Zevachim 85A

לא תהא פחותה משוחט בחוץ ומעלה בחוץ.

nevertheless, the halakha with regard to one who slaughters an animal at night should not be less stringent than that of one who slaughters an animal outside the Temple and offers it up outside. With regard to that case, the Mishnah (106a) states that such a person is liable, even though an animal slaughtered outside the Temple is not fit to be offered on the altar inside the Temple and should descend from the altar even if it has ascended.

מתיב רב חייא בר אבין: השוחט עוף בפנים ומעלה בחוץ ⁠– פטור. שחט בחוץ ומעלה בחוץ ⁠– חייב. נימא: לא תהא פחותה משוחט ומעלה בחוץ!

Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin raises an objection to the statement of R' Yoḥanan from a Mishnah (111a): One who slaughters a bird inside the Temple courtyard and then offers it up on an altar outside the Temple is exempt, as a bird offering is supposed to be pinched at the nape of the neck and not slaughtered with a knife. But if he slaughtered the bird outside the Temple courtyard and offered it up outside the Temple courtyard, he is liable to receive karet. According to R' Yoḥanan, let us say that the halakha with regard to one who slaughters an animal inside the Temple should not be less stringent than that of one who slaughters an animal and offers it up outside the Temple. Why, then, is such a person exempt?

תיובתא. איבעית אימא: שחיטת העוף בפנים ⁠– מיקטל קטליה.

The Talmud responds: This is indeed a conclusive refutation, and the statement of R' Yoḥanan is rejected. The Talmud adds a possible explanation: If you wish, say that one cannot derive the halakha of a bird slaughtered inside the Temple from that of a bird slaughtered outside of it, because in the case of the slaughter of a bird inside the Temple, it is considered as if he killed it. By contrast, in the case of an animal slaughtered at night within the Temple, although it is disqualified, it is still considered a slaughtered animal, and its status may therefore be derived from that of an animal that is slaughtered outside the Temple.