Implied question: In Kidushin (53a), we expound "l'Chol Bnei Aharon Tihyeh Ish k'Achiv"! (All are equally commanded to eat it.)

Answer #1: That refers to all Kohanim of the Mishmar, or of that Beis Av (whose turn it is to serve that week or that day, respectively).

Answer #2: Here we learn from an inclusion that the Kohen who offers it must eat from it, but he need not eat all of it.

Suggestion: Perhaps he may eat to for the sake of a meal, or eat it for the sake of the Mitzvah!

Rejection: One need not intend for the sake of the Mitzvah, just he may not eat it Achilah Gasah (gorging himself).

Question: In Nazir (23a), we bring "Hash-m's ways are straight. Tzadikim go in them, and transgressors stumble in them";

A parable for this is two men who roasted their Korbanos Pesach. One ate it for the sake of Pesach, and one ate it Achilah Gasah;

The Gemara implies that both of them were Yotzei. This shows that Achilah Gasah is considered eating!

Answer: There are two kinds of Achilah Gasah. (If he merely has no appetite, this is considered eating. If he is so satiated that he loathes eating, this is not considered eating - Tosfos Nazir 23a.)

Explanation (Rashi): This refers to "v'Ichluhu Matzos Etzel ha'Mizbe'ach..." written regarding the eighth day of the Milu'im.

Implied question: Shmuel (Menachos 19b) holds that we do not learn [Mitzvos that apply for all] generations from [those that applied only] once (a limited time)!

Answer: Perhaps there is something extra here [in the verse to teach that we learn to all generations].

Observation: This is unlike the usual "the Torah repeated it to make it be Me'akev." What would be the source for it to be Me'akev?!

Perhaps the Torah said for a Mitzvah not to do Chalut (scald in hot water)!

Conclusion: Rather, [here] Le'akev means that we require proper Matzah, and not Chalut.

Explanation: Also if he [later] baked it in a frying pan, it is called bread, and one is Yotzei [Achilas Matzah] with it on Pesach.

Implied question: In Pesachim (36b), we say that "Lechem Oni" excludes Chalut and Ashisha (a big bun)!

Answer #1 (R. Tam): That is when he did not bake it in an oven afterwards.

Answer #2 (R. Tam): There we discuss a large Chalut [loaf], similar to Ashisha. The reason it is not considered Lechem Oni is because it is big, but not due to Chalut.

Answer #3: There, it was mixed (kneaded) hard, and here it was mixed soft, like doughnuts or Chalas ha'Meshares (of a pan), which we explain there is Chalut of regular people [not professional bakers];

Only through baking, it is obligated in Chalah and it is considered bread. Therefore, it is properly considered Lechem Oni [after it is baked], even though he [initially] scalded it;

However, what was mixed thick is disqualified [for Lechem Oni], for it is considered rich bread, even if he did not bake it. (R. Simchah mi'Desvi - therefore, baking will not help.) I elaborated in Pesachim (36a).

Implied question: Above (23b), the Mishnah says "[if a man was Mekadesh one of two sisters and does not know which, and he died leaving two brothers,] one does Chalitzah and the other Yibum" This shows that [the other brothers are] permitted to the sister of the Chalutzah [and surely also her other relatives]!

Answer: There is different, for he (the one who does Yibum) can say that he married his brother's true wife. (The Chalitzah, which was done due to Safek, was not really Chalitzah.)

Implied question: Below (41b), a Mishnah says "if a man did Chalitzah to his Yevamah, and his brother married her sister..."

Answer: That was b'Di'eved.

Implied question: Why didn't we say "this shows that they did not decree Sheniyos regarding a Chalutzah"?

Answer: Below we conclude that they did decree.

Implied question: Why didn't we answer that the Tana omitted some cases?

Answer: He did not teach any Sheniyos, only women forbidden mid'Oraisa [to a husband].

Observation: Our entire Sugya is unlike Ameimar, like I explained above (21b).

Implied question: Why didn't we establish this to discuss the son of the daughter of the Saba (the deceased's father)?

Answer: [Surely,] it is like the son of the son, which does not refer to the son of the son of the Saba, for if it did, she would be the wife of his father's brother, an Isur mid'Oraisa! (R. Chiya listed Ben Bito among Isurim mid'Rabanan.)

Implied question: Why didn't the Mishnah teach his father's mother and his daughter's son?

Answer: The Tana omitted some cases.

Question: R. Chiya taught the number [of how many are forbidden, so we cannot say that he omitted some cases]. Why didn't he teach the son of his sister, and the son of his maternal brother?

Answer: He taught only four [mid'Rabanan], corresponding to four mid'Oraisa.