1)

(a)We learn that an Eved does not invalidate his grandmother who is a bas Kohen who married a Yisrael, from eating Terumah if her husband died - from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "ha'Ishah vi'Yeladehah Tiheyeh la'Adonehah" (from which we see that the Eved goes after his mother who is a Shifchah, and not after his father's lineage).

(b)From the Pasuk "v'Zera Ein Lah" - we learn 'Ayin Alah', that, on the other hand, even a Mamzer will feed his mother who is a bas Kohen l'Yisrael, and invalidates her if she is a bas Yisrael l'Kohen (should their respective fathers die).

(c)We object to learning that a grandchild invalidates and feeds his grandmother from 'Ein Lah" ('Ayin Alah') - since we just used that Derashah for something else.

(d)So we learn it - from the Sevara 'Bnei Banim Harei Hem k'Banim' (as we learned in 'ha'Ba al Yevimto').

2)

(a)Resh Lakish asked Rebbi Yochanan whether the author of our Mishnah (which declares the son of an Akum v'Eved ha'Ba al bas Yisrael a Mamzer) must be Rebbi Akiva - because Rebbi Akiva holds 'Yesh Mamzer me'Chayavei Lavin'.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan replied - that even the Rabanan will agree that the child of an Oved Kochavim and an Eved ha'Ba al bas Yisrael is a Mamzer, as Rav Dimi Amar Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi quoted in the name of Rebbi.

3)

(a)The Beraisa cites the words of a frustrated grandmother, a bas Kohen, who blessed one grandson after his death, whom she referred to as 'Kuza' (a small jar - with reference to a Mamzer), but cursed another grandson when he died, whom she called 'Kada' (a large jar which is Chashuv - with reference to a Kohen Gadol).

(b)She did that - because the first grandson fed her Terumah, whereas the second one invalidated her from eating Terumah.

(c)The case was - where a bas Yisrael had a daughter from a Kohen who had relations with a Nochri or an Eved (or a Mamzer). Then after the death of her husband, she had a daughter from the Yisrael that she married. The daughter later married a Kohen and they bore a son who was fit to become Kohen Gadol (see Aruch la'Ner). The first Mamzer grandson fed her Terumah as long as he lived, whereas the second one invalidated her.

4)

(a)Arelim and Teme'im - are forbidden to eat Terumah ...

(b)... but their wives are permitted.

(c)The wives of a Petzu'a Daka and a Kerus Shafchah are forbidden to eat Terumah - because they become Chalalim through Bi'ah.

(d)The latter may eat Terumah however - as long as they have not been intimate from the time that their husbands became a Petzu'a Daka and a Kerus Shafchah.

5)

(a)A man whose one Beitzah is crushed - is a Petzu'a Daka.

(b)A Kerus Shafchah is not considered a Pesul Kahal - if even the slightest amount of flesh remains beyond the crown (the row of flesh that surrounds the Milah).

6)

(a)Rebbi Eliezer derives the prohibition of an Arel to eat Terumah, from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Toshav v'Sachir" (Emor) from "Toshav v'Sachir" (Bo) from Pesach. Rebbi Akiva derives it - from the extra word "Ish" in the Pasuk in Emor "Ish Ish mi'Zera Aharon v'Hu Tzaru'a O Zav", which comes to include an Arel, comparing him to a Tamei (about whom the Pasuk is speaking).

(b)We know that the Pasuk of "Ish Ish" refers to Terumah - because of the conclusion of the Pasuk "u'Va ha'Shemesh va'Taher, v'Achar Yochal min ha'Kodashim", since regular Kodshim still requires the Tamei person to bring his Korbanos on the following day, where necessary.

(c)Were it not 'Mufneh' (superfluous), Rebbi Eliezer would not be able to learn his 'Gezeirah-Shavah', because it could be dismissed on the grounds that Pesach has a Chumra over Terumah - inasmuch as it is subject to Pigul, Nosar and Tamei.

7)

(a)The Pasuk in Emor finds it necessary to write both "Toshav" and "Sachir" - because whereas the former refers to an Eved who is Kanuy Kinyan Olam (until the Yovel), "Sachir" refers to one who is Kanuy Kinyan Shanim (for six years).

(b)We initially think that - Sachir is Mufneh, because if a Kanuy Kinyan Olom is not permitted to eat Terumah, how much more so a Kanuy Kinyan Shanim.

