Meilah 3B

קלטוה מחיצות לכל דבר.

it is admitted by the partitions of the courtyard for all matters; and from that point onward it has the status of a burnt offering sacrificed in the Temple with regard to all halakhot.

בעי רבי אלעזר: [עולת במת יחיד שהכניסה, שנפסלה] ⁠– עלו, מהו שירדו?

The Talmud continues: In this regard, R' Elazar asks: In the case of a burnt offering consecrated to be sacrificed on a personal altar that one brought into the Temple courtyard and it was rendered unfit for sacrifice, e.g., it was slaughtered in the south rather than its proper place in the north, if its limbs ascended the altar to be sacrificed, what is the halakha as to whether they should descend? Although the animal was disqualified due to the change in location, had it been slaughtered in the south on a personal altar it would not have been disqualified.

מדקמיבעיא ליה לחדא, מכלל דאידך פשיטא ליה, אי כרבה אי כדרב יוסף.

The Talmud concludes: From the fact that R' Elazar asked this question only with regard to this one case, one can conclude that in the other case, where the burnt offering was consecrated for sacrifice in the Temple, the halakha of the limbs that ascended the altar is obvious to him. He either holds that the halakha is that they are not sacrificed, in accordance with the opinion of Rabba, or he maintains that they are sacrificed, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef.

חדא מגו חדא קמיבעיא ליה:

The Talmud rejects this inference, as it is possible that R' Elazar was actually uncertain with regard to that case as well; but he raises one dilemma as a result of the other. In other words, R' Elazar was asking two questions, one predicated on the other, and the second question is valid regardless of whether he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabba or Rav Yosef.