, and Rav disagrees.

[The Gemara] challenges Rav from this [inference], and answers that a coal is different, for it has substance. Therefore he returns it, for its Mitzvah was not done.

Inference: It is not proper to do Haramah from them. If they were proper for Haramah, when he took Terumah, why does he return? Their Mitzvah was done!

Question: I do not know [the Makshan's] source that [our Mishnah] discusses after Terumas ha'Deshen, and therefore he challenges Rav, who discusses after Terumas ha'Deshen;

Just like we answer that it discusses after Terumas ha'Deshen according to R. Yochanan, we can answer before Terumas ha'Deshen according to Rav. Rav admits that Me'ilah applies then!

Answer: It seems that [the clause of a coal] resembles Pesulim that flew off (the Reisha), which discusses in every case. [It resembles it,] for it teaches "and similarly, a coal that flew off";

From this [the Gemara] infers also that there is no difference before and after midnight. In every case it is considered Ikul, for it taught similar to Pesulim that flew off. Even before midnight he does not return;

Also, in the Seifa, regarding limbs, it distinguishes [between before and after midnight], but regarding a coal it does not distinguish, for it is considered consumed. The expressions of Haktarah and Mokdah (burning) do not apply, for it was already burned!

In any case he returns it, for it is not proper for Haramah, for it is not ashes, and its Mitzvah was not done;

Therefore, [if it is] on the Mizbe'ach he returns it, for its Mitzvah was not done yet. When it flew off he does not return it, for "Mokdah Al ha'Mizbe'ach" connotes something that needs to burn will be on the Mizbe'ach, even if it flew off, but something that need not burn, no.

Question: When he gathers the ashes to bring them up on the Tapu'ach (heap), we cannot be careful that there will not be many coals on the ashes;

Here it connotes that it is forbidden to take a coal from the Ma'arachah, like the Gemara in Me'ilah (9b) deduces that he returns it, and all the more so one may not remove it!

Also in Tamid (33a) it connotes that he takes from the inner consumed [coals]. This shows that he took coals!

Answer: We must say that he took from the consumed [coals] that have no substance, and they are considered ashes;

However, the coal here, from which we infer in Me'ilah that he returns it, discusses a "live" coal with substance.

Implied question: It says in Me'ilah that the same applies even to ashes!

Answer: It does not mean that [ashes] are truly like a coal even regarding returning, for we always return a coal, even after Terumas ha'Deshen, for we do not bring it on the Tapu'ach, but we bring ashes on the Tapu'ach!

Rather, it was said regarding Me'ilah that it is like a coal, and even though seemingly, there is a difference between a live coal and a "dead" coal. A dead coal is in the category of ashes, like a Mishnah teaches "he took from the inner consumed [coals]"!

Defense (of Explanation #1): "Half [the night] for Haramah" means even for Shriri, and regarding this, that Terumas ha'Deshen permits gathering them to the Tapu'ach;

[However,] it is not [Haramah] so that Terumas ha'Deshen may be done from them, for it is written ashes;

The Torah wrote "v'Herim Es ha'Deshen" [to be done] after midnight, in order to permit even Shriri, for from midnight and onwards is considered Ikul for Haktarah, and if he wants, he may gather them to the Tapu'ach in order to take them outside the Machaneh;

However, if he wants to leave them in the place of the Ma'arachah in order to finish their Mitzvah, so they themselves will be proper for Terumas ha'Deshen, their Mitzvah is still on them;

Therefore he returns, for it is reasonable to say that they are still lacking completion of the Mitzvah, since they are still not proper for Terumas ha'Deshen.

Support #1: Now the wording "from midnight and onwards for Haramah" is fine.

Support #2: Now it is fine also that at the time of gathering the ashes, they did not need to be careful from coals [not to gather them], and even if they are glowing.

Support: In Maseches Tamid (28b) a Mishnah says that he took the rakes and pitchforks and ascended to the top of the Mizbe'ach;

Limbs and Chelev that were not consumed yet, we remove them to the sides of the Mizbe'ach. (Later, they are returned to the fire to complete their Haktarah.) Afterwards it teaches that he began to remove ashes to the Tapu'ach.

