Implied question: We can establish it to discuss the [last] three Matanos of Chatas. We said above (38b) that regarding outside, they are like initial [Matanos]!

Answer: [The Makshan] understands [that v'Chazar v'Nasan b'Chutz refers to real] Shirayim, similar to the Seifa of two buckets, [he threw] one inside and one outside. One would not be Docheh the other unless he put all [the Matanos from it].

Explanation: Zerikas Dam uproots Me'ilah from the meat of Kodshei Kodoshim. So it exempts the meat of the other [animal, e.g. what was Hukdash in place of it] from Me'ilah.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): It is due to [the law of] a Chatas whose owner atoned [through another animal], for we hold that one may not benefit from Chatas ha'Mesah, but Me'ilah does not apply to it.

Question: In Me'ilah (6b), in a Mishnah, R. Akiva said that one who separates his Chatas and it was lost, and he separated another in place of it, and afterwards the first was found, and both are standing...

[Do you not admit] that just like its blood exempts its meat (from Me'ilah), it exempts the other animal's meat?!

We say in the Gemara (7a) that R. Elazar said that R. Akiva said so only when he slaughtered both of them at once, but not if he slaughtered one after the other.

If it is considered like Chatas ha'Mesah, also when he slaughtered one after the other (one should exempt the other)!

Explanation #2: Rather, surely since it was slaughtered before Zerikas Dam of the other, it is proper to atone. It is not considered Chatas ha'Mesah;

This is the reason for the distinction between [Shechitah] at once or one after the other. At once, he may throw the blood of whichever he wants. Therefore, it exempts the meat of the other.

Support: The Sugya proves like this.

Observation: According to the opinion in Temurah (23a) that all agree that if one atones through (i.e. offers) the Einah Avudah (it was not lost. Rather, it was Hukdash to replace the Avudah), that the Avudah must die, here we discuss in every case that the second must die, according to Rebbi;

And there is an opinion there that they argue about when the person comes to ask. When he took one of them based on his own determination and offered it, all agree that the second dies, for he intended to reject it;

When he asks, Rebbi agrees that if he atoned through the Avudah, the Einah Avudah grazes (until it is blemished...);

Here we discuss when he slaughtered the Einah Avudah inside, and the Avudah outside.

Question: Why does it say "it is like Rebbi"? Also Rabanan do not argue about this!

Inference: When it taught "was lost", this is only if it was lost.

Question: In Me'ilah (7a), a Beraisa teaches "R. Shimon says, when I went to Kfar Pani... my son, you say so? If one separates a Chatas and it was lost, and he separated another in place of it..."

You are forced to say that R. Shimon does not distinguish, for R. Shimon holds that it is never Ro'eh, like it says in Pesachim (97) and Temurah (15a)!

Answer: In Me'ilah, he does not come to teach this Chidush (the distinction between when it was lost, and when two were Hukdash from the beginning), rather, to teach that Zerikah helps for Yotzei. He mentioned one of the [Chidushim];

However, our Mishnah comes for the Chidush (distinction), for ["what is this like?...] is not so similar. It was mentioned only to teach that it is Rebbi (who distinguishes Avudah from two that were Hukdash from the beginning).

Note: Shitah Mekubetzes Kesav Yad and Tzon Kodoshim say that the following begins a new Dibur.

Citation: One of them was an Olah from the beginning.

Explanation: Even according to the opinion that Akirah (declaring it to be a different Korban) is needed, a lack of Akirah is not considered Chisaron in such a case that it is destined for Akirah.

Implied question: Why is this unlike what it says below (114b) "if so, he should be liable Lishmah, since it is proper Lo Lishmah!", and it answers that it is lacking Akirah?

Answer: There, it is not destined for Akirah.

Question: According to R. Shimon, why must a male Chatas die? We say in Horiyos (6b) and in Temurah (15b) that [the tradition for] the five Chata'os (that must die) were taught in one case. We cannot find the child of a Chatas (one of the five) regarding a male Chatas!

Answer: Our Mishnah is unlike R. Shimon.

Implied question: It says in Temurah (23a) regarding goats of Yom Kipur "the second grazes according to R. Shimon", and we infer "regarding an individual, it would die"!

Answer: It does not refer to [an individual's Chatas that is] a male, like these [Chata'os Tzibur, which are males], rather, to a female.

Alternative text: In most Seforim, the text says "he burned it."

Support: In Parah (4:2), the Mishnah says that if he burned it outside its Gas, it is Pasul, and the same applies to Shechitah, for there is no Chiyuv for Shechitah or Ha'alah (offering), like is proven in the Gemara;

The Gas was enacted primarily for burning, for it is like a crater, like the Aruch explained. They burn it there and gather its ashes.