(Reisha): "(The remainder of a Minchah after Kemitzah) Matzos Te'achel b'Makom Kadosh" is a Mitzvah!

Initially (before it was made Hekdesh), it was permitted. It became forbidden (when it was made Hekdesh), and was permitted again (after the Kometz was offered).

Suggestion: Perhaps it returns to its initial Heter!

Rejection: "Matzos Te'achel b'Makom Kadosh" - this is a Mitzvah.

We understand according to Rava, who says that the Beraisa is Chachamim. "Matzos Te'achel b'Makom Kadosh" is a Mitzvah;

Initially, it was permitted - he may eat it or not. It became forbidden, then again permitted.

Suggestion: Perhaps it returns to its initial Heter!

Objection: Surely, this cannot be! "v'Achlu Osam Asher Kupar ba'Hem" teaches that Kohanim (must) eat to enable a full Kaparah for the owner of the Korban!

Correction: Rather, perhaps if he (the Kohen who offered it) wants, he eats. If not, another Kohen will eat!

Rejection: "Matzos Te'achel b'Makom Kadosh" - it is a Mitzvah (for him to eat).

Question: R. Yitzchak bar Avdimi established the Beraisa like Aba Sha'ul. What two types of eating are there?

You cannot say that he may eat with appetite, or Achilah Gasah (gorging oneself to the point of nausea). The latter is not considered eating!

(Reish Lakish): If one ate Achilah Gasah on Yom Kipur he is not liable for "Lo Se'uneh" (not fasting).

Answer #1: Rather, he may eat it as Matzah or as Chametz.

Objection: It says, "Lo Se'afeh Chelkam Chametz"!

(Reish Lakish): Even the Kohanim's portion may not be baked as Chametz.

Answer #2: Rather, they may eat it as Matzos or scalded.

Question: What is the status of scalding?

If it is Matzah, surely it may be eaten this way!

If it is not Matzah, he does not fulfill "Matzos Te'achel..."!

Answer: Really, it is Matzah. The Torah requires eating proper Matzah.

Question: Regarding what is scalding like Matzah?

Answer: A person is Yotzei Matzah with it on Pesach.

Even though he first scalded it, since he later baked it in an oven if is called "Lechem Oni".

(Mishnah): If one did Chalitzah to his Yevamah, he is like a regular brother regarding inheritance. If the father is alive, he inherits the deceased;

If he did Yibum, he inherits the deceased;

R. Yehudah says, in any case, if the father is alive the father inherits the property.

(Gemara): This is obvious (that he is like a regular brother)!

Answer #1: One might have thought that Chalitzah is in place of Yibum, and he should inherit the deceased;

The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.

Objection: If so, why does it say that 'He is like one of the brothers'? It should say 'he is only like one of the brothers!'

Answer #2: Rather, one might have thought that since he prevented her from doing Yibum, she should be punished. The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.

(Mishnah): If the father is alive...

A father inherits before any of his descendants.

(Mishnah): One who does Yibum (inherits the deceased).

This is because he fulfilled "Yakum Al Shem Achiv".

(Ula): The Halachah follows R. Yehudah.

(Ula): R. Yehudah learns from "And the firstborn that she will bear" - just like a firstborn does not receive in the father's lifetime, also one who does Yibum.

Question: If so, we should say that just like a Bechor receives a double portion when the father dies, also one who does Yibum!

Answer: It does not say 'Yakum Al Shem Aviv (his father)', rather, "Al Shem Achiv".

Question: We should say that there is a Mitzvah of Yibum only when there is no father, and the Yavam inherits the deceased!

Answer: Yibum does not depend on inheritance. He does Yibum, and if he inherits, he inherits.

(R. Chanina Kara): The Halachah follows R. Yehudah.

R. Yanai: Do not teach thusly in the Beis Medrash! The Halachah does not follow R. Yehudah.

(A reciter of teachings): The Halachah does not follow R. Yehudah.

Rav Nachman: Does the Halachah follow Chachamim? That is obvious, we rule like the majority!

The reciter: If so, I will discard this teaching.

Rav Nachman: Do not discard it. You were taught that the Halachah follows R. Yehudah. It was difficult to you (why we follow an individual), so you switched it. You were correct to do so.

(Mishnah): If Shimon died and Reuven did Chalitzah to Leah, he is forbidden to her relatives, and she is forbidden to his;

He may not marry her mother, grandmothers, daughter, granddaughters, and not her sister in her lifetime;

The brothers are permitted to her relatives. She is forbidden to Reuven's father, his father's father, his son, his son's son, his brother, and his brother's son;

A man is permitted to the relative of the Tzarah of his Chalutzah, but forbidden to the Tzarah of the relative of his Chalutzah.

(Gemara) Question: Did Chachamim decree Sheniyos regarding a Chalutzah?

Did they forbid Sheniyos only of Ervah mid'Oraisa, but not regarding a Chalutzah?

Or, did they not distinguish (and decreed even regarding a Chalutzah)?

Answer #1 (Mishnah): Reuven is forbidden to Leah's mother, grandmothers...

It does not list her mother's mother's mother (because we did not decree)!

Objection: Perhaps the great grandmother is really forbidden. The Tana omitted it because the Seifa teaches that the brothers are permitted to Leah's relatives. Had the Reisha included the great grandmother, one might have thought that the Seifa permits the brothers only to her, but not to Leah's mother and grandmothers.

Question: It could have included the Isur of the great grandmother, and said that the brothers are permitted to all of them!

This is left difficult.

Answer #2 (Mishnah): Leah is forbidden to Reuven's father, his father's father...

Suggestion: She is forbidden to them due to Reuven. Because of the Chalitzah, she is considered the daughter-in-law of the son of Reuven's grandfather. (This shows that we decreed Sheniyos regarding a Chalutzah!)

Rejection: No, it is due to Shimon (her deceased husband. She is truly Kalas Beno of Shimon's grandfather).

Answer #3 (Mishnah): Leah is forbidden to his (Reuven's) son's son (Kalev).

Suggestion: This is due to Reuven. She is the wife of Kalev's grandfather!

Rejection: No, it is due to Shimon. She is truly the wife of the brother of Kalev's grandfather.

Question: Ameimar permits the wife of the brother of one's grandfather!

Answer: Ameimar will explain that his son's son in the Mishnah refers to (Leah's nephew,) Reuven's father's son's son (Reuven's father was mentioned just before this).

Question: If so, why does the Mishnah explicitly forbid Reuven's brother and brother's son? (This is 'his son and his son's son'!)

Answer: 'Reuven's brother and his brother's son' forbids maternal brothers and nephews.

(R. Chiya - Beraisa): Four are forbidden mid'Oraisa [to a Chalutzah], and four mid'Rabanan. His (the Choletz') father, son, brother and brother's son are mid'Oraisa. His father's father, mother's father, the son of his son, and the son of his daughter are mid'Rabanan.

Suggestion: The father of his father is due to the Choletz, she is like his son's daughter-in-law (a Sheniyah)!

Rejection: No, it is due to the deceased (she truly is his son's daughter-in-law).

Suggestion: The father of his mother is due to the Choletz, she is like his daughter's daughter-in-law (a Sheniyah)!

Rejection: No, it is due to the deceased.

Suggestion: The son of his son is due to the Choletz, she is like his father's father's wife (a Sheniyah)!

Rejection: No, it is due to the deceased, she is like the wife of the brother of his father's father.

Question: Ameimar permits the wife of the brother of one's father's father!

Answer: Ameimar must say that it is due to the Choletz, i.e. we decreed Sheniyos regarding a Chalutzah.

Suggestion: The son of his daughter is due to the Choletz, she is like the wife of his mother's father (a Sheniyah)!

Rejection: No, due to the deceased, she is the wife of the brother of his mother's father.

Question: The wife of the brother of one's mother's father is permitted!

Conclusion: Rather, we must say that it is due to the Choletz. We did decree Sheniyos regarding a Chalutzah.

(Rav Tuvi bar Kisna): If one had Bi'ah with the Tzarah of his Chalutzah, the child is a Mamzer.

This is because she retains the Isur of Eshes Ach.

Support (Rav Yosef - Mishnah): A man is permitted to the relative of Tzaras Chalutzaso.

If the Tzarah is 'outside' (keeps her original Isur, for the Chalutzah was not like her Shali'ach), we understand why he may marry her sister.

However, if the Tzarah is like the Chalutzah, he should be forbidden to her sister (just like one is forbidden to Achos Chalutzaso)!

Suggestion: This refutes R. Yochanan!

(R. Yochanan): Neither the Choletz nor his brothers are Chayav Kares for Bi'ah with the Chalutzah or the Tzaros.

Rejection: Achos Chalutzaso is not forbidden mid'Oraisa. (Therefore, even if the Tzarah is like the Chalutzah, we need not say that the Choletz is forbidden to her sister.)

(Reish Lakish): Rebbi taught (in the coming Mishnah) that the sister of one's divorcee is forbidden mid'Oraisa, but Achos Chalutzaso is forbidden mid'Rabanan.

Question: Why is the relative of Tzaras Chalutzaso permitted, but the Tzarah of the relative of one's Chalutzah is forbidden?

Answer: Often, a Yevamah's relative (Rachel) accompanies her to Beis Din (for Chalitzah), so Chachamim decreed that Rachel's Tzarah not marry a brother (lest people think that Rachel did Chalitzah, and if Rachel's Tzarah marries a brother, it looks like Yibum after Chalitzah);

A Yevamah's Tzarah does not accompany her to Beis Din, so there is no need to decree.