If somebody offers up the meat of a korban (offering) together with the eimurim, with the limbs that are supposed to be burned on the Mizbeach (altar), then the meat connected to the eimurim—even in a situation where the meat is not supposed to be burned on the Mizbeach, but is supposed to be eaten by the person bringing the korban and not burned on the Mizbeach—the person is still liable for offering up the eimurim outside the spot where they are supposed to be. Even though the meat here seems to be a separation between the eimurim and the Mizbeach, we still say that the person is chayav (liable).
The chiddush (novel point) of this part of the Mishnah is to tell us that I may have thought something different. I may have thought that since the meat here, which is not supposed to be brought on the Mizbeach, is serving as a separation between the eimurim and the actual coals or the wood of the Mizbeach, this interruption would have made the korban pasul (invalid). It would have made it problematic and invalid if it was offered in the proper spot. And we have a rule, like we’ve been saying: if the korban would have been invalid in the chatzer, in the courtyard of the Bet HaMikdash, and a person offered it outside the Bet HaMikdash, in an improper spot, then we would think that we say the person’s pasul, because it would have been invalid if it was offered in the right spot. But anyway, only a valid korban becomes problematic outside the Bet HaMikdash. So you may think that over here, since the meat, which is not supposed to be together with the eimurim, is together with the eimurim, that serves as a hatsitza, serves as a separation, and therefore it’s an invalid korban. And ka mashma lan, the Mishnah here is coming to tell us that the meat and the eimurim are considered to be the same kind of material; they’re both meat. Therefore, when the eimurim are burned together with the meat, the meat is not a hatsitza, and the korban is valid. So we’re saying over here that a person is chayav, he’s liable, if he brought this type of korban outside.
A similar type of case is where the non-Kohen (priest)’s mincha (meal offering) is offered up together with the kometz (scooped portion). Mincha shelo nikmetzah, ve-hikrivah ba-chutz, the mincha offering that did not have the kometz separated from it, and someone offered up the entire flour, the entire mincha, together, outside the Bet HaMikdash, in the improper spot. Patur, he’s not liable, because a mincha where the kometz has not been separated is not fit to be burned on the Mizbeach in the proper spot. So therefore, if it was offered up outside the proper spot, a person would not be held responsible.
But if he took the mincha, separated the kometz, and then the kometz was returned to it, and then he offered it in its entirety—both the regular mincha and the kometz that was put back into it—on the Mizbeach, outside the proper spot, Chayav, the person is guilty, he’s liable. He is responsible in that situation for bringing an offering outside with the kometz that’s together with it, just like the case of the first Mishnah, where we said it was a problem when the korban was offered up outside together with the eimurim. Likewise, over here, the fact that the kometz was already separated means that the person fulfilled his obligation of separating the kometz. So even if it was put back and then offered up on the Mizbeach, the kometz was once separated, so therefore it’s a valid korban. Likewise, over here, when burned outside the proper spot, it’s a valid korban being burned there, so therefore a person would be held liable.