Reference: In Kerisus (3b) he learns from a Hekesh. ("Ki Kol Asher Ya'aseh mi'Kol ha'To'evos" equates all Arayos to a sister. Just like one is liable for Achoso alone, the same applies to all Arayos.)

Explanation: Since you learn [two kinds of Ha'alah b'Chutz] from a Hekesh or Gezeirah Shavah, each one is like an Aveirah by itself, and he is liable for each one, even in one Ha'alah (he offered at once a Korban slaughtered in the Mikdash and one slaughtered outside);

Also Shochet and Maileh [b'Chutz], which were taught there as two [Aveiros], we know two Lavim for them only through a Gezeirah Shavah!

Implied question (Rashi): We should answer that [the Mishnah] taught the Isur of Ha'alah, just like it counts Mechalel Shabbos as one, even though there are many Chiyuvim (one is liable for each Av Melachah that he forgot and transgressed)!

Answer: We answered like this in Kerisus (3b). (Rav Bivi asked that if one is liable both for Ha'alah of Shechitas Penim (what was slaughtered in the Mikdash) and Shechitas Chutz, the Mishnah should have taught both of them.) We challenged him from Shabbos and idolatry, and answered that their divisions (Chiyuv for each Melachah or Avodah) were taught in their places;

A Mishnah in Shabbos (73b) teaches that there are 39 Melachos, and it is taught about idolatry in Sanhedrin (60b) that the same applies to one who serves, slaughters, is Maktir, or pours libations;

However, these were not taught explicitly, i.e. Ha'alah of limbs [of Shechitas] Penim and Ha'alah of limbs of Chutz;

Even though we can infer this from the argument of R. Yosi ha'Gelili and Rabanan, they were not taught explicitly as two. Until here is from Rashi.

Question: Regarding idolatry, how can it say there in Kerisus (3b) that [the different Avodos] were taught a'Vincheihon, i.e. in their places;

We can learn from our Mishnah in Sanhedrin only Chiyuv Chatas for these Avodos, but we do not learn division of Chata'os (one for each Avodah) from there!

Question: Why don't we answer that the Mishnah in Kerisus (2a) is like R. Yosi ha'Gelili, who exempts Mukterei Chutz (what was slaughtered outside and was destined to be offered outside)? (Olas Shlomo, Chak Nasan - in Kerisus (3a) we say that the Mishnah is like R. Yishmael, who obligates two Chata'os for a man who is Shochev lies (like a man) with a man, and is Nishkav (lies like a woman) with a man, or like R. Akiva, who obligates Megadef. R. Yishmael and R. Akiva exempt below for Mukterei Chutz that are Chaser, but they obligate if they are intact!)

Question: This Sugya is unlike Rava, rather, like Abaye, in Bava Metzi'a (95b), who holds like R. Yoshiyah in Sanhedrin (66b) who requires a verse to divide regarding cursing a father and mother (to obligate for cursing only one of them. This is not one of the six places in which the Halachah follows Abaye against Rava! Tzon Kodoshim - what was the Havah Amina that one is liable only for an Olah and Shelamim? The Lav says Hishamer Lecha Pen Ta'aleh Olosecha! Rather, Olosecha can mean everything brought up (offered). Therefore, all agree that we need Oh to divide also the Lav, that one is liable for even one Zevach.)

Implied question: Why can't we learn from "va'Aleihem Tomar" or from Hava'ah-Hava'ah?

Answer: It is because [Mukterei] Penim, there is a reason [to obligate more for partial Haktarah than for Mukterei Chutz], for we return Pok'in (what flies off the Mizbe'ach), and it is considered Haktarah, so we cannot learn [to exempt] from Mukterei Chutz.

Question: This Sugya is astounding, for below (115b) we expound "Asher Ya'aleh Olah" - just like Ha'alah is final Avodah, also the entire [Chiyuv for Ha'alas Chutz] is for final Avodah. This excludes doing Kemitzah, Kabalah, pouring oil [on a Minchah], mixing [flour with the oil], breaking [a Minchah into pieces], salting...! (What was the Havah Amina to obligate for Kemitzah and Kabalah? Tzon Kodoshim - since R. Yishmael and R. Akiva use other verses to obligate for Zerikah, this shows that they do not expound Asher Ya'aleh Olah to teach about all final Avodah.)

Explanation (Rashi): We should learn a Gezeirah Shavah from Parim ha'Nisrafim, like we learn about people that Beis Din executes, in Sanhedrin (62b);

And even if it is not extra (both words of the Gezeirah Shavah are needed), we can learn through Giluy Milsa, for we do not find outside [one] Machaneh, only outside three Machanos.

Implied question: We need this below (113b) to exclude Rove'a and Nirva, and Parah Adumah and Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis!

Answer: Pesach Ohel Mo'ed is written many times.

Explanation: It is difficult for Rava. Why did the Torah write at all mi'Chutz la'Machaneh and ba'Machaneh? Also Rashi explained like this.

Reference: Above (59b DH Ad) I explained regarding a Mizbe'ach that was dented, and I explained why here it mentioned Ha'alah, and not Shechitah. (R. Yochanan discusses Ha'alah of Ketores, or of a Minchah that had Kemitzah in a Kli Shares inside. They are not Mechusar Ma'aseh, for only Zevachim require a Mizbe'ach.)

Question: Why don't we challenge him from the Mishnayos from which we bring in Megilah (10a) to challenge R. Yitzchak, who said "I heard that one may offer in Beis Chonyo"? (Yedei Moshe, Afikei Meginim - Reish Lakish said only that he is exempt because the Korban is not proper for Pesach Ohel Mo'ed, for the Kedushah is not fully intact. R. Yitzchak said that the Kedushah is totally Batel, to permit Shechutei Chutz.)

Question: Why does he need [to say that it is] connected? We know that R. Yochanan said in Menachos (26b) that Haktarah applies to less than a k'Zayis;

Since it is considered Haktarah inside, he is liable outside, like it says below (108b) regarding Mukterei Penim that became Chaser, that one is liable for them outside, since inside it is Haktarah, for we return Pok'im!

Answer: R. Yochanan considers it Haktarah regarding Haktarah of half at a time. He completes it afterwards.

Implied question: In Menachos (58a), he considers it to be Haktarah regarding Se'or and Devash. We say that a Kometz can be less than two k'Zeisim, and Haktarah applies to less than a k'Zayis!

Answer #1: There is different, for a verse is written [that says so].

Answer #2: He is exempt more for Shechutei Chutz, like we expound here (107a) "he is liable for what is complete, but he is not liable for what is Chaser."

Answer #3: Intents are equated to each other, [intent] for consumption of the Mizbe'ach and consumption of people (Menachos 17b). Since intent for Haktarah less than a k'Zayis Chutz li'Mkomo does not disqualify, this shows that Haktarah b'Chutz is not liable for less than a k'Zayis.