Clarification: Rashi explains that one may eat it on Pesach and there is no suspicion of Chametz; 'And one is (even) Yotzei one's obligation on Pesach' - on the first night of Yom-Tov, when eating it is obligatory ...

Clarification (cont.): ... and it is not comparable to the flour and doughs of Nochrim, about which the Gemara Paskens in Pesachim (Daf 40a) that 'One may fill one's stomach with them, provided one eats a k'Zayis of Matzah at the end'.

Question: Pirkei de'Rebbi Eliezer (Perek 38 [See also Masores ha'Shas]) rules that 'Anyone who eats the bread of a Kuti, it is as if he has eaten Chazir'?

Answer: That refers to bread that the Kuti kneaded and prepared at home, but the dough which a Kuti prepares in the house of a Yisrael is permitted.

Halachah: It also seems that when it says 'A person is Yotzi his obligation', it speaks where the Kuti eats from it too; otherwise one will not have been Yotzei one's obligation ...

Reason: ... since they do not hold of "Lifnei Iver Lo Siten Michshol" (Nidah 57a).

Clarification: This refers to a Kohen who comes to marry a Kohenes ...

Clarification (cont.): ... whom he needs to examine because we want her son to serve on the Mizbe'ach ...

Refuted Explanation: One cannot however explain that it is speaking about a Yisrael who comes to marry a Kohenes and who wants her son to be Kasher for Kehunah ...

Refutation: ... because then why does it mention 'Kohenes', since even if she was a Chalalah, her son would be Kasher for Kehunah? ...

Refutation: ... seeing as 'B'nei Yisrael are a Mikveh Taharah for Chalalos' (later on Daf 76a).

Refuted Explanation: Rashi attributes the examination to a Chashash Mamzerus.

Refutation: But this is not correct, since, in answer to the question 'Why is she too not obligated to examine him, the Gemara answers 'Ksheros are not forbidden to marry Pesulim' ...

Refutation (cont.): What does this mean? - Certainly they are forbidden to marry Mamzerim ...

Refutation (concl.): ... seeing as even the opinion that says that they are not forbidden, only refers to marrying a Chalal, but not a Mamzer?

Authentic Explanation: We must therefore explain that the Mishnah in only worried about Chalalus, but not about Mamzerus, which is of no concern at all ...

Reason: ... since Yisrael recognize the Mamzerim among them.

Question: The Mishnah however, says that 'By a Leviyah and a Yisre'elis, one adds one (mother)' - And if the examination was exclusively on account of Chalalus, why would a Leviyah and a Yisre'elis require Bedikah ...

Reason: ... because, seeing as her father is a Levi or a Yisrael, there cannot possibly be a P'sul of Chalalus ...

Source: Since all opinions agree that 'B'nei Yisrael are a source of Taharah for Chalalus, the daughter of a Yisrael who marries a Chalalah is Kasher li'Kehunah.

Answer: Although the basic Bedikah and Takanah is on account of the P'sul of Chalalus, they also examine for Mamzerus, wherever Chalalus does not apply, such as by a Leviyah and Yisre'elis ...

Answer (cont.): ... Whereas by her, where the P'sul of Chalalus does not apply at all - seeing as 'The P'sulos are not forbidden to marry P'sulin', there is no need to examine for Mamzerus either.

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam explains in Seifer ha'Yashar that the need to examine is specifically to be Machshir their sons or themselves for the Avodah, but not to feed them T'rumah, for which Bedikah is not necessary ...

Proof: ... as the Gemara says in Perek ha'Ishah she'Nis'armelah (Kesuvos Daf 24a, & Tosfos DH 'Aval') - 'I am a Kohen and my friend is a Kohen', he is believed to feed him T'rumah but not to marry him a wife'.

Question: Why does the Tana not include 'Ein Bodkin mi'Shetaros u'Lema'alah? ...

Source: Considering that the Gemara says in the second Perek of Kesuvos (Daf 24b) 'Ma'alin mi'Shetaros le'Yuchsin'.

Answer: This would not be a Chidush, seeing as it is a genuine testimony.

Question: And why does he not include 'Ein Bodkin mi'Nesi'as Kapayim u'Lema'alah', and 'mi'Terumah u'Lema'alah'? ...

Source: ... as the Gemara says in the second Perek of Kesuvos (Ibid.) 'Ma'alin mi'Terumah le'Yuchsin'.

Answer: That too, is not a Chidush, seeing as it only pertains to Kohanim; but the Mishnah 'Ein Bodkin min ha'Mizbe'ach u'Lema'alah' is a Chidush ...

Answer (cont.): ... seeing as it is speaking even about Avodos that can be performed by Zarim - such as Shechitah and Hefshet (skinning).

Implied Question: ... even though women and Avadim are eligible to Shecht (Zevachim 31b) ...

Answer: ... that is Bedi'eved, but Lechatchilah, only Kesheirim who are Meyuchas may Shecht (See Masores ha'Shas).

Correct Text: This is Rashi's version of the text.

Rejected Text: Which does not read 'be'Masa ha'Am' ...

Reason: Since that is written in connection with the Shechinah (in Bamidbar 11) - whereas the current Pasuk is written in Yisro, and 'be'Masa ha'Am' does not appear there.