If a Bas Kohen married a Yisrael she may not eat Terumah. If he died and she has a son from him, she does not eat Terumah;

If she married a Levi, she eats Ma'aser. If he died and she has a son from him, she eats Ma'aser;

If she married a Kohen, she eats Terumah. If he died and she has a son from him, she eats Terumah;

If her son from the Kohen died, she may not eat Terumah. If her son from the Levi died, she may not eat Ma'aser. If her son from the Yisrael died, we apply "She will return to her father's house like when she was a Na'arah; she will eat from her father's bread."

(Gemara) Question: (In the Reisha) if her son from the Levi dies, she resumes eating Terumah due to her son (from the Kohen). What is the source for this?

Answer (R. Aba): We learn from "U'Vas (Kohen)".

Suggestion: This is like R. Akiva, who expounds 'Vav'!

Rejection: No. Even Chachamim agree here, since the entire verse "U'Vas..." is extra.

(Beraisa): She returns to eat Terumah, but not Chazah v'Shok.

Opinion #1 (Rav Chisda): We learn from "She will not eat bi'SeRUMas ha'Kodoshim" - what is MuRaM (lifted) from the Kodshim.

Opinion #2 (Rav Nachman): She eats "Mi'Lechem Aviha", but not all his food. This excludes Chazah v'Shok.

Question (Rami bar Chama): Perhaps the verse (discusses when she vowed not to eat some of his food, and it) teaches that her father does not resume authority to annul her vows!

Answer (Rava): We already know that from Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael:

(Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael) Question: What do we learn from "The vow of a widow or divorcee will stand"? She is not in the jurisdiction of her father or husband (obviously, no one can annul her vow)!

Answer: The case is, her father or his Sheluchim handed her over to the Sheluchim of the husband, and she was widowed or divorced on the way;

Is it as if she was still in her father's house? Or, is it as if she entered her husband's house?

The verse teaches that once she leaves her father's jurisdiction for a moment, he cannot annul her vows.

Opinion #3 (Rav Safra): She eats "Mi'Lechem Aviha" - bread, but not meat.

Opinion #4 (Rav Papa): She eats "Mi'Lechem Aviha" - food that her father owns. This excludes Chazah v'Shok, which he (does not own but) merits to eat from Hash-m's table.

Opinion #5 (Rava): "You will eat the chest and foreleg ... and your daughters with you" - when they are with you (but not after Nisu'in).

(Rav Ada bar Ahavah - Beraisa): A Bas Kohen who returns to her father's house eats Terumah, but not Chazah v'Shok. A Bas Yisrael who returns to eat Terumah due to her son eats even Chazah v'Shok (the above Drashos do not apply to her).

Objection (Rav Ashi): Since you learn (that she resumes eating due to her son) from "U'Vas Kohen (who returns to her father's house)", you cannot learn more than that case!

Answer (Rav Mordechai): In that case, the Torah excluded Chazah v'Shok. Here, it does not.

(Mishnah): If a Bas Kohen married a Yisrael ...

(Beraisa): "She will return to her father's house (after he dies)" excludes a Shomeres Yavam. "ki'N'ureha (like in her youth)" excludes if she is pregnant;

Question: A Kal va'Chomer should teach this!

A child from a previous husband does not count like a child from the latter husband to exempt a widow from Yibum, but a fetus is like a born child (to exempt);

A child from a previous husband counts like a child from the latter husband to disqualify a widow from eating Terumah, all the more so, a fetus should count like a born child (to disqualify)!

Answer: We cannot learn from this Kal va'Chomer:

A fetus is like a born child to exempt from Yibum, since children who die (after the husband) are like live children (to exempt);

We cannot say that a fetus should count like a born child (to forbid eating Terumah), since children who die are not like live children for this!

Therefore, we need "ki'N'ureha" to exclude a pregnant widow.

The Torah needed to write both ("ki'N'ureha" to exclude) a pregnant widow and "She has no seed":

Had it written only "She has no seed", we would think that she does not return to eat Terumah because she was one body and became two bodies, but a pregnant woman is still one body, so she would eat;

Had it taught only that a pregnant widow does not eat, we would think that this is because she was empty and now she is full, but one who had children is still an empty body, so she would eat.

(Rav Yehudah of Diskarta): A Kal va'Chomer should teach that dead children are not like live children regarding Yibum!

