Clarification: Rashi explains that even if the animal became a Neveilah on Yom Kipur, the Isur of Yom Kipur would not take effect, seeing as it was already Asur because of Eiver min ha'Chai.

Question: The Ri queries this however, in that, when Eiver min ha'Chai is removed, that of Yom Kipur and Neveilah ought to take effect simultaneously, seeing as Rabbi Shimon concedes that by Isur bas-Achas',both Isurim take effect?

Answer: One can answer however, that even if the animal became a Neveilah on Yom Kipur, the Isur of Yom Kipur will not take effect, due to the Isur of Eino Zavu'ach was there before and has still not been removed.

Implied Question: Why is it that by Lulav (in Succah 32.) everybody agrees that it is written "Kapos" (without a 'Vav'), and that we do not go after the K'ri "Kapos" with a 'Vav',torequire taking two Lulavim?

Answer: The Ri answers that there we rely on on the Pasuk "P'ri Eitz Hadar" (regarding the Esrog),which implies only one.

Conclusion: Hence they agree there that we Darshen only the masores (regarding the Lulav).

Question: But here the Gemara is speaking about a Minchah that is baked in the oven, which was kneaded in warm water.So from where do we know that even it had to be mixed in the Azarah?

Question (cont.): Whereas other Menachos were mixed inside the Azarah, since it needed to be performed in a K'li Shareis)?

Answer #1: Also the Minchas Ma'afeh Tanur had to be kneaded inside the Azarah close to the ovens (which were Kodesh),in order that it should become Chametz.

Answer #2: Whilst Rabeinu Efrayim he'Gibor explains that it had to be kneaded in the Azarah, since it was measured with the Isaron of Kodesh

Source: As we learned in the Mishnah in Perek Sh'tei Midos (Menachos 87.) 'What purpose did the Isaron serve? They used to to measure all the Menachos'.

Implied Question: We cannot say that Maror refers to the olive which is bitter, like we Darshen in Sanhedrin (Daf 68:) "And behold a torn olive-leaf in its mouth" - The dove was saying to No'ach 'Let my food be bitter like an olive ... ''

Answer #1: Because later (on Daf 39.) the Gemara says 'Maror, like Matzah, must be a species of seed'.

Answer #2: Moreover, it is the olive-tree which is bitter and not the fruit, as is implied by the fact that the dove was holding "an olive-leaf" in its beak.

Question: If so, we will have to preclude all the five species, since Bikurim applies to their species

Question (concl.): And we need 'Lechem', since we precluded rice and millet (See Maharsha & Rashash).

Question: The Ri asks why the Ribuy should not include things that are of thes ame species as Bikurim, and the Miy'ut to preclude Bikurim itself?

Answer: And he answers that logic dictates that if one includes the one, one also includes the other.

Clarification: The Ri explains that we only need to establish it like Rebbi Elazar if 'Mechitzah Lik'lot' is D'Oraysa, but if it is de'Rabbanan, we will not need Rebbi Elazar ...

Clarification (concl.): Seeing as it can be eaten everywhere - bearing in mind that one may take it outside Yerushalayim, and redeem it.

Clarification: Rebbi Elazar himself however, may well hold that Mechitzah Lik'lot is de'Rabbanan, and he needs the Pasuk for where it became Tamei, to authorize redeeming it even inside Yerushalyim.

Question: But Ma'aser Sheini can be eaten in all the cities of Yisrael, when the Aron was in Nov and in Giv'on ...

Question (cont.): As we learned in the Mishnah in the last Perek of Zevachim (Daf 112:) 'Once they came to Nov and Giv'on, the Bamos were permitted: Kodshei Kodshim could only be eaten within the hangings, Kodshim Kalim and Ma'aser Sheini, in all the cities of Yisrael'?

Proof: And we will learn later that this is considered 'Ne'echalin be'Chol Moshvos', in connection with 'Chalos Todah and Rekikei Nazir', since Resh Lakish says there that Chalos Todah and Rekikei Nazir can be eaten in Nov and Giv'on, which is why he learns them from a different Pasuk - from "u'Shemartem", and not from "be'Chol Moshvoseichem" (from which he cannot learn them).

Question (concl.): And Bikurim too, can be eaten inNov and Giv'on and in all the cities of Yisrael, since why should they be any different?

Answer: In our Sugya, we preclude them from "be'Chol Moshvoseichem" exclusively during the era of the Beis ha'Mikdash, and not during the era of Nov and Giv'on ...

Conclusion: Whereas the Sugya later regarding ChalosTodah and Rekikei Nazir we need to learn them from "u'Shemartem" with regard to the era of Nov and Giv'on, but not to that of the Beis ha'Mikdash.

Implied Question: Even though many Tana'im Darshen the Masores and not the Mikra, and according to them, and would be Yotzei with Ma'aser Sheini, since they do not Darshen "Oni"?

Answer: Nevertheless, even though they consider the Masores more important, it is impossible that they do not Darshen something from the Mikra See Maharsha).

Question: Why does Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, not learn Ma'aser Sheini from "be'Chol Moshvoseichem", like Bikurim?

Answer: Because if not for "Oni", we would have thought that "be'Chol Moshvoseichem" comes to exclude Bikurim exclusively, but as for Ma'aser Sheini, which can have a Heter everywhere - namely, there where it became Tamei, like Rebbi Elazar, we would Darshen "Matzos" "Matzos" to include it.

Question: The Ri asks from the last Perek of Makos (Daf 17.), where we learned in a Beraisa "T'rumas Yadcha" - 'this refers to Bikurim'.

Question (cont.): Rebbi Shimon asks what this come to teach us? If it is the prohibition of eating it outside the walls, as the Torah stated at the beginning of the Pasuk "You may not eat them within your gates"?

Question (cont.): But we already know this via a Kal va'Chomer from Ma'aser (Sheini) which is more lenient!'

Question (concl.): Why does the Gemara not answer there that we need the Pasuk, since without it, we would not have been able to learn Bikurim from Ma'aser, bearing in mind that the Torah refers to it as T'rumah, as we learn here?

Answer: With regard to learning outside the walls, there is a stronger reason to learn it from Ma'aser, seeing as they both share the same Halachah, inasmuch as they both require K'ri'ah and bringing to Yerushalayim.

Clarification: This implies that Chalut ('scalded') is considered 'Lechem', but not 'Lechem Oni'.

Implied Question: And that what we will say shortly 'What is Chalas ha'Maseres'? - 'Chalut of Ba'alei-Batim', implying that it is not even called Lechem - seeing as the Gemara there exempts if from Chalah?

Answer #1: There it is speaking about one that is made with a soft dough, as Tosfos will explain there.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it speaks here where it is subsequently baked in an oven.

Question: This is difficult however, from the Gemara in 'ha'Choletz (Yevamos 40.) which states that 'Even if one scalded it initially, since one subsequently baked it in an oven or in a frying-pan, it falls under the category of Lechem. and one can be Yotzei one's obligation on Pesach with it?

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that, there too, it is speaking about a soft dough ...

Answer (concl.): Because, since before it was baked it was not bread at all, and after it has been baked it becomes bread, it is also considered Lechem Oni, since the dough is soft (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim).