Explanation #1: According to Rashi, when we say that 'K'ruchin' helps, that is specifically with regard to T'rumah - inasmuch as if he is a Kohen, and he verifies the Yichus of the woman, he does not need to verify that of the children in order to feed them T'rumah.

Introduction to Question: This implies that in any event, they need to be K'ruchin in order to be fed T'rumah ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): ... whereas in Perek ha'Ishah she'Nisarm'lah (Kesuvos, Daf 25b), in a case where someone says 'This is my son and he is a Kohen', the Gemara cites Rebbi, who rules that 'He is believed to feed him T'rumah but not to allow him to marry a Meyucheses' ...

Question: ... so we see that 'K'ruchin Acharehah' is not necessary'?

Answer: Rebbi is a Tana and he argues (with our Mishnah).

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam however, explains that Rebbi concurs with the opinion that says there (Daf 24b) that 'One cannot raise a Kohen from T'rumah to Yuchsin' ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): ... and the reason he is believed to feed him T'rumah is because it is in his power to feed him ...

Explanation #2 (concl.): ... whereas our Mishnah holds like the opinion that says there that 'One can raise a Kohen from T'rumah to Yuchsin'.

Explanation #2 (cont.): ... and he explains the Gemara here as follows: 'They only said (that he is believed) regarding Kodshei ha'Gevul - all issues regarding with Kedushah, such as T'rumah, Duchening and marring a Meyucheses ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): ... 'but not regarding Yuchsin' - to have him sentenced to death; if he says 'This is my son and that is his mother, with whom the former had relations', where he is not believed.

Explanation #2 (concl.): ... and that explains what the Gemara says 'And Rebbi Yochanan follows his reasoning, where he said "One can even sentence to stoning and burning based on Chazakos" '.

Explanation #1 (cont.): ... whereas according to Rashi who explains 'but not for Yuchsin' - that he is not believed regarding his son serving on the Mizbe'ach' ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): ... we will have to explain that the proof from 'Soklin ve'Sorfin al ha'Chazakos' means that 'Kal va'Chomer' he will be believed regarding Yuchsin.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains 'to play around in the trash-heap'.

Question #1: Seeing as the child is not Vaday Tamei, why does the Tana refer to 'A child whom one finds beside the dough', and not simply 'a child who touched dough'?

Question #2: Moreover, the Tosefta (of Taharos, Perek 3 - See the Beraisa) attributes the child's Tum'ah to the fact that women who are Nidos hug him and kiss him', and here he says that it is because they play around in the trash-heap?

Explanation #2: Rabeinu therefore explains that the child is definitely Tamei, as the Tosefta explains, and it mentions ' ... whom one finds beside the dough with a small piece of dough in his hand' because now there is a Safek as to whether he rendered the dough Tamei by taking a piece from it ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): ... or whether perhaps a Tahor person entered and took the piece from the dough and handed it to the child. And it is in this point that Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim argue ...

Explanation #2 (concl.): 'Rebbi Meir says 'Tahor' - because we rely on a Tahor person; 'And the Chachamim say Tamei' - since it is the way of a child to play around with the dough, and we therefore assume that he took it himself.

Proof: And they argue in similar vein in the Tosefta with regard to a child whom we find beside a grave holding roses, and we do not know whether the child picked them or whether a Tahor person handed them to him ...

Proof (cont.): Rebbi Meir says Tahor and the Chachamim, Tamei.

Clarification: And the majority is as if it didn't exist.

Introduction to Question: At the beginning of the last Perek of Yevamos (Daf 119a) the Gemara says in connection with 'A woman whose husband went overseas together with her Tzarah (rival wife), and she subsequently hears that he died' ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): 'Rebbi Meir forbids her to marry or to perform Yibum, since the Rov (majority) of women fall pregnant and give birth, in which case the Tzarah gave birth and the remaining wife is Patur from Yibum.

Introduction to Question (cont.): A minority of women however, miscarry - and Rebbi Meir therefore says 'Put the minority together with the Chazakah', seeing as she had a Chazakah of being Zekukah le'Yibum when her husband went overseas, at which point he had no children ...

Introduction to Question (concl.): ... it is fifty-fifty - the minority together with the Chazakah against the majority of women who fall pregnant and give birth - and she can therefore neither marry nor perform Yibum.

Question: Why do we not say the same here?

Refuted Answer: And if you will answer that this is indeed the case, and the reason that Rebbi Meir declares the child Tahor is because a child is considered 'Something that does not have the intelligence to be asked' and 'Any Safek that does not have the intelligence to be asked is Tahor even in the R'shus ha'Yachid'.

Refutation: ... the Gemara will shortly state that 'The Chachamim gave him the Din of something that does have the intelligence to be asked.

Answer: This is not considered an important Rov but a poor one, and a minority together with a Chazakah can therefore negate it.

Proof #1: A proof that it is not importanqt lies in the Gemara that will shortly say that 'The Chachamim gave him the Din of something that does not have the intelligence to be asked, which is why we declare the dough Tamei ...

Proof #1 (cont.): And if it was an important Rov, we ought to have declared it Tamei even if he does not have the intelligence to be asked.

Proof #2: And anyway, we have to say this, because if we didn't, there would be a Kashya on the Rabbanan, who - in the case where the husband went overseas and his wife heard that he died - permitted her to marry ...

Proof #2 (cont.): ... because they hold that the minority is considered nonexistent, in which case we apply the principle 'Ruba ve'Chazakah, Ruba Adif' ...

Proof #2 (cont.): ... why does Rebbi Yochanan then say here according to the Rabbanan that 'This is not a Chazakah on which one burns T'rumah'?

Proof #2 (concl.): It must be because it is not an important Rov - as opposed to there, where she is permitted to marry - since there the Rov is important.

Introduction to Question: (The rest of the Dibur is a Gilyon - Maharsha). According to what Tosfos just wrote, we can answer the popular question that they ask in connection with the two things that do not have the intelligence to be asked but they gave the the Din of one that does - and it includes the case of 'the Child' ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): Why, they ask, does the Gemara establish it by one who does not have the intelligence to ask, and not attribute it to the fact that the Rabbanan hold that the 'minority is as if it is nonexistent', and 'Ruba ve'Chazakah, Ruba Adif' ...

Question: ... in which case it will be Tamei even though the child does not have the intelligence to be asked, since this is not a Safek Tum'ah, but Vaday Tum'ah?

Answer: ... this proves that it is not an important Rov, and had the Chachamim not ascribed to it the Din of one that can be asked, they would not have declared it Tamei).

Clarification: This implies that according to the Rabbanan, one may not be Misyached with two women even if he is together with his wife ...

Clarification (cont.): ... and even Rebbi Shimon is only lenient when his wife is with him if there are two women, but not when there is only one.

Introduction to Question: The Gemara in Perek Ein Ma'amidin (Avodah-Zarah) in connection with the Mishnah forbidding a woman to be Misyached with a Nochri asks how it is speaking - 'If there is only one, correspondingly by a Yisrael, is it permitted? Does the Mishnah not say 'Lo Yisyached ... ' ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): ... and the Gemara concludes that it speaks where the Nochri's wife is with him - and whereas the wife of a Nochri does not protect her husband; the wife of a Yisrael does' ...

Question: Seeing as the Gemara does not establish it like Rebbi Shimon, it implies that it goes even according to the Rabbanan, who permit even one women when his wife is with him?

Answer: The Ri therefore explains that, according to the Rabbanan too, it is only forbidden if one is not accompanied by one's wife (See also Hagahos ve'Tziyunim) ...

Amended Text: And this is how the text reads 'Rebbi Shimon says that even one man may be Misyached with two women ...

Amended Text (cont.): ... and if his wife is with him, he may even stay with them overnight in an inn, since his wife protects him'.

Amended Text (concl.): And this (the Seifa) goes even according to the Rabbanan, and even with one woman.

Version #1: Rabeinu Chananel cites the story of a certain woman who was weeping and mourning at her husband's graveside. A man in the vicinity, whom the king had ordered to guard the body of someone who had been hanged, accosted her and seduced her to sin with him ...

Version #1 (cont.): Upon his return he discovered that the body was no longer there, and he feared the king's reaction, The woman calmed him down and instructed him to take her deceased husband from his grave and to hang him up in its place.

Conclusion: ... so we see that even at a time of mourning the Yeitzer-ha'Ra overpowered her.

Other Versions: Rashi however, gives two different versions of the story ...

Version #2: In his first version he has the wording 'And the Rabbanan hold like the incident of a certain woman where they took him (the child) out ... ' ...

Clarification: ... and the Gemara is citing the Rabbanan counter-argument in that 'Even if one controls one's Yeitzer as you (Aba Shaul) claim, one can suspect that sometimes there is no mourning, and they are merely pretending to carry out a dead child, and go out in order to sin' ...

Version #2 (cont.): ... like the story of that woman - who took out a live child, on the Chazakah that he was dead, in order to commit a sin with the man who accompanied her to (ostensibly) bury it.

Clarification: Whereas in his second version, he omits the word 've'Rabbanan', and it is all the words of Aba Shaul ...

Clarification (cont.): ... who says "Why does a person complain about his sins" (says Hash-m)? 'Suffice the life that I have given him' ...

Version #3: ... like the story of that woman - as cited in Seifer Chasidim - concerning a woman who had seven sons. When one of them died, she began to weep (uncontrollably), upon which they warned her to desist, otherwise another son would die ...

Version #3 (cont.): She did not desist and a another son died; and this continued until all her sons dies, and eventually so did she - because she complained about Hash-m's Midas ha'Din.

Conclusion: According to this version, he does not have the text 'There was a case and she took him out'.