Yoma 46A

אבל מהאי גיסא ומהאי גיסא אימא לא, צריכא.

but from this side or from that side of the altar, both of which are not directly in front of the Sanctuary’s entrance, I would say that no, the fire may not be taken from there. Therefore, it is necessary to write both terms in order to teach this halakha.

אמר רבי אלעזר משום בר קפרא, אומר היה רבי מאיר: איברי עולה שנתותרו ⁠— עושה להן מערכה בפני עצמה וסודרן, ואפילו בשבת.

R' Elazar said in the name of bar Kappara: R' Meir would say: With regard to limbs of a burnt-offering that remained on the altar from the previous night and which were not fully consumed, one should make a separate arrangement of wood for them and arrange them upon it to be burned. And this is done even on Shabbat.

מאי קא משמע לן? תנינא: בכל יום היו שם ארבע מערכות. אמר רבי אבין: לא נצרכה אלא לפסולין.

What is bar Kappara teaching us when he informs us that R' Meir requires a separate arrangement to be made? Surely, we already learned this in the Mishnah that cites R' Meir as saying: On every other day, there were 4 arrangements of wood there, upon the altar. The Talmud answers: R' Avin said: Bar Kappara’s teaching is needed only in order to teach the requirement to set up a 4th arrangement, even though it is only for limbs of disqualified offerings. As certain disqualifications apply only ab initio, if the offering is nevertheless brought upon the altar it should not then be removed. Bar Kappara teaches that R' Meir’s ruling applies in the event that limbs of such an offering were not fully consumed.

ודוקא שמשלה בהן האור, אבל לא משלה בהן האור ⁠— לא.

The Talmud qualifies this: But this applies specifically when the fire has already taken hold of them and they have begun to burn. But if the fire has not yet taken hold of them, no, a separate arrangement is not made in order to burn them.