Note: The word "mib'Erev" connotes that we discuss what did not burn during the day. Really, there is no difference whether it burned during the day or at night. Rashi (Yoma 46a) and the Bartenura (Yoma 4:6) say that we discuss limbs and Chelev of the afternoon Tamid, but the Rashash (45a) says that it can be of other Korbanos.

This is like Rashi explained, that they removed [to the sides] only limbs that were not consumed, but coals are considered consumed, and even live coals, like I explained above. They are not in the category of "not consumed."

Conclusion: Rashi's Perush is primary.

Version #1: Rashi deleted "Ela'' from early texts, and explained that R. Yochanan answered the verses like Rav. Half [the night] is for Haktarah, and half is for Haramah. However, this is only for Shriri;

This that it says [that on festivals they did Terumas ha'Deshen] before midnight, that is with [totally] consumed coals. We learn it from a different verse - "Ad Boker", give another morning to the morning at the end of the night;

We establish it to discuss Haramah, and Hash-m left the matter to Chachamim to do as early as they want, according to their need.

Question #1: The verse "Ad Boker" is written regarding Haktarah. How can we establish it to discuss Haramah?

Question #2: The text in all Seforim says "Ela"!

Version #2: The text of all latter Perushim [of Rashi] is correct. It says "Ela". R. Yochanan argues with Rav, who said that half is for Haramah. Even for ashes that were consumed well, we do not do [Haramah] earlier;

And R. Yochanan says that "Kol ha'Laylah" refers to Haktarah and to Haramah. The entire night is Kosher for Haktarah when they are not consumed, and the entire night is Kosher for Haramah if there are consumed ashes;

Regarding Haktarah an extra Boker is written, to give to [an earlier] morning to the morning [at the end] of the night. This is Shriri; midnight makes them [considered] consumed.

The verse is expounded as follows. Give one earlier morning to the morning of the night, which is dawn.

The verse gave another morning to teach that one need not be Maktir from the earlier [morning] and onwards. Since [the verse] did not give a time for that morning, you are forced to say that it is midnight.

Conclusion: We learn that Shriri depends on midnight. Consumed ashes without substance, the entire night "v'Herim" (one may do Haramah). However, if they have substance, the entire night "v'Hiktir". So Rashi explained in Yoma (20b).

Question: This requires investigation in Megilah (20b). It says that the entire night is Kosher for Haktarah. Why didn't it say also for Haramah?

Inference: This connotes that [even] Avodah of the night such as Terumas ha'Deshen and arranging the Ma'arachah were incumbent on the Kohen Gadol [on Yom Kipur].

Support: Now it is fine, that [he does it earlier] due to weakness of the Kohen Gadol, so he will be able to rest after Terumas ha'Deshen and have enough time to slaughter the Tamid and do Avodas ha'Yom without rushing;

However, if Avodah of the night is Kosher through other Kohanim, what weakness is there (if it is done later)?

Alternative text: The Riva explained in Yoma (20b) that the text here does not say Kohen Gadol, for Terumas ha'Deshen was not through the Kohen Gadol.

Source #1: Tevilah for Terumas ha'Deshen is not listed among the five Tevilos and 10 Kidushin (washing his hands and feet) that he did on Yom Kipur.

Source #2: Also the lottery for Terumas ha'Deshen is listed in Seder Yom Kipur. If the Kohen Gadol did it, (there was no lottery that day). Why is [the lottery] mentioned in Seder Yom Kipur?

Support: A Piyut supports this. "They rose at midnight to burn the ashes through a lottery."

Defense (of our text - Tosfos' Rebbi): We need not erase [Kohen Gadol] from the text. It means as follows. Due to weakness of the Kohen Gadol, they make Terumas ha'Deshen earlier, and arranging the Ma'arachah and burning limbs that were not consumed yet is through other Kohanim;

This is in order that it will be ready for the Kohen Gadol to begin Avodas ha'Yom from the morning, from dawn, before he is hungry and weak.