Answer (Rava): R. Ami is Mechayev here (Rashi - even though he merely left it; Tosfos - only if he moved the Se'or around in the dough), just like one is liable for roasting on Shabbos (when he turned it over.)

(Rabah bar bar Chanah): If one left meat over coals and turned over the meat, he is liable. If he did not turn it over, he is exempt.

Question: If the meat will not get cooked if he does not turn it over, this is obvious!

Answer #1: The meat will get cooked even if he does not turn it over.

Rejection: If so, he should be liable even if he does not turn it over!

Answer #2: If he does not turn it over, the meat will get cooked like Ma'achal Ben Drusai (food that was minimally cooked, i.e. a third or half-cooked) on one side. (The other side will get cooked even less). If he turns it over, it will get cooked k'Ma'achal Ben Drusai on both sides;

Rabah teaches that cooking k'Ma'achal Ben Drusai on one side is insignificant.

Version #1 (Rava): If k'Grogeres (the volume of a fig) becomes roasted on one side in one place, he is liable.

Question (Ravina): This implies that if the k'Grogeres is in two or three places, he is exempt! (This is not true!)

(Mishnah): One who drills a hole of any size is liable.

Question: What is the case?

If the hole is in one place, it is useless! (Surely, he is exempt.)

Answer #1: Rather, it is in two or three places. It is possible to join the holes (to make a long hole.)

Answer (and Answer #2 to Question (2) - Rav Ashi): Really, the hole is in one place. It is on the base of a key. A tooth can be inserted.

Version #2 (Rava): If k'Grogeres becomes roasted, even in two or three places, he is liable.

Support (Ravina - Mishnah): One who drills a hole of any size is liable.

Question: What is the case?

If the hole is in one place, it is useless!

Answer #1: Rather, it is in two or three places. It is possible to join the holes.

Rejection (and Answer #2 to Question (2) - Rav Ashi): Really, the hole is in one place. it is on the base of a key.

(Beraisa): Had it said "Asher Takrivu la'Shem Lo Se'aseh Chametz", we would know only that there is a Lav for fermenting the Kometz;

Question: What is the source that there is a Lav for the entire Minchah (before Kemitzah)?

Answer: It says "(ha')Minchah (Asher Takrivu...)"

Question: (This verse refers to Marcheshes.) What is the source for other Menachos?

Answer: It says "Kol ha'Minchah..."

"Asher Takrivu la'Shem" teaches that the Lav applies only to Menachos Kosher to be offered, but not to Pesulim;

This teaches that one who ferments a Kosher Minchah is liable, but one who ferments a Pasul Minchah is exempt.

Question (Rav Papa): If one fermented and again fermented after it left the Azarah, is he liable also for the second time?

Once it left the Azarah, it is Pasul, he is exempt (for future Chimutz);

Or, since it was already Pasul once it became Chametz, leaving the Azarah has no effect (so Mechametz after Mechametz is liable)!

This question is not resolved.

Question (Rav Mari): If one fermented a Minchah on top of the Mizbe'ach, what is the law?

"Asher Takrivu" does not apply, for it was already brought on the Mizbe'ach;

Or, since it was not Huktar yet, it is as if Hakravah was not yet done!

This question is not resolved.

Question: Since we learn (liability for the whole Minchah) from "Kol ha'Minchah", what do we learn from "Asher Takrivu (la'Shem)"?

Answer (Beraisa - R. Yosi ha'Galili): "Asher Takrivu" includes Minchas Nesachim. (One may not ferment it);

R. Akiva says, it (Tosfos - also) includes Lechem ha'Panim.

Question: Minchas Nesachim is kneaded only with oil. Flour with fruit juice (without water) will never ferment!

Answer (Reish Lakish): R. Yosi ha'Galili holds that one may knead Minchas Nesachim (also) with water, and it is Kosher.

Question: The Soles for Lechem ha'Panim is measured in a Kli for dry measures. R. Akiva holds that dry measures were not Niskadshu. They are not Mekadesh their contents! (How can one be liable for Mechametz? Lechem ha'Panim is not Kodesh until it is baked, and then it is already Matzah, so it cannot become Chametz!)