(c)Nevertheless, the Torah found it necessary to write "Sachir" as well as "Toshav" - because, had it just written "Toshav", we would have translated it as a Kanuy Kinyan Shanim, and we would not have known that a Kanuy Kinyan Olam is not permitted to eat either. It is only after the Torah has written both, that we translate "Toshav" as Kanuy Kinyan Olam, and "Sachir" as Kanuy Kinyan Shanim.

8)

(a)"Toshav" and "Sachir" by Pesach cannot possibly refer to a Kanuy Kinyan Olam and a Kanuy Kinyan Shanim - because from the fact that they cannot eat Terumah, it is evident that their master does not acquire them fully (in the way that he does an Eved Ivri - see Tosfos DH 'Alma'). Consequently, the Torah could not possibly be informing us that they are Patur from the Korban Pesach, or that, because they are servants, they are restricted in any way.

(b)Despite the fact that it is only the phrase "Toshav v'Sachir" that is written by Pesach that is Mufneh, and Rebbi Eliezer himself holds that a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' that is Mufneh on only one side, can nevertheless be refuted by a Kashya, this 'Gezeirah-Shavah' is considered Mufneh on both sides - because, seeing as both "Toshav" and "Sachir" are Mufneh by Pesach, we place one ('Im Eino Inyan' - since it is not needed by Pesach) by Terumah, turning it into a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' that is Mufneh from two sides.

9)

(a)Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina learns from "v'*Chol Zar* Lo Yochal Kodesh" - that 'Zarus Amarti Lach, v'Lo Aninus', to teach us that an Onan is permitted to eat Terumah.

(b)If not for this Derashah - we would have forbidden a Kohen who is an Onan to eat Terumah, from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' of "Toshav v'Sachir" "Toshav v'Sachir" (from Pesach).

(c)And we know that an Onan is forbidden to eat Pesach - from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Ma'aser Sheni, which the Torah explicitly forbids an Onen to eat.

(d)We preclude an Onan from the prohibition of eating Terumah, from "v'*Chol Zar* ... ", and include an Arel from the 'Gezeirah Shavah' (and not vice-versa) - because Arelus is generally more stringent than Aninus (as we will now see).

10)

(a)Arelusis more stringent than Aninus in four respects, Aninus is more stringent in three. Two of the stringencies of ...

1. ... Arelus are that it is lacking an act on one's body and that it carries with it a Chiyuv Kares. The remaining two are - that the commandment to remove it existed before Har Sinai, and that the Milah of one's sons and Avadim also prevent a person from eating it.

2. ...Aninus are that it can occur many times in a person's life and because it pertains to women as well as to men. The third is - that there is nothing one can do to rectify it (until its duration passes).

(b)Rava maintains that, even if the Pesach would not have more stringencies, we would not learn Terumah from Pesach with regard to Aninus (rather than Orlah) - because Orlah is written explicitly by Pesach, whereas Aninus is only learnt from Ma'aser Sheni.

11)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk "u'Malta Oso, Oz Yochal Bo" - to preclude the eating of Terumah from the prohibition of Milas Zecharav va'Avadav (i.e. that a Kohen who has uncircumcised children or Avadim, may nevertheless eat Terumah).

(b)We would otherwise have applied the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Toshav v'Sachir" "Toshav v'Sachir" from Pesach and forbidden it.

(c)We cannot however, Darshen "Kol Arel Lo Yochal Bo", in the same way, to permit an Arel to eat Terumah - on account of the 'Gezeirah-Shavah'.

(d)We prefer to preclude Milas Zecharav va'Avadav from the prohibition of eating Terumah from "u'Malta Oso, Oz Yochal Bo", and to include that of an Arel from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah', because the latter has more stringencies. Others say that, even if it did not, we would not switch them (to forbid Milas Zecharav va'Avadav to eat Terumah, and to permit an Arel) - because it would be illogical to permit someone who is himself an Arel to eat Terumah, and to forbid him to do so on the grounds that his children and Avadim are Arelim.

12)

(a)Arelus is more stringent than Milas Zecharav va'Avadav -

1. ... inasmuch as it is lacking an act on one's own body and because it is punishable by Kares (which the latter is not).

2. ... Milas Zecharav va'Avadav is more stringent than Arelus - inasmuch as it can occur many times during one's life.