A child from a previous husband counts like a child from the latter husband to disqualify a widow from eating Terumah, but a dead child does not count like a live child (to disqualify);

A child from a previous husband does not count like a child from the latter husband to exempt a widow from Yibum, all the more so, a dead child should not count like a live child (to exempt)!

Therefore, it says "Its ways are ways of pleasantness..." to teach that once she is exempted from Yibum she is always exempt, even if the children die.

A Kal va'Chomer should teach that dead children are like live children regarding Terumah!

A child from a previous husband does not count like a child from the latter husband to exempt a widow from Yibum, but a dead child is like a live child (to exempt);

A child from a previous husband counts like a child from the latter husband to disqualify a widow from eating Terumah, all the more so, a dead child should count like a live child (to disqualify)!

Therefore, it says "she has no seed". If her seed died, this is fulfilled!

A Kal va'Chomer should teach that a child from a previous husband is like a child from the latter husband to exempt a widow from Yibum!

A dead child is not as a live child (to disqualify from Terumah), but a child from a previous husband counts like a child from the latter husband;

A dead child is like a live child (to exempt from Yibum), all the more so a child from a previous husband should count like a child from the latter husband!

Therefore, it says "He (her latter husband) does not have a son".

A Kal va'Chomer should teach that a child from a previous husband is not like a child from the latter husband to disqualify a widow from eating Terumah!

A dead child is like a live child (to exempt from Yibum), but a child from a previous husband does not count like a child from the latter husband;

A dead child is not like a live child (to disqualify from Terumah), all the more so a child from a previous husband should not count like a child from the latter husband!

Therefore, it says "she does not have (seed)", i.e. from any Yisrael!

(Mishnah): A man went overseas; they (really, one witness) told his wife that he died. If she remarried and her husband returned, the following fines apply:

She may not remain with either man; she needs a Get from both men; she does not receive from either man a Kesuvah, nor Peiros (of her property), nor food, nor Bala'os (compensation for depreciation, or remnants) of her property. If she received, she must return them;

If she has a child from either man, he is a Mamzer. If she dies, neither husband becomes Tamei to engage in her burial. Neither receives her Metzi'os (Hefker objects that she finds) or earnings. Neither may annul her vows;

If she is a Bas Yisrael, she is disqualified from Kehunah. If she is a Bas Levi, she is disqualified from Ma'aser. If she is a Bas Kohen, she is disqualified from Terumah;

The heirs of either husband do not inherit her Kesuvah. If the husbands die, the brothers do Chalitzah but not Yibum;

R. Yosi says, she receives a Kesuvah from her first husband;

R. Elazar says, the first husband receives her Metzi'os and earnings, and may annul her vows;

R. Shimon says, if the first husband dies and his brother did Yibum or Chalitzah, he exempted the Tzarah. If she has a child from the first husband, he is not a Mamzer;

If she remarried (according to two witnesses,) without (special) permission of Beis Din, she may return to her first husband.

If she was married through permission of Beis Din, she must leave (both husbands) and she is exempt from a Korban. If she was married without permission of Beis Din, she must leave and bring a Korban;

Acting according to Beis Din exempts from a Korban.

If Beis Din instructed her to remarry, and she was Mekalkel (messed up), she must bring a Korban. She was authorized only to remarry.

(Gemara): The Seifa says that if she married without permission of Beis Din, she may return to her first husband. 'Without permission' means according to witnesses;

Inference: The Reisha discusses with permission of Beis Din, i.e. through one witness. This shows that one witness is believed!

Support #1 (Mishnah): It became established to marry based on a witness who heard from a witness, or a woman who heard from a woman or slave.

This also shows that one witness is believed!

Support #2 (Mishnah): If one witness said 'You ate Chelev' and the person denied it, he is exempt.

Inference: He is exempt only because he denied it. Had he been silent, the witness would have been believed. This shows that one witness is believed mid'Oraisa.

Question: What is the source that one witness is believed?

Answer #1 (Beraisa): "Or if his sin became known to him (he brings a Korban)", but not if witnesses told him.

Suggestion: Perhaps he is exempt even if he does not deny it!

Rejection: "Or his sin became known to him" - he is liable no matter how he found out.

Question: What is the case?

If two witnesses came and he did not contradict them, we do not need a verse to obligate him!

Answer: Rather, one witness came and he did not contradict him. The witness is believed.

Objection (and rejection of Support #2): Perhaps the witness is not believed. Rather, his silence is admission to the witness' words!