Question (R. Yehoshua): Are you not thereby burning Kodshim on Yom Tov (as the Chalah that remains in the oven will burn)?

Answer (R. Eliezer): It burns by itself (but the owner has done nothing).

Question (R. Eliezer - according to the text of the Korban Ha'Edah): Is he not transgressing Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei (when he leaves it to become Chametz)?

Answer: It is better to transgress a passive negative commandment (when the dough becomes Chametz) than an active negative commandment (of burning Kodshim).

(R. Pinchas): This dispute is the same as the dispute in the Mishnah there (in Maseches Zevachim) - Blood of a sacrifice that is put on the altar once that became mixed with blood of a sacrifice that is put on the altar once.....Blood from one that is put once was mixed with one that is put on 4 times - R. Eliezer says put it four times and R. Yehoshua says put it once.

R''E said to R''Y: Are you not thereby transgressing "Bal Tigra''- the prohibition of taking away from the Mitzvos?

R''Y replied: Are you not transgressing "Bal Tosif'' - the prohibition of adding to the Mitzvos?

R''Y concluded: It is better to transgress a passive negative commandment (Bal Tigra) than an active negative commandment (Bal Tosif). (Note: The Korban Ha'Edah again changed the name of the Tana in 3. as he did in (c) above).

Question: According to R. Eliezer, let him designate the Chalah after baking and then remove it from the oven? (He thereby avoids burning Kodshim.)

Answer: It may not be moved and he is going to remove it?

Question: Let him first remove it and then designate it?

Answer: Lest he forget and eat it as it could be confused with the other permitted loaves.

Question: So let him remove it and designate it and then carry it together with another matzah to the corner. (This technique would permit him to carry the Muktzah loaf).

Proof: It is similar to the Mishnah (in Maseches Shabbos) that one may carry Tahor Terumah together with Tamei Terumah and Chulin.

Rejection: In that Mishnah, he is moving the Tamei for the sake of the Tahor. Here, he is moving Chulin for the sake of the Tamei.

Question (Chevraya): Let him throw it into the garbage and then consecrate it?

Answer: Can a person consecrate something that does not belong to him?

Question: Let him consecrate it and then throw it in the garbage?

Answer: Can a person render ownerless something that does not belong to him?

Question (R. Yirmiyah): Let him break it up (into small pieces that will not be eaten), throw into the house and then declare it to be Chalah?

Objection: Did R. Yirmiyah himself not say (see earlier 45-1(g)) in the name of R. Zeira that two half-k'Zeisim in one house are not connected; but if in a vessel, the vessel connects them. And here he is suggesting breaking up the dough - (surely the small pieces will not connect)?!

Answer (R. Yosa): As long as it is still in the air of the house (and has not fallen to the ground), he may declare it to be Chalah - as the air of the house connects them for Chalah but the ground of the house does not.

(Beraisa): An animal and its child that fell into a pit (that may not be slaughtered on the same day), on Yom Tov -

R. Eliezer - Bring out the first animal to slaughter it and then slaughter it and the second animal should be supplied with food so that it does not die.

R. Yehoshua - Bring out the first animal to slaughter but do not slaughter and then, in pretense, bring out the second animal - even though he does not then plan to slaughter either of them, it is permitted.

Question (R. Bun bar Chiya): The opinion of R. Eliezer has been switched - There he prohibits acting in pretense, but here (see earlier 46-2(b) - I wish to eat this and I wish to eat this) he permits it?

Answer: Here, he is lenient to prevent the prohibition of Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei but there, why permit it?

Question: The opinion of R. Yehoshua has been switched - There he permitted acting in pretense but here he permits it?

Answer #1 (R. Idi): There it is a Rabbinic prohibition (of Muktzah to bring out an animal); here it is an severe prohibition (eating Chalah is punishable by death; alternatively one is liable for lashes for baking unnecessarily on Yom Tov).

Answer #2 (R. Yosi bar R. Bun): There, it is in order to save the property of Jews but here, why permit it?

R. Yitzchak and R. Yashia - one gave one answer and one gave the other (of answers #1 & #2).

R. Berachyah ruled like the statement of Ben Beseira (in the Mishnah earlier 46-1(c))

The end of the (next) Mishnah also indicates this, as it states there, "if the dough is beginning to become Chametz, she should wet her hands with cold water and rub it on the dough'', to cool it and prevent it from becoming Chametz.

R. Chizkiyah quoting R. Elazar disagrees as he says that whenever Rebbi taught a dispute and followed it with one (unnamed) opinion, the Halachah follows that opinion. (But here, it is a dispute followed by a dispute).