Inference: Seemingly, Rebbi and R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon hold like R. Shimon, who said above (84a) that if a Korban was slaughtered at night, Im Alah Lo Yered, for now Kodesh accepts it, and it did not have Sha'as ha'Kosher;

However, according to R. Yehudah, who says that Im Alah Yered, both according to Rebbi and R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon, if he slaughtered at night inside and offered outside, he is exempt not only according to R. Yosi ha'Gelili...

Rather, even according to Rabanan he is exempt, like is proven below (111b) regarding the Mishnah "R. Shimon says, anything for which one is liable for it outside, one is liable if he did so inside and then offered it outside";

Ze'iri himself explains that they argue about an animal slaughtered at night. It means as follows. If one slaughters an animal at night inside and offered it outside, he is exempt;

Explanation: This is because it is not accepted inside. This is like R. Yehudah, who says that Im Alah Yered.

If he slaughtered outside and offered outside, he is liable. This shows that even Rabanan who obligate for Shechitah outside and Ha'alah outside, they argue about one who slaughters at night inside and offered it outside, which R. Yehudah exempts.

Question: Why did Ze'iri and Rabah discuss Shechitah at night and Kabalah in a Chulin Kli, which is as if the blood spilled? This is only according to R. Shimon, for according to R. Yehudah, both of them Yerdu;

They should have said that they argue about if it was slaughtered Chutz li'Zmano or Chutz li'Mkomo, for all agree that Lo Yered, for Kodesh accepts it, and it did not have Sha'as ha'Kosher!

Answer: Perhaps since Rabah and Ze'iri below (111b), regarding the argument of R. Shimon and Rabanan, discuss Shechitah at night and Kabalah in a Chulin Kli, they discussed this also here.

Question: According to R. Yehudah, who said above (84a) that if the blood left, Im Alah Yered, if he threw some of the blood outside, he is liable, even though Kodesh does not accept it!

Answer #1: Perhaps according to R. Yehudah he would not be liable.

Implied question: We expound the verse to include [liability outside for] Zerikah!

Answer: Perhaps it refers only to what was slaughtered outside, but not to Shechutei Penim, like we find regarding Shechitah at night at the end of our Perek;

However, according to R. Yosi ha'Gelili, according to R. Yehudah, surely we do not find Zorek outside who is liable.

Answer #2: According to R. Yehudah, he is exempt when Kodesh does not accept it, this is when Kodesh does not accept it due to another Pesul, other than this Pesul that it went outside and he offered it.

Support: It is fine that our Mishnah obligates for Kometz, Levonah, Ketores and Minchas Kohanim offered outside, even though we said above (83b) that according to R. Yosi ha'Gelili, [Pasul] Menachos Yerdu;

And similarly, Nesachim that accompany the Zevach, we say that all agree that Yerdu.

In the Beraisa below (109a) that we include Pesulim, it does not count what was slaughtered at night and the blood spilled. This shows that [the Tana] is R. Yehudah, and he does not obligate for these because Yerdu;

Even so, he obligates for Kometz, Minchas Kohanim, and Nisuch of wine and water, like I explained (since their only Pesul is Yotzei).

Question: According to R. Yehudah, R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon's answer does not resolve [the opinion of] R. Yosi ha'Gelili, for it is still difficult for him, even one who does Kemitzah inside and offers outside, since he took it out he disqualified it! (Yad Binyamin - Answer #2 above (if the only Pesul is Yotzei, he is liable outside) is not according to R. Yosi ha'Gelili. He disagrees! It only shows how R. Yehudah can explain how one is liable for Zerikah outside.)

Explanation: They argue about Isur Kolel, like it explains in Chulin (101a).

Question: Why do we need a verse to teach about Anus! This is obvious. The Torah exempts for Ones!

Answer: Perhaps this Anus excludes Omer Mutar (he thinks that it is permitted).

Question: Why do we need a verse to exempt from Kares when he is Shogeg? Obviously [he is exempt]. He brings a Korban!

Answer: One might have thought that if he does not bring a Korban, he is Chayav Kares. Only after he brings a Korban it is written "v'Nislach Lo."

Explanation (Rashi): He is exempt for Ha'alas Chutz, and liable for serving idolatry;

If he was Mezid about idolatry and Shogeg about Ha'alas Chutz, he does not bring a Korban for his Shegagah.

Objection: Why should he be liable for offering to his colleague due to Ha'alah? Since he is Mezid about idolatry, he would not refrain from knowing (that this is Ha'alas Chutz), for a Mumar to idolatry (he wantonly transgresses) is a Mumar to the entire Torah! (Machshavas Chayim - Rashi explains our Tana like the opinion in Horiyos (11a) that a Mumar brings a Korban if he would have refrained had he known.)

Remark: There was no need for Rashi to say so. For Ha'alah to his colleague, it is not applicable to obligate him for idolatry, since he does not intend for idolatry! (Ohr ha'Chamah - he merely intends to honor him. Rashi holds that one does not honor people like this. Surely he intends to worship him.)

Explanation: This is after the lottery. Before the lottery he is liable for both of them, like is proven in Yoma (62b).

Reference: I explained this in Bava Metzi'a (31b DH Dibrah. Tana'im say so only when there is a proof from the verse.)

Explanation #1: Therefore, if he offered several limbs, one after the other, he is liable only once. He is liable for the first, for the entire animal is intact (when it was offered), and exempt for the rest, since it was already Chaser. What was offered is as if it was lost;

The other opinion holds that [he is liable] for every limb, but for a limb offered half at a time, all obligate only once, and he is liable for the first k'Zayis.

R. Yochanan says that they argue about one limb. One holds that Mukterei Penim that became Chaser, and he offered them outside, he is liable. "La'asos Oso" was written about Shechutei Chutz, but not about Shechutei Penim, for we return Pok'in;

The other holds that he is exempt, like R. Yishmael above, and he holds that we do not return Pok'in;

However, [if he offers] four or five limbs, all agree that he is liable for each.

Question: Why is he not liable for the second k'Zayis? Granted, we do not return Pok'in. In any case, if he cuts a limb into several k'Zeisim, he is obligated to offer all of them. If so, this is Haktarah! Why is he not liable for it outside?

Answer: The reason he must offer all of them is not because Haktarah of half a limb is considered Haktarah. Rather, it is all one Haktarah. Once he began, he finishes;

However, if we return Pok'in, that it is Chaser and it is Huktar with the rest, from this we can learn that Haktarah of half a limb is considered Haktarah. It seems that this is correct.

Explanation #2: Rashi explained differently. (Reish Lakish says that all agree that one is liable only for the last limb. The Tana'im argue about if the last limb was offered half at a time, or it flew off the fire and he returned it. R. Yochanan says that the verse discusses every limb. The Tana'im argue about whether or not one is liable for offering outside Mukterei Penim that became Chaser.)

Explanation (Rashi): "Oso" excludes less than a k'Zayis, for it is not full Haktarah, like we expound below (109b).

Question: Why do we need a verse to exclude less than a k'Zayis? Where do we find that the Torah obligates for Chetzi Shi'ur?!

Half a k'Zayis is Chetzi Shi'ur, for we do not find liability for Haktarah of less than a k'Zayis, not for intent, and not for anything, except for [Haktarah of] Se'or or honey, according to one opinion, due to verses.

Answer: Perhaps since we return Pok'in less than a k'Zayis, one might have thought that he is liable outside, if not that the Torah wrote "Oso".

Implied question: Above (107a), R. Akiva obligates for Mukterei Penim that were Chaser and he offered them outside!

Answer: That is only a case like Eimurim or limbs of an Olah that were Chaser. They are not disqualified through this;

However, if a Minchah became Chaser, or Ketores or Levonah became Chaser, it is Pasul due to Chisaron. He is exempt (if he offered them outside), like the Mishnah below (109b) "if any of them became Chaser Mashehu, and he offered them outside, he is exempt";

Regarding an Olah, it was taught (109a) that one is liable for Ha'alah of a k'Zayis of Olah and the Eimurim, and they join to a k'Zayis to offer them outside and to be liable for them for Pigul, Nosar and Tamei;

Inference: The Gemara [there] connotes that we discuss when they were left over (the blood was not thrown), for the Beraisa teaches Olah and Eimurim, yes (one is liable), but Shelamim and its Eimurim, no, and we establish it when they were left over, like R. Yehoshua.