1)

(a)The woman whose husband returns does not receive her Kesubah - because the very reason that Chazal instituted a Kesubah in the first place, was in order to make it more difficult for a man to divorce his wife (seeing as min ha'Torah, he is permitted to divorce her for no particular reason). And here we actually want him to divorce her.

(b)Neither does she receive Peiros, Mezonos and Bela'os - because 'Tenai Kesubah ki'Kesubah Dami'.

(c)An Almanah l'Kohen Gadol or a Gerushah l'Kohen Hedyot may reclaim the Peiros that her husband ate, even though she does not receive her Kesubah (which explains why the Tana needs to mention that, in our case, she may not).

(d)The Tana finds it necessary to inform us that if she did receive any of these from either man, she must return them - because we may have thought that (seeing as originally, she was entitled to a Kesubah), the decree is only l'Chatchilah, but b'Di'eved (having claimed it), she may keep it.

2)

(a)The Mishnah in Terumos states 'Ein Tormin min ha'Tahor al ha'Tamei; v'Im Taram ... b'Mezid Lo Asah v'Lo Klum' - (mid'Rabanan) because it causes the Kohen a loss (since he can only burn it [as fuel], but not eat it).

(b)According to Rav Chisda, the Mishnah must be taken literally; according to Rav Nasan bar Oshaya - it means that he has not rectified the remainder of the crops, but what he gave is nevertheless Terumah.

(c)Rav Chisda does not want to learn like Rav Nasan bar Oshaya - because of the fear that, if it would be Terumah, then the owner might not bother to fulfill his obligation of taking Terumah again.

3)

(a)We reconcile the other Mishnah in Terumos 'ha'Torem Kishos v'Nimtza Marah ... Terumah v'Yachzor v'Yitrom' ...

1. ... with the previous Halachah - by pointing out that (based on the fact that the word 'v'Nimtza'as' implies Shogeg) the Tana there is speaking about Shogeg, whereas the previous Halachah is Mezid.

2. ... with the Reisha of this Mishnah 'v'Im Taram b'Shogeg, Terumaso Terumah' (seeing as both are b'Shogeg) - in that whereas the Shogeg of this Mishnah is absolute, the Shogeg in the other Mishnah is close to Mezid (because he should have tasted some of the cucumbers (or the watermelon) before designating Terumah from the batch (so we penalize him by making him give again).

(b)And in the previous Halachah, the Tana ruled 'b'Mezid Lo Asah v'Lo Klum' (literally, according to Rav Chisda) - because, had Chazal said 'Terumah, v'Yachzor v'Yitrom' (which, Rav Chisda agrees, is what they really ought to have said), the owner would not have taken their ruling seriously (and would not bother to take again), seeing as all the crops were in one receptacle; whereas in the Mishnah in Demai 'ha'Torem me'she'Ein Nakuv al Nakuv Terumah, v'Yachzor v'Yitrom', where the crops in question were from two receptacles, he would.

4)

(a)According to Rav Nasan bar Oshaya, the reason that the Tana rules 'Lo Asah v'Lo Klum', l'Saken ha'Shirayim, Aval Terumah Havi', is - because min ha'Torah, the Terumah is valid, as we shall soon see; whereas in the case of the Mishnah in Demai 'min ha'Nakuv al she'Ein Nakuv, Terumaso Terumah, v'Lo Se'achel ad she'Yotzi Aleih Terumah mi'Makom Acher', it is not.

(b)Despite the fact that, min ha'Torah, what he gave is not Terumah at all, the Mishnah nevertheless says 'min she'Ein Nakuv al ha'Nakuv, Terumah ... ' - because, seeing as min ha'Torah, crops from an Atzitz she'Ein Nakuv are not Tevel or subject to Terumah, no harm is done if we allow the Kohen to eat them as Terumah.

(c)Rebbi Ilai learns from the Pasuk in Korach "v'Lo Sis'u Alav Chet ba'Harimchem es Chelbo Mimenu" - that if someone separates from inferior produce (incorporating from Tamei on Tahor), the Terumah is valid (min ha'Torah), because, if it were not (and he would simply be obligated to give again) what sin would he have transgressed?

5)

(a)When Rabah asked Rav Chisda how he could possibly declare the first Terumah not valid, seeing as min ha'Torah, it is (as we just saw from Rebbi Ilai) - he replied in surprise, 'Why not?' Did we not learn in our Mishnah that Beis Din declared any child that she subsequently bears from her husband a Mamzer, permitting him to marry a Mamzeres (when, according to Torah law, he is certainly not a Mamzer, and therefore forbidden to do so)?!

(b)Rabah refutes Rav Chisda's reply by quoting Shmuel and Ravin Amar Rebbi Yochanan - who say that the child is only a Mamzer inasmuch as he is forbidden to marry a bas Yisrael, but not to permit him to marry a Mamzeres.

6)

(a)Rav Chisda sent Rav Acha bar Rav Huna to query Rabah from a Beraisa, where the Tana'im argue over the time from when a man 1. inherits his wife who is a Ketanah (in the event that she dies); 2. is permitted to bury her and 3. feeds her Terumah (whilst she is alive). We are talking about a Ketanah whose mother or brother married her off, and whose marriage is therefore only mid'Rabanan.

(b)Chazal instituted this type of marriage, even though min ha'Torah, only a father may marry off his daughter - in order to protect her chastity, to prevent her from becoming abused by undesirable elements.

(c)Beis Shamai say 'mi'she'Ta'amod b'Komasah' - meaning from when she becomes a Gedolah (in age and with the appropriate signs).

(d)According to Beis Hillel, he inherits her from the moment she enters the Chupah. Rebbi Eliezer says - from the time they consummate the marriage.

7)

(a)Rav Chisda now asks on Rabah from Beis Shamai (who say 'mi'she'Ta'amod b'Komasah') - is that this implies even before they are married (even though min ha'Torah, an Arus does not acquire the Arusah before the marriage), a proof that Beis-Din has the authority to issue an enactment to uproot a Torah law.

(b)So we establish Beis Shamai - when she came of age, but also entered the Chupah (whereas according to Beis Hillel, she receives her Kesubah from the time she enters the Chupah, even if she is still a Ketanah).

(c)And we resolve Rebbi Eliezer, who says that after Bi'ah, her husband inherits her, with his own statement in Perek Beis Shamai 'Ein Ma'aseh Ketanah Klum' - by emending his statement to 'after she comes of age and makes Bi'ah with her'.

8)

(a)Normally - it is the father who inherits a Ketanah when she dies.

(b)When Rav Chisda therefore asked Rabah from this Mishnah, where according to Beis Hillel, it is her husband who inherits her - he replied with the principle 'Hefker Beis-Din Hefker'.

(c)Rav Yitzchak learns from the Pasuk "Kol Asher Lo Yavo li'Sh'loshes ha'Yamim ba'Atzas ha'Sarim v'ha'Zekenim Yocharam Kol Rechusho ... " - the principle of 'Hefker Beis Din Hefker'.

(d)Rebbi Elazar learns 'Hefker Beis Din Hefker' from the Pasