Question #3: She is allowed to eat Terumah (even though mid'Oraisa she is a Zar)!

Answer: She may eat only Terumah mid'Rabanan.

Question #4 (Beraisa): If a Zar ate Tamei Terumah, he pays Chulin Tehorim (it becomes Terumah);

Sumchus says, if he paid Chulin Teme'im b'Shogeg, the payment is valid. If he was Mezid, it is not payment;

Chachamim say, in either case it is payment (it becomes Terumah), and he must pay also Chulin Tehorim.

Question: If he was Mezid, why is the payment invalid? He should be blessed! He ate something that a Kohen cannot eat when he is Tamei, and paid something that a Kohen may eat when he is Tamei! (Even though it becomes Terumah when the Kohen receives it and then the Kohen cannot eat it, the Zar paid more than the value of what he ate. Why is he fined?)

Answer (Rava): The Mishnah is abbreviated. It means as follows:

If he ate Tamei Terumah, he pays anything. If he ate Tahor Terumah, he pays Chulin Tehorim;

Sumchus says, if he paid Tamei Chulin b'Shogeg, the payment is valid. If he was Mezid, it is not payment;

Chachamim say, in either case it is payment, and he must pay also Chulin Tehorim.

Summation of Question #4: Mid'Oraisa the payment is valid. If the Kohen would be Mekadesh a woman with it, she is Mekudeshes. Chachamim said that it is not payment, and they permit an Eshes Ish to marry someone else!

Answer: No. 'It is not payment' means only that he must also pay Chulin Tehorim.

Objection: If so, Sumchus agrees with Chachamim!

Answer (Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika): They argue about whether or not we fine Shogeg lest one transgress b'Mezid (and say that he was Shogeg).

Question #5 (Beraisa): If Dam became Tamei and it was thrown on the Mizbe'ach:

The Korban is Meratzeh if this was b'Shogeg, but not if it was b'Mezid.

(Beraisa): The Tzitz is Meratzeh for Dam, meat and Chelev that became Tamei, whether Mezid or Shogeg, whether willingly or unwillingly, for an individual or the Tzibur.

Summation of question: Mid'Oraisa, in either case it is Meratzeh. Chachamim decreed that b'Mezid it is not Meratzeh. The Korban brought in its place is Chulin ba'Azarah!

Answer (R. Yosi bar Chanina): It was not Meratzeh to permit eating the meat, but it was Mechaper (no other Korban is brought).

Question #6: In any case, the Mitzvah of eating the meat is uprooted!

"V'Ochlu Osam Asher Kupar Bahem" teaches that Kohanim eat and the owners receive Kaparah.

Answer: Chachamim can command us to refrain from performing a Mitzvah.

Rav Chisda: I was going to ask you about other Mitzvos that are uprooted:

Arel and Haza'ah (Chachamim decreed not to bring Korban Pesach within seven days after being circumcised, and not to sprinkle Mei Chatas on Shabbos, even if this prevents one from bringing Korban Pesach), a circumcision knife (one may not transgress an Isur mid'Rabanan to bring it, even if this prevents Milah on day eight on Shabbos);

A linen garment (is exempt from Tzitzis), the sheep brought with Lechem ha'Panim on Shavuous (if they were slaughtered Lo Lishmah, if it is Shabbos one may not throw the blood), Shofar and Lulav (we do not fulfill them on Shabbos);

Now that you answered that refraining from a Mitzvah is not considered uprooting a Mitzvah, the same answer applies to all of these.

Question #7 (Beraisa): "Listen to him", even if a prophet tells you that now it is necessary to transgress a Mitzvah, like Eliyahu (offered Shechutei Chutz) on Mount Karmel!

Answer: That is an exception, for it says "Listen to him"!

Question #8: We should learn from it (that Chachamim may uproot Mitzvos)!

Answer: There is different. It is to correct a breach. (Yisrael were serving idolatry, so Eliyahu showed them that "Hash-m Hu ha'Elokim".)

Question #9 (Beraisa - Rebbi): If a man sent a Get with a Shali'ach and disqualified the Get, it is void;

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, he cannot disqualify it or add conditions to it. If he could, Beis Din's enactment has no power!

Summation of question: Mid'Oraisa, the Get is invalid. Because we are concerned for the power of Beis Din, we permit a married woman to remarry!

Answer: Anyone who is Mekadesh does so according to Chachamim's rules, and they retroactively uprooted the Kidushin (of one who is Mevatel a Get).

Question (Ravina): This explains one who is Mekadesh with money (retroactively the money was a gift). How can we answer for one who was Mekadesh through Bi'ah?

Answer (Rav Ashi): Chachamim converted his Kidushin to Bi'as Zenus.

Question #10 (Beraisa - R. Eliezer ben Yakov): Beis Din can lash and punish not according to Torah, not to transgress Torah, but to make a fence for Torah;

A case occurred in which a man rode on a horse on Shabbos in the days of the Yevanim, and Beis Din stoned him. He did not deserve this, but it was necessary at the time.

It once occurred that a man had Bi'ah with his wife under a fig tree, and was lashed for it. He did not deserve this, but it was necessary at the time.

Answer: Fixing a breach is different (this is not called uprooting. The question is not resolved.)

(Mishnah): (If her husband returned after she remarried,) neither man becomes Tamei to engage in her burial.

Question: What is the source for this?

Answer: A Kohen may become Tamei "Ki Im li'Sh'ero". We learned that this refers to his wife;

Contradiction: It also says "A husband will not become Tamei (for his wife)!"

Resolution: He becomes Tamei for a permitted wife, but not for a forbidden wife.

(Mishnah): Neither man receives her Metzi'os...

Chachamim enacted that a man receives his wife's Metzi'os to avoid resentment. Here, we are happy that there should be resentment (to ensure that he divorce her)!

(Mishnah): Nor her earnings ...

Chachamim enacted that a man receives his wife's earnings, because he feeds her. Here he does not feed her, so he does not get her earnings.

(Mishnah): Neither man can annul her vows ...

The Torah empowers a man to annul his wife's vows so she should not become repulsive to him. Here, we want her to be repulsive to him!