1)

(a)According to Rav, a Yavam acquires his Yevamah completely with any of the inferior Bi'os mentioned in our Mishnah; According to Shmuel, he only acquires her regarding the two points mentioned in the Parashah - regarding acquiring his brother's property and to exempting her from Yibum.

(b)The difference between the two opinions is - that according to Rav, in the event that the Yavam is a Kohen, she is permitted to eat Terumah immediately, whereas according to Shmuel, she is not.

(c)One of the three ramifications of 'le'Potrah min ha'Yibum' is that should the Yavam die having had children from another wife, she is Muteres l'Shuk - the other two are: 1. that should he subsequently give her a Get, she does not require Chalitzah; 2. that her Tzarah is permitted to marry immediately.

(d)According to the first Lashon, even Shmuel will agree that he acquires her completely if she fell to Yibum after they were married - because she had already been eating Terumah when her husband died.

2)

(a)We establish the Machlokes between Rav and Shmuel by a Yevamah who fell to Yibum after being betrothed to the Yavam's brother. If she fell to him after being married to him, since she had already been allowed to eat Terumah then, she will be allowed to eat it now as well.

(b)Rav's reason is based on the fact that the Torah includes Bi'as Shogeg like Mezid; whereas according to Shmuel - the Torah only includes Bi'as Shogeg, to give her the same status as she had when she was with her husband, but not a higher one.

(c)In a case where the Yavam performed a proper Bi'ah - Shmuel will agree that he acquires her completely (even more than his brother had).

(d)Shmuel's interpretation of our Mishnah conforms with another statement issued by Rav Nachman in his name - that whenever her husband fed her Terumah, the Yavam may feed her Terumah too; and whenever he did not, he may not feed her either.

3)

(a)) We now query Shmuel from a Beraisa, which discusses a bas Yisrael who becomes betrothed to a Kohen who becomes a Cheresh before the marriage. According to the Tana, she will ...

1. ... not be permitted to eat Terumah, but ...

2. ... she will be permitted to eat Terumah - if he died, and she fell to a Yavam who was also a Cheresh (even though she was not able to eat before) ...

(b)... a Kashya on Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel - who holds that whenever a woman is not permitted to eat Terumah from her husband, she is not permitted to eat from the Yavam either.

(c)Rav Nachman therefore emends the Seifa of the Beraisa to read 'Kanas v'Achar Kach Nischaresh; Mes v'Naflah Lifnei Yavam, Ocheles' (where she had already been eating Terumah before her husband died).

(d)According to Rav Nachman, the final words of the Beraisa 'b'Zu Yafeh Ko'ach ha'Yavam mi'Ko'ach ha'Ba'al' - refer to the fact that the Yavam feeds her Terumah even if he was a Cheresh before she fell to Yibum, something which the husband could not do (as we learned in the Reisha).

4)

(a)In the second Lashon, Rav and Shmuel both agree that if she fell to Yibum from the betrothal, the Yevamah is not permitted to eat Terumah (by means of Ha'ara'ah). They argue over - whether she is permitted to eat Terumah if she fell to Yibum after they had been married. Rav holds like Shmuel held in the first Lashon; whereas according to Shmuel, she is not permitted to eat even though she had been eating beforehand, because the Torah only validated a weak Bi'ah by a Yavam with regards to the two issues mentioned in that Parashah, but not in any other regard.

(b)We now emend the statement of Rav Nachman quoting Shmuel, who said that whenever the husband fed his wife, the Yavam may feed his Yevamah, to read - 'Kol Bi'ah she'ha'Ba'al Ma'achil Bah, Yavam Ma'achil Bah ... '.

(c)'Bi'ah' in this context refers to - the Bi'ah after Chupah (before which the Yevamah will not be permitted to eat in the case of an inferior Bi'ah).

(d)Rav will explain the Beraisa (which permits a bas Yisrael who fell from a Kohen who had become a Cheresh before they were married, and who then fell to his brother who was a Cheresh, to eat Terumah), like Shmuel explained it in the first Lashon - but Shmuel has no way of explaining it. We remain with a Kashya on him.

5)

(a)A bas Yisrael married to a Kohen who became a Cheresh before the marriage, is permitted to eat Terumah - freom the moment she has a son from him.

(b)According to the Chachamim, if her son dies, she may no longer eat Terumah. Abaye refutes Rabah's contention that Rebbi Nasan permits her to eat because, since she has already eaten, she may continue to do so - on the grounds that, in that case, a bas Yisrael who was married to a Kohen, should be permitted to continue eating Terumah even after he dies, for the same reason.

(c)We do not apply the Sevara of 'Ho'il she'Kvar Achlah' in either case, because, once her husband dies, the Kedushas Kehunah departs from her, rendering the fact that she once ate superfluous.

(d)Abaye refutes Rav Yosef's contention that Rebbi Nasan's reason is because intrinsically, the marriage of a Kohen Cheresh feeds his wife Terumah, and Chazal did not decree on the marriage of a Cheresh on account of betrothal (which does not) - because, if that was the case, why would the Tana need to add the fact that a son was born to her (seeing as even without a son, she is permitted to eat)

6)

(a)We answer that the Tana only mentions 'the son' to teach us that when there is a son, the Rabanan concede that she is permitted to eat. We cannot explain that Rebbi Nasan really argues with the Rabanan even in the Reisha (in the case where there is no son), only he waited until the Rabanan had finished both of their statements before arguing with them - because, if that is so, the Tana should have quoted the Rabanan in the Reisha and then Rebbi Nasan: 'Mes ha'Ben, Einah Ocheles; Rebbi Nasan Omer, Ocheles'. By preceding Rebbi Nasan's opinion to that of the Rabanan, he indicates that Rebbi Nasan argues with the Rabanan specifically when there is a son, in which case it is clear that he only permits her to eat because of the son.

7)

(a)Rav Sheshes taught Rav Amram that the wife of a Yisrael who was raped, and who is permitted to her husband - is nevertheless forbidden to marry a Kohen (in the event of her husband's death).

(b)He tried to support his ruling from the Seifa of our Mishnah, which says that the same applies to someone who has relations with one of the Arayos - thinking that 'the same applies' refers to the Reisha, which states that there is no difference between Shogeg and Mezid, O'nes and Ratzon, yet the Tana concludes 'Paslah'.

(c)We try to refute his proof by explaining that 'v'Chen ... ' refers to Ha'ara'ah or to unnatural relations with any of the Arayos. But that cannot possible be correct - because this suggests that we learn Ha'ara'ah and she'Lo k'Darkah by Arayos from Yibum, when in reality, it is in connection with Arayos that the Torah writes 'Ha'ara'ah' and "Mishkevei Ishah", and it is Yibum that we learn from Arayos.

(d)We conclude that 'v'Chen ... ' might nevertheless refer to unnatural relations with regard to Chayavei Lavin (by whom "Mishkevei Ishah" is not written), negating Rav Sheshes' proof.

8)

(a)We emend Rabah's statement: 'Eishes Kohen she'Ne'ensah, Ba'alah Lokeh Alehah Mishum Zonah' - to read 'Af Mishum Zonah', because he certainly contravenes the Lav of Tum'ah ("Acharei Asher Hutama'ah ... Lo Yuchal Ba'alah ha'Rishon ... " [as we learned in the first Perek]).

(b)We learn that an Eishes Yisrael who is raped is permitted to her husband - from the Pasuk in Naso "v'Hi Lo Nispasah" from which Chazal infer 'Ha Nispasah, Muteres'.

(c)The Tana of the Beraisa learns from there - that there is another case, where the woman remains forbidden to her husband, even though she was raped; namely, that of an Eishes Kohen.

9)

(a)Rebbi Zeira queries Rabah from the Beraisa, where it appears that an Eishes Kohen who is raped is no more than a 'Lav ha'Ba mi'Klal Aseh' - which is considered an Aseh, for which there is no Malkus (so how can Rabah sentence him to Malkus?).

(b)Rabah answers - that initially, all women were included in the Lav of Zonah, only the Torah then precludes the wife of a Yisrael who was raped. When it then drops the wife of a Kohen from the preclusion, it is actually including her in the original Lav (in spite of the fact that the Lashon is that of an Aseh).

(c)According to the second Lashon of Rabah - an Eishes Kohen who is raped retains the Isur Tum'ah, but not that of Zonah, because a woman who is raped cannot be termed a Zonah.

(d)Rebbi Zeira poses the same Kashya on Tum'ah, as he asked on Zonah in the first Lashon, and Rabah gives the same answer. The reason that the Kohen is not Chayav because of Zonah too, according to this Lashon is - because Rabah now holds that there is no such thing as a Zonah b'Ones.

10)

(a)According to the Tana Kama (Rebbi Meir) of our Mishnah, the moment a Kohen Gadol betroths a bas Kohen who is a widow, or a Kohen Hedyot, a divorcee, she is already forbidden to eat Terumah. Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon maintain - that she remains permitted to eat Terumah until he is Bo'el her, and she becomes a Chalalah.

(b)Assuming that this Machlokes extends to a bas Yisrael (who is permitted to eat Terumah when she becomes betrothed to a Kohen, according to the Mishnah Rishonah in Kesuvos) ...

1. ... Rebbi Meir forbids her to eat Terumah - because she is waiting for a forbidden Bi'ah.

2. ... Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon nevertheless permit it - because firstly, she is his 'Kinyan Kaspo' (whom the Torah permits to eat Terumah), and secondly, because, as we explained, she does not become a Chalalah until he performs Bi'ah with her.

(c)Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon concede that, once they marry, she is forbidden to eat Terumah - because, as we just explained, she becomes a Chalalah.

(d)Should either of them divorce her or die after they are married, the bas Kohen remains forbidden to eat Terumah, and the bas Yisrael, to marry a Kohen. If they died after the betrothal (but before the marriage) - Rebbi Meir agrees that their respective Isurim become permitted, since he only forbade them as long as the betrothed men were alive, because they were waiting for a Pasul Bi'ah, but once they die, there is no longer any reason to forbid it.

11)

(a)Rebbi Meir learns the prohibition of the above women to eat Terumah (or to marry a Kohen) even after Erusin from a 'Kal va'Chomer' - from Kidushei Reshus (of a Yisrael who betrothed a bas Kohen), which does not permit her to eat Terumah, then how much more so will Kidushei Aveirah not permit the betrothed woman to eat Terumah.

(b)Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon reject Rebbi Meir's 'Kal va'Chomer' - on the grounds that whereas the Yisrael in Kidushei Reshus does not feed anybody Terumah, the Kohen in Kidushei Aveirah feeds Terumah to his other wives (who are not divorced or widowed).

12)

(a)Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Oshaya maintains that whether or not, a Kohen who is a Petzu'a Daka (whose Beitzim are crushed) may feed the bas Yisrael whom he betrothed, Terumah - depends on the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir (who forbids it) and Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon (who permit it).

(b)We refute this explanation however - on the grounds that even Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon will agree here, that she is forbidden to eat Terumah, because (unlike the Kohanim in our Mishnah, the Kohen Petzu'a Daka cannot feed anybody Terumah).

(c)We cannot answer that here too, he is able to feed a bas Gerim - because that was precisely what Rebbi Yochanan asked Rebbi Oshaya, and he was unable to answer him.