Explanation: Because we hold like Chananyah, like I will explain b'Ezras Hash-m, [the Gemara] struggles to establish our Mishnah like him.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): If the Mishnah discusses returning, if so Shehiyah is permitted even if it is not Garuf. Therefore we distinguish between in it, which is real Hatmanah in hot coals, from on top of it.

Question #1 (R. Chaim): Chananyah permits even Shehiyah even inside, even if it is not Garuf, for the Mishnah (above, 19b) says that one may not leave a cake on coals, unless it formed a crust;

Inference: If it formed a crust it is permitted, even though the cake is inside!

Question #2 and Explanation #2 (Ri): Even without this, there was no need for Rashi to explain so. We can properly say that we distinguish between inside it from on top of it, due to the Heter to return to a Garuf [Kirah];

Only regarding Shehiyah, he (the opinion in the Gemara that holds that the Mishnah discusses returning) does not want to distinguish, but regarding returning, he is pleased to distinguish, like is proven from his answer "do you think that it refers to the Reisha? It refers to the Seifa...!"

Question (Ri): How did [this opinion] want to say according to Rav that our Mishnah discusses returning? If so, our Mishnah is like Chananyah, and Rav holds unlike Chananyah!

Source: Chananyah permits Mitztamek v'Yafeh Lo, for the Mishnah (19b) says that one may roast meat and an egg only if they can roast before Shabbos, is like Chananyah;

We say below (38a) that an egg is Mitztamek v'Yafeh Lo, and Rav forbids below, for it is Mitztamek v'Yafeh Lo!

Answer: Even without this (saying that our Mishnah discusses returning), Rav is not like any Tana, for R. Meir and R. Yehudah forbid when it is not Garuf, even Mitztamek v'Ra Lo, and Rav permits Mitztamek v'Ra Lo even when it is not Garuf;

[He cannot discuss] when it is Garuf, [for then] we do not find any Amora who forbids even [Mitztamek v']Yafeh Lo.

Also, Rav refers to R. Yochanan's teaching, which discusses Eino Garuf.

Observation: Similarly, below R. Yochanan (37b, is not like any Tana. He) permits hot water and a Tavshil that was fully cooked [even] when it is not Garuf. However, if it was not fully cooked it is forbidden.

Note: This refers to Rav Shmuel's teaching in the name of R. Yochanan. He permits a fully cooked Tavshil. He did not stipulate that the Kirah was Garuf. Also, Rav Sheshes cited R. Yochanan to permit even if it was not fully cooked, even if the Kirah was not Garuf. Even if we must say that Rav Shmuel and Rav Sheshes argue about R. Yochanan's opinion, we should minimize the argument, and say that Rav Shmuel discusses when it is not Garuf.

We do not find any Tana who holds like this.

Explanation: He asks when it is not Garuf. If our Mishnah discusses Shehiyah, he asks to do Shehiyah (near the Kirah) and return;

And if our Mishnah discusses returning, and permits Shehiyah even inside or on top, he asks about returning (nearby), and Shehiyah when it is not cooked k'Ma'achal Ben Drusai.

Explanation: We conclude that Semichah is permitted.

Limitation: We may not learn from here that Semichah is permitted near a fire. Here is different, for the walls of the Kirah interrupt between [the food] and the fire.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): If this Tavshil is Mitztamek v'Ra Lo, what does [Rav Yitzchak] come to teach?! (Rather, we must say that it is Mitztamek v'Yafeh Lo.)

Question #1 (Ri): He must teach unlike R. Meir and R. Yehudah. When it is not Garuf they forbid even hot water, which is Mitztamek v'Ra Lo!

Question #2: Since now we think that because it flamed up, it returned to the first status (before he put ashes), when [the Gemara] answers that here is different, because he put ashes, what was the question "what is the Chidush?"? This is properly needed, to teach unlike the initial Havah Amina!

Explanation #2 (Ri): Now we are thinking that it is not considered Katum at all, because it flamed up. [Rav Yitzchak] teaches that it returned to the first status;

If it were considered Katum, why does he say that it was fully cooked? Even if it was not fully cooked, it is permitted;

Even R. Meir, who is most stringent of all the Tana'im, permits hot water that was not fully heated, like we explained above (36b DH Chamin), that Stam hot water and a Tavshil were not fully heated.

[The Gemara] asks that this shows that Mitztamek v'Yafeh Lo is permitted, for we say below that a Stam Tavshil is Mitztamek v'Yafeh Lo.

[The Gemara] answers that here is different, because he put ashes. I.e. it is considered totally Katum. It is permitted even if it is not fully cooked;

Implied question: If so, why did he discuss fully cooked?

Answer: This teaches that if it were not Katum, even if it were fully cooked it would be forbidden, for it is Mitztamek v'Yafeh Lo.

Question: [The Gemara] asks "if so, what is the Chidush?" (What was the question? Rav Yitzchak teaches that if it is not Katum, it is forbidden!)

Answer: Even so, since he taught with an expression of Heter, this connotes that he comes to teach Heter.

Implied question: [Rav Yitzchak] teaches that [even though it flamed up,] it did not return to the first status!

Answer #1: [The Makshan] holds that he need not teach this. This is logical that it did not return to the first status.

Implied question: Initially, [the Gemara] wanted to say that it returns to the first status!

Answer: This is not because it is logical to say so. Rather, because [Rav Yitzchak] discusses when it is fully cooked, [the Gemara] wanted to say so, like I explained (d:1).

[The Gemara] answers that even so, [Rav Yitzchak] needed to teach this. One might have thought that [since the coals flared up, it is as if they were not covered]. R. Yitzchak teaches that this is not so

Answer #2: "Here is different, for he put ashes" does not mean that Katum totally helps [even though it flamed up]. Rather, it is only because it was fully cooked. If it was not fully cooked, it is forbidden, because it flamed up.

Support: Now it is fine that it mentioned here Katum and Huv'arah, and above it mentioned v'Nislavsah, for v'Nislavsah is [flaming up] less than Huv'arah, and it is totally like Katum.

The Gemara asks if so, what is the Chidush? Even without [Rav Yitzchak's] teaching, from reasoning I would say that it did not return to the first status, just like when Nislavsah it is permitted, even if it is not fully cooked! He should have taught an expression of Isur, and not an expression of Heter!

It answers that it needed to teach Huv'arah. If not for [Rav Yitzchak's] teaching, we would not know that it is permitted. We would have thought that it returned to the first status.

Pesak: R. Chananel rules like Rav Sheshes in the name of R. Yochanan, for Rava, who says that both of them were taught, holds like him.

Support: Also Rashi rules like him, for the Stam Mishnah above (19b) is like Chananyah, and Shehiyah is permitted even if it is not Garuf.

Limitation: Surely, returning is forbidden unless it is Garuf v'Katum, and even if it is fully cooked, like I explained above (36b DH Chamin).

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He teaches that if it formed a crust, it is fine.

Rebuttal: This is a simple inference. Since he taught "unless it formed a crust", automatically we know that if it formed a crust, it is permitted! (Rav Sheshes need not teach this.)

Explanation #2: He teaches what we infer from our Mishnah of a Kirah, that it discusses returning, and it is abbreviated and means...

Explanation: He asks about when it is not Garuf, and it is not fully cooked, or it is Mitztamek v'Yafeh Lo.