R. Chiya bar Aba: R. Yochanan had no doubt about mere intent (it has no effect, like the Mishnah clearly says);

He was unsure about intent recognized through his actions, e.g. if an Olah was in the south part of the Azarah, and he took it to the north (where it must be slaughtered) and slaughtered it.

Does this prove that he intended to slaughter it like a Korban?

Or, perhaps he just did not find room to slaughter in the south?

Question: R. Yochanan already taught the law of intent recognized through actions!

(Mishnah): If Reuven took his produce up to the roof so the mites will leave it, and dew came on it, since he did not intend for it to get wet, it is not Huchshar (able to receive Tum'ah);

If he wanted it to get wet, it is Huchshar.

If a Cheresh, lunatic or minor took it up, even if he intended, it is not Huchshar, because their actions take effect but not their intent.

(R. Yochanan): If he flipped the produce over so the other side will get wet, it is Huchshar.

Answer: He was unsure if it takes effect mid'Oraisa or mid'Rabanan.

Version #2 - Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak - (R. Chiya bar Aba citing R. Yochanan) Question: Does the action of a minor take effect?

Question (R. Ami): He should ask whether a minor's intent takes effect!

Surely, he knew the Mishnah that teaches that a minor's intent has no effect. The same Mishnah teaches that his actions take effect!

Answer: He was unsure if his actions take effect mid'Oraisa or mid'Rabanan.

Answer (R. Yochanan): His actions take effect mid'Oraisa; his intent has no effect, even mid'Rabanan;

When his intent is recognized through actions, this has effect only mid'Rabanan.

Question (Shmuel): What is the source that if Kodshim are slaughtered without intent, they are Pesulim?

Answer (Rav Huna): "He will slaughter the bull" teaches that when slaughtering, he must intend for the bull.

Question (Shmuel): I knew that. I ask what is the source that if he did not, b'Di'eved, it is Pasul.

Answer (Rav Huna): "You will slaughter it willingly" - you will slaughter it knowingly. (The extra verse teaches that b'Di'eved, it is Pasul.)

(Mishnah): If a Nochri slaughters, the animal is a Neveilah, and it has Tum'as Masa (one who moves it becomes Tamei).

(Gemara) Inference: It is Neveilah, but one may benefit from it.

Question: Like whom is our Mishnah?

Answer (R. Chiya b'Rebbi Aba): It is not like R. Eliezer. He holds that (we assume that) a Nochri is always thinking about idolatry. (His Shechitah is for the sake of idolatry).

(R. Ami): The Mishnah says that if a Nochri slaughters, the animal is a Neveilah, but if a priest (of idolatry) slaughtered, the animal is (assumed to be) an offering to idolatry.

From our Mishnah, we derive the same law that a Beraisa teaches;

(Beraisa): If a priest (of idolatry) slaughters, the animal is an offering to idolatry;

His bread is forbidden like bread of Kusim; his wine is Yayin Nesech (a libation to idolatry); if he wrote Seforim (of Torah, Nevi'im or Kesuvim) they are like the prophecies of idolaters; his produce is (assumed to be) Tevel;

Some say, his children are Mamzerim.

The first Tana holds that he does not allow his wife to have relations with others.

Question (Mishnah): If a Nochri slaughters, the animal is a Neveilah (but one may benefit from it);

We should be concerned lest he is a priest!

Answer (Rav Nachman): There are not priests among the Nochrim.

Objection: We see that there are!

Correction: Rather, most Nochrim are not priests.

Rav Nachman holds like R. Chiya bar Aba.

(R. Chiya bar Aba): Nochrim in Chutz La'aretz are not true idolaters. They merely continue the customs of their ancestors.

(Rav Yosef bar Minyomi): There are not priests among the Nochrim.

Question: Regarding what law was this taught?

Suggestion: It was taught regarding Shechitah.

Rejection: We forbid Shechitah even of a Yisrael who is a priest to idolatry, and all the more so of a Nochri priest!

Answer #1: We do not push him into a pit when the opportunity arises.

Rejection: We push even a Yisrael who is a priest to idolatry, and all the more so, a Nochri priest!

Answer #2: (Rav Ukva bar Chama): We accept Korbanos from him.

(Beraisa): "From you" connotes not from all of you, to exclude a Mumar. "From you (Yisrael)" teaches that within Yisrael there is a distinction (from whom we take Korbanos), but not among Nochrim.

Question: Perhaps the verse teaches that we take Korbanos from Tzadikim within Yisrael, but not from the wicked, but we do not take from any Nochri!

Answer (Beraisa): (The repetition) "Ish Ish" includes Nochrim, to teach that they may vow and bring Nedarim and Nedavos like Yisrael.

(Mishnah): It has Tum'as Masa.

Question: This is obvious. Every Neveilah has Tum'as Masa!

Version #1 - Answer (Rava): The Mishnah teaches that this animal has Tum'as Masa. This implies that another case has Tum'as Ohel, i.e. something offered to idolatry, according to R. Yehudah ben Beseirah.

Version #2 - Answer (Rava): The Mishnah teaches that Shechitah of a Nochri has only Tum'as Masa. It does not have Tum'as Ohel, even if it was slaughtered to idolatry. This is unlike R. Yehudah ben Beseirah.

(Beraisa - R. Yehudah ben Beseirah) Question: What is the source that something offered to idolatry has Tum'as Ohel?

Answer: "They clung to Ba'al Pe'or, and ate of the Korbanos to the dead" equates idolatry and the dead;

Just like a corpse has Tum'as Ohel, also offerings to idolatry.

(Mishnah): If one slaughters at night, or if a blind person slaughters, it is Kosher.

(Gemara): 'If one slaughters' is b'Di'eved.

Contradiction (Beraisa): One may slaughter anytime, and anywhere, by day or at night, on the roof or the head of a ship.

Answer (Rav Papa): It is permitted at night by the light of a torch.

Support (Rav Ashi): In the Beraisa, the case of at night resembles the other case, i.e. by day, when he can see.;

In the Mishnah, the case of at night resembles the other case, i.e. a blind person, who cannot see.

This is conclusive proof.