Clarification: According to the Sefarim that have the text in Perek Eilu Hein ha'Lokin (Makos 19a) 'Really he did not sanctify it for the future', Rebbi Yishmael will hold that Bamos are permitted.

Question: In that case, how can the Gemara say here that, nowadays they are further away from the Beis-ha'Mikdash? To the contrary, they are closer, seeing as Bamos are permitted?

Question: From where does the Gemara know that? Perhaps Rebbi Yishmael says one thing and Rebbi Akiva says another, and they don't argue?

Answer (Part 1): If Rebbi Akiva would holds that Basar Ta'avah is forbidden, how could meat from an animal that was torn open possibly have been permitted to them, seeing as he certainly concedes that Kodshim require Shechitah, as will be implied shortly?

Answer (Part 2): Nor can he be referring to the meat of deer and gazelle, seeing as the Pasuk from which he learns the concession of Basar Nechirah specifically mentions "Bakar va'Tzon", as the Pasuk writes "When the place is too far from you ... then you shall Shecht Bakar va'Tzon", implying that initially, they did not require Shechitah?

Question: The Gemara could however, established the Pasuk of Heter Nechirah with regard to Ba'alei-Mumin, which are not fit to go on the Mizbe'ach?

Clarifying Text (Part 1): We do not have the text 'or perhaps there is no difference' ...

Explanation (Part 1): ... since that would imply that he was in doubt as to whether their own cuts of Chazir were permitted or not. And that is simply not true, since at the outset, they had no doubts about their own cuts of Chazir or animals that they tore open after they arrived in Eretz Yisrael, only what they tore open in the desert be'Heter.

Explanation (Part 2): ... and the Gemara asked that if even what was forbidden became permitted to them (with reference to tearing the animal open, then how much more so what was already torn open beforehand?

Explanation (Part 3): And it answers that perhaps it is only the booty of the Nochrim that was permitted to them, but not their own, and that is why it is forbidden to tear an animal open.

Conclusion: Now it makes sense to ask what the Din will be regarding hat was already torn open earlier.

Alternative Anwser: The Gemara could have answered that one speaks where the beginning of the knife is nicked, and the other, where it is nicked in the middle.

Clarification: 'a'Bisra' refers to the Veshet (which is fleshy), and 'a'Tufra' to the Kaneh`(which is bony).

Explanation #1: Both are needed: the notch on the ear of the B'chor, in order to Shecht on account of it outside Eretz Yisrael; and that of Kodshim, to teach us the blemish on the Ervah of a female animal (as Rashi explains), which is non-existent by a B'chor.

Explanation #2: Alternatively, we need to mention Kodshim, to negate the assumption that a defect of even less than one on which the nail gets caught disqualifies an animal from the Mizbe'ach.

Implied Question: Why does Reish Lakish not add 'P'gimas (a notch) ha'Mizbe'ach' to the list, making it four?

Answer: Maybe it is because P'gimas Mizbe'ach is written explicitly in the Pasuk in Ki Savo, where it says "complete stones".

Implied Question: ... even though in connection with Kodshim, the Torah also writes "Tamim" ...

Answer: ... this does not really imply without a P'gimah, since there are many places where we are not concerned if some flesh or a bone is cut off the animal (in spite of the word "Tamim").