Explanation: It appears that he is only excluding a case were she is married to a non Kohen. However, if she is not married, since she is allowed to eat Terumah which is a strict matter, one can certainly give her Matnos Kehunah. However, it is possible that Rebbi Yishmael would say one should not give her these Matanos.

Explanation: This refers to Rav Kahana who was exiled (against his will) from Bavel to Eretz Yisrael in Bava Kama (117a).

Proof: He was not a Kohen, as is evident from the Gemara in Pesachim (49a) where he states that if he would not have married a Kohenes he would not have been exiled. (He understood it was a punishment for his being an Am ha'Aretz and having married a Kohenes, which is inappropriate. The Maharsha explains that since he was humble, he viewed himself as an Am ha'Aretz.)

Explanation: There was another Rav Kahana who was a Kohen, as is apparent from the Gemara in Kidushin (8a) which states that Rav Kahana took a turban (as a Kohen) for Pidyon ha'Ben. [See also Tosfos in Kidushin (8a, DH "Rav Kahana"), Bava Kama (110a, DH "v'Lo"), and Pesachim (49b, DH "Amar").]

Text: [The text should read] "What is the meaning of "the custom is?" It is that he gives half Matanos."

Implied Question: It does not say the two ways that it is like a domesticated animal at once. (Why separate them?)

Answer: This is because it is better to state blood and Cheilev one after the other, as they are always next to each other (rather than to put Cheilev together with Matanos).

Observation: The earlier Beraisa did not have this question because it did not say "he is obligated" but rather "the custom is."

Explanation: It must be that the case is when they all have blemishes, as one does not slaughter a Bechor unless it receives a blemish. If this case is where it was mixed into a bunch of animals and they do not recognize which animal it was, the others also must have blemishes (or else they would clearly be able to recognize the animal).

Explanation: They used to make a sign on the meat that was exempt from Matanos, and they would recognize these signs.

Question: Since the Kohen only owns half of the animal, why don't we say that half of it is exempt from Matanos and half is obligated? This should be like a deer that has relations with a sheep, regarding which the Rabbanan ruled that one should give half of the Matanos to the Kohen!

Answer: In that case, all of the sheep side of the animal is obligated in Matanos. In our case, only half of the sheep is obligated in Matanos, and it is therefore totally exempt.

Observation: In Bechoros (18b), there is an argument regarding two sheep, one which already had a firstborn and one which did not. Two males were born between the two of them. One he is allowed to keep, and one is given to the Kohen. The one he keeps should be put out to pasture until it receives a blemish, and is obligated in Matanos. Rebbi Yosi says it is exempt.

Observation (cont.): This Stam Mishnah is according to Rebbi Meir. This is because the Tosefta in Bechoros (ch.2) concludes "these are the words of Rebbi Meir." The Gemara explains that his reasoning is because the Kohen can argue both sides of the argument, even though he already took one of the animals.

Explanation: Accordingly, it is clear that the Gemara is asking a good question according to Rebbi Meir. Even Rebbi Yosi who argues on Rebbi Meir in Bechoros (ibid.) only does so because the Kohen cannot say, "If it is a firtsborn it is totally mine" since he already took one. However, in our case he will admit that the Kohen can say that if it is a firstborn, it is totally mine.

Explanation (cont.): The answer is that he sold it to a Yisrael with its blemish. Even Rebbi Meir who says in Bechoros (ibid.) that the animal is obligated in Matanos will say that this is only because it is obligated in Matanos to the Kohen whether it is a firstborn (in which case the entire animal goes to the Kohen) or not. However, in our case it is a total doubt, and the one who wants to take away from his friend must bring proof.

Explanation #1: This is referring to the butcher and not the people, which makes us unable to exclude a Kohen who is a butcher since it did not say "from the people who slaughter the animals." The extra Pasuk, "from the slaughterers" interrupted the topic in order to teach that every butcher must give Matanos, even if he is a Kohen, as long as the animal belongs to a Yisrael.

Explanation #1 (cont.): If the animal was his, even if it was only to be able to sell it, the Torah said he is exempt from Matanos. However, the Rabbanan decreed that if the Kohen is a butcher he should give Matanos even though it is his animal, in order that Yisrael butchers should not always take on Kohen partners in order to exempt themselves from Matanos.

Explanation #1 (cont.): For three weeks it is possible to say that he is slaughtering his own animals, and therefore the Rabbanan did not decree that he has to give Matanos during this time, and they left the Torah law in its place. After three weeks they decreed that he must give Matanos. However, if he opens a store, it is clear right away that he is not slaughtering for himself, and they therefore decreed immediately that he must give Matanos as is apparent later in our Gemara.

Explanation #2: This is unlike the opinion of Rashi who explains that the Kohen is obligated according to Torah law to give Matanos when he is slaughtering in order to sell.

Question #1: If Rashi is correct, why is he exempt for two or three weeks? Does the Pasuk say he can sell privately for three weeks?!

Question #2: Additionally, if this is a Torah law, it would be impossible that Rebbi Tavla would not know it!

Explanation #1: Rather, it is clearly a Rabbinic decree as we have explained above (a1). Rebbi Tavla did not know this Rabbinic decree until he was informed of it by Rav Nachman.

Explanation: It is practically as if he is eating actual Tevel, as we derive a Gezeirah Shaveh from Terumah to Matanos, as stated by the Gemara later (137a).

Question: The Gemara in Zevachim (90b) says that Kohanim are allowed to eat Kodshim in any way they want, whether it is roasted or cooked. The Gemara says (ibid.) that this is because the Pasuk says, "l'Mashchah" meaning for greatness, in a way that kings eat! (How can we reconcile this with our Gemara?)

Answer: It appears that a Kohen can eat Korbanos in any way that he likes to eat it. However, a person who likes roasted meat the same as cooked meat should eat it roasted, as it is a fancier way to prepare meat than cooking it.

Observation: The Gemara could have said that this is evident from the statement in the beginning of our chapter that those who hold onto the Torah of Hash-m have a portion. This implies that one who holds onto the Torah has a portion, even if he is not an expert.