Explanation (Rashi): This (that it is a Shelamim) is just Lishmah.

Inference: Rashi means that since it is a Shelamim, when he slaughters it l'Shem Shelamim, this is Lishmah.

Question: Also when he slaughters it l'Shem Olah or a different Korban, it is a Shelamim, like we said above (8b) - whatever he slaughters it for, it is a Shelamim!

Answer: In any case, since it is a Shelamim, it is Kosher Lishmah and Lo Lishmah, e.g. l'Shem Shelamim (is Kosher Lishmah) and l'Shem another Korban (it is Kosher Lo Lishmah).

Explanation: This refers only to Olah, and not to the others. (The Gemara discusses whether or not the others are Mechusar Zman.)

Reference: This Beraisa is brought [also] in Menachos (48b), and here and there the text says Pesulim.

It is also taught there in another Beraisa "they are Pesulim. After they become Nosar, they are burned in Beis ha'Sereifah."

Question: In Temurah (19b), a Beraisa teaches that if an Asham must be a yearling, and he brought a two-year old, or it must be two years old, and he brought a yearling, it is Kosher, but the owner was not Yotzei his obligation. R. Shimon says, they are not Kedoshim!

Answer: This (here) is when he offered them Lishmah, and this (in Temurah) is when he offered them Lo Lishmah.

Question #1: If so, this is difficult for Rav Huna - there is this case, which is Pasul Lishmah and Kosher Lo Lishmah!

Question #2: If in Temurah it is Lo Lishmah, why did it need to teach that he was not Yotzei his obligation? Even if he brought [an animal the proper age] like the Mitzvah requires, since it was Lo Lishmah, he was not Yotzei his obligation!

Question: This Sugya contradicts the Sugya above (107b), in which we expound that the Torah wrote "Oh" to include one who does Zerikah, [which teaches that] we could not learn from a Tzad ha'Shavah [of Shechitah and Ha'alah], and therefore Mekabel b'Chutz is exempt!

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Rav Chisda sat and said.

Explanation #2: It seems that "he sat and said" refers to Rav Huna.

Explanation #1: Like you said, Rav Asi said that va'Yishlach is Avodah through the Bechoros, but Chachamim stopped him and prevented him from saying so.

Explanations #2,3: The two versions in Rashi are primary. (That day, Avodah through Bechoros ceased. Alternatively, the verse has an Asnachta (the major pause in the middle of a verse) after "Bnei Yisrael", to show that it is not read together with what follows (va'Ya'alu Olos), for others, i.e. the Kohanim, offered them.)

Explanation: [Moshe] did not know whom [Hash-m discussed], but he knew that in the future, Hash-m will sanctify the Mishkan through a great person;

We say in the Midrash that Moshe said to Aharon "I thought [that it will be sanctified through the death of] me or you."

Citation (Toras Kohanim): The reward of this [silence] was that Hash-m's speech came to Aharon alone. It says in the Parshah forbidding to drink wine [before doing Avodah] "va'Ydaber Hash-m El Aharon", and it does not say "to Moshe."

Question: In the Sifri at the beginning of Parshas Korach, regarding the verse "va'Ydaber El Aharon", it says 'one might have thought that Hash-m spoke to Aharon. It is written "Ka'asher Diber Hash-m b'Yad Moshe Lo" in the Parshah of the incense pans. This teaches that Hash-m spoke to Moshe, that he will tell Aharon!'

Answer: Perhaps [the Tana of Toras Kohanim] calls this "His speech came to Aharon alone", that that it is written "El Aharon", and not [that Moshe should] tell Bnei Yisrael.

Observation: He could have brought from R. Yosi ha'Gelili, who said in Chagigah (6b, and below 120a) that [the Olah of Sinai] did not require flaying and dissection.