Question: What was the Makshan's Hava Amina to establish [the Mishnah] unlike Rebbi?

Also according to R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, we can ask that we should stand it up between the Mizbe'ach and the wall!

Answer: He thought that granted, according to R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, since north of the Mizbe'ach is the place of the low pillars, rings and tables, we do not stand it up there, for there is not so much empty space;

Also, perhaps it will excrete, and near the Mizbe'ach, this is disgraceful;

However, according to Rebbi, we can establish it far from the Mizbe'ach, near the opening [of the Azarah]!

Conclusion: In any case, we answer that would have been better to stand it up near the Mizbe'ach than so close to the Heichal. However, [we stand it up close to the Heichal] due to weakness of the Kohen Gadol.

Question: Why does Rashi omit Ma'aser Oni from the text?

Suggestion: This is because it is not in the text in the Tosefta in Menachos.

Rejection: Perhaps this is a different Beraisa!

Suggestion: It is because there is another Viduy for Ma'aser Oni - "v'Gam Nesativ la'Levi vela'Ger..."

Rejection: It does not have its own Viduy, rather, only along with Ma'aser Sheni, just like Terumah, which one does not confess on by itself, like it says in Bikurim (2:2, brought in Yevamos 73a);

A Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 5:10) expounds "v'Gam Nesativ" to include Terumah...

Therefore, he confesses also the sin of Ma'aser Oni on the Olah.

Also, that Viduy is for when he did properly. Here, he confesses the sin of [those who did not give] Ma'aser Oni.

Question: Why don't we mention all Lavim for which one is not lashed, e.g. Lav shebi'Chlalos (different Isurim forbidden by one Lav) and Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh?

Answer: "V'Nirtzeh Lo" connotes that it can be fixed and made acceptable elsewhere, i.e. there is an Aseh that he can do to fix it, e.g. to make a Sukah, Tefilin or similar matters.

If one or two days passed [and he did not fix it], Olah atones for him. The same applies to a Lav ha'Nitak l'Aseh.

Similarly, it would have atoned for Chayav Misos, Chayavei Kerisos and severe Chayavei Lavin, but they have another Kaparah. The Torah specified their punishment;

These (Mitzvos Aseh, and Lavim for which one is not lashed) have no appeasement and Tikun elsewhere.

Implied question: [R. Yirmeyah] could also have said [that they argue about] Terefah. It says "u'Vasar ba'Sadeh Treifah Lo Socheilu la'Kelev Talichun Oso."

Suggestion: All agree that one is not lashed for Terefah, for it is Lav shebi'Chlalos;

We need it to teach about Kodshim meat that left the wall [within which it is permitted], or a fetus that stuck its foreleg out before Shechitah (Chulin 68a)

Rejection: Terefah is written explicitly. It is not Lav shebi'Chlalos, like Pesachim 24a connotes regarding Nosar and [eating Pesach] raw or cooked. See there.

Regarding Kodshim and a fetus, it is Lav shebi'Chlalos.

Question: In Makos (18a), regarding a Zar who ate an Olah outside the wall before Zerikah, the Gemara asked that he should be lashed also for "u'Vasar ba'Sadeh Treifah Lo Socheilu"!

Answer: There, we do not mean actual lashes, rather, a mere Isur. This is clear from the Sugya there that it is a mere Isur.

Answer: We did not say that they argue about Terefah, for even R. Yosi ha'Glili does not consider it Nitak l'Aseh, since not everything in the Lav is Nitak;

The Lav includes also Kodshim that left its wall. "You will cast it to a dog" does not apply to them.

Alternative text: Even so, I found a text that says "they argue about Nevelah and Terefah."

Question: Why doesn't it say that they argue about Leket, Shichchah and Pe'ah?

This is very astounding, that we abandoned Leket, Shichchah and Pe'ah, which the Tana'im discussed, and mention [only] Nevelah!

Answer #1: Initially, we wanted to say that they argue about Nevelah;

Since we found another matter that they argue about, we can say that both of them hold that it atones for Leket, Shichchah and Pe'ah;

R. Yosi ha'Glili, who did not mention Nituk, holds that it atones, even though it is not full Nituk;

R. Akiva heard that [R. Yosi] holds that any Lav followed by an Aseh, even if it is not Nituk after it fix the Lav after transgressing it, Olah atones for it;

The Tana taught Leket, Shichchah and Pe'ah, and the same applies to Nevelah.

R. Akiva said to him "I agree with you about Leket, Shichchah and Pe'ah. I hold that this is total Nituk, to fix the Lav after transgressing it;

I (R. Akiva) hold like R. Yishmael, who says (Bava Kama 94a) that the Mitzvah is to separate Pe'ah from attached Peros. If he did not... R. Yishmael says, he separates even from the dough (if he did not separate earlier).

The Gemara explains there that even if you will say that Shinuy acquires, here he is liable [to give Pe'ah] because the Torah wrote an extra "Ta'azov".

Inference: Even after totally transgressing the Lav, the verse teaches to leave it and be exempt.

If so, this is total Nituk. However, Nevelah is not.

However, after this, we say that all require total Nituk. Then, we must say that they argue about Leket, Shichchah and Pe'ah. If not, what do they argue about?!

Answer #2: Initially, we thought that all agree that "Ta'azov" connotes the future, and it is total Nituk;

R. Akiva understood that the first Tana holds that even if it is not Nituk, it atones, since he did not explicitly mention Nitak l'Aseh;

If so, the same applies to Nevelah (the first Tana holds that it atones also for Nevelah).