Question: Why was [R. Yochanan] refuted here? He should say "I hold like R. Shimon below (111a), for Ze'iri said that they argue about Shechitah at night. According to R. Shimon, he is liable!

Answer: Here, [R. Yochanan] said even according to R. Yehudah. If it were only according to R. Shimon, why does he need the reason "it should not be less than Shechitah b'Chutz and Ma'aleh b'Chutz"? It should suffice that it is proper to be accepted inside!

Question: A Beraisa below (109a) says "what is the source to include Pesulim such as Linah and Yotzei...? It says "Lo Yevi'enu" to make one liable outside for everything that is accepted at Pesach Ohel Mo'ed;

Why do we need a verse? I already know, because it should not be less than Shechitah b'Chutz and Ma'aleh b'Chutz"? (Here that Shechitah was Kosher, all the more so one should be liable for offering it outside!)

Suggestion: That [Beraisa] is like R. Shimon, who disagrees with this reasoning.

Rejection: If so, it should teach Shechitah at night, the blood spilled, and the blood went outside the Kela'im!

Answer: Regarding Linah, Yotzei and Tamei, "it should not be less than Shechitah b'Chutz" does not apply. (R. Yochanan only said so regarding Pesulim of Shechitah. Perhaps these Pesulim are more severe.)

Explanation: Because we do not find Shechitah of a bird inside, therefore it is as if he chopped off its head. It is unlike Shechitah at night.

Question: He could ask this question without this! What is the case?

If [the Korban] is Pasul, the Torah said "v'Nitach Oso" (only a Kosher Olah)! If it is Kosher, this is fine [according to the opinion...]

Answer (R. Chaim): If it ascended to the top of the Mizbe'ach, all agree that Hefshet v'Nitu'ach (flaying and dissecting) applies [there]. When it is below, they argue about whether or not we bring it up and flay it.

It means as follows. Granted, if the Reisha discusses Kesherim, and it supports Ula, he taught the Seifa to reveal about the Reisha that they are Kesherim;

Even though the Seifa [itself] does not teach anything, for all agree that Hefshet v'Nitu'ach apply on top of the Mizbe'ach, it was taught only to reveal about the Reisha.

However, if you will say that the Reisha discusses Pesulim, what does the Seifa discuss? If it discusses Pesulim, the Torah said "v'Nitach Osah"!

If it discusses Kesherim, what is the Chidush? If it teaches that that Hefshet v'Nitu'ach apply on top of the Mizbe'ach, i.e. even if it was brought down, they bring it up to flay it, this is fine according to the opinion...

Explanation: Kedushas Mizbe'ach took effect on it. However, if the Mum preceded the Hekdesh, they were never Kodshei Mizbe'ach, and even [if the Mum is mere] cataracts in the eye, the Mizbe'ach is not Mekadesh them.

Question #1: In Bechoros (16a), we say that one who slaughters them outside is exempt. Rav Huna taught that the text says "liable", and establishes it to discuss cataracts in the eye, and according to R. Akiva, who says that Im Alah Lo Yered.

It seems that he does not refer to our Mishnah there (14a), rather, to the Beraisa (15b) that is like Rav Sheshes. [The Gemara] explained that "the Klal (general rule) is" [in the Beraisa] includes one who slaughters outside, that he is exempt. It discusses when the Mum preceded the Hekdesh;

And about this, it says that Rav Huna taught "liable"!

Summation of question: Why did he teach "liable"? We say here that even cataracts in the eye, Yered, since the Mum preceded the Hekdesh!

Question #2: Without this, it is difficult! It was taught in the Klal "they are like Chulin in every way." How can he teach "liable"?

Answer: Rashi changed the text there in the Seifa of the Beraisa, when the Hekdesh preceded the Mum, that one who slaughters it outside is exempt. Rav Huna refers to this, and taught that he is liable.

Support: This is correct, for it brings after this "whether before or after Pidyon, it makes Temurah", which is the Seifa of the Beraisa.

Implied question: We expound in Chulin (23a) "Min ha'Turin" to exclude Nirva! (What was the question here?)

Answer: That is according to the conclusion of our Sugya. However, if you will say that Nirva does not apply to birds, you would establish [the verse] to exclude only Muktzah (designated for idolatry).

Explanation: This is not included in Shirayim of Menachos. It is different than them, for it comes to permit Chadash, and it is from barley;

[Also] Shtei ha'Lechem [is unlike Shirei Menachos, for] it is Chametz. Lechem ha'Panim [is unlike Shirei Menachos, for] we are not Maktir any of it, only the two spoons of Levonah [that accompany it. Tosfos could have said so also about Shtei ha'Lechem; Haktarah does not apply to it at all.]