Answer (Ravin citing R. Yochanan): The opinions must be switched. R. Akiva includes Minchas Nesachim, and R. Yosi includes (also) Lechem ha'Panim.

This is like R. Yochanan holds elsewhere;

(R. Yochanan): R. Yosi ha'Gelili and a Talmid of R. Yishmael (R. Yoshiyah) agree with each other.

(Beraisa - R. Yoshiyah): "Va'Yimshachem va'Ykadesh Osam" - the wet measures were anointed with oil on the inside and outside (so they are Mekadesh whatever touches them from either side). The dry measures were anointed only on the inside;

R. Yonason says, the wet measures were anointed only on the inside. The dry measures were not anointed at all;

Support (R. Yonason, for himself): Regarding Shtei ha'Lechem it says "Chametz Te'afenah Bikurim la'Shem." They are "la'Shem" (fully Kodesh) only after they are baked. This shows that the dry measure was not Mekadesh them.

Question: What do R. Yoshiyah and R. Yonason argue about?

Answer: They argue about how to expound "Osam";

R. Yoshiyah says that "Osam" excludes the outside of dry measures;

R. Yonason says that dry measures are Chulin. We do not need a verse to exclude them. The verse excludes the outside of wet measures.

Question: Why didn't R. Yochanan say also that R. Akiva and a Talmid of R. Yishmael (R. Yonason) agree with each other (that dry measures were not Niskadshos)?

Answer: R. Akiva and R. Yonason disagree about wet measures. (R. Yonason says that only the inside is Mekudash. R. Akiva holds that also the outside is Mekudash.)

Question (Rav Papa): Why are Shtei ha'Lechem not Kodesh until they are baked? They are kneaded in a Bisa (a wet measure!)

Answer (Abaye): The verse discusses when they were kneaded on a hide.

Question: If so, R. Yonason has no proof that dry measures are not Mekadesh. Perhaps the verse discusses when the Soles was measured in a Chulin Isaron!

Answer: The Torah did not command to make a Bisa (kneading bowl), so it is reasonable that the verse discusses when a Bisa was not used;

The Torah commands to make an Isaron measure. Surely it does not discuss when a Chulin Kli was used in place of Kodesh!

(Beraisa) Question: What is the source that one is liable for Haktarah of any of the following?

Meat of Chatas, Asham, other Kodshei Kodoshim (that are eaten, i.e. Shalmei Tzibur), or Kodshim Kalim;

The Shirayim of the Omer, Shirei Shtei ha'Lechem (this will be explained), Lechem ha'Panim, or Shirei Menachos?

Answer: "Ki Chol Se'or v'Chol Devash Lo Saktiru Mimenu Korban Isheh la'Shem"- anything that is partially Huktar, one may not be Maktir the rest.

Question: No part of Shtei ha'Lechem or Lechem ha'Panim is offered!

(Beraisa): Shtei ha'Lechem and Lechem ha'Panim are excluded (from Hagashah) because no part of them is offered.

Answer (Rav Sheshes): The Beraisa means that no part of them themselves is offered. (The Lav of Haktaras 'Mimenu l'Ishim' applies to them, for they have Matirim that are offered, i.e. Kivsei Atzeres and frankincense.)

(R. Yochanan): If one brought any of these (Shirayim that it is forbidden to be Maktir) onto the ramp, he is liable;

(R. Elazar): He is exempt.

R. Yochanan learns from the following Beraisa:

(Beraisa): "Ha'Mizbe'ach" teaches that one is liable for bringing these onto the Mizbe'ach;

Question: What is the source to obligate for bringing onto the ramp?

Answer: "V'El ha'Mizbe'ach Lo Ya'alu l'Re'ach Nicho'ach." (Our text, 'l'Ratzon', is mistaken.)

R. Elazar learns from "Ki Chol Se'or v'Chol Devash... Korban Reishis Taktiru Osam la'Shem." Only regarding Se'or and Devash, the ramp is like the Mizbe'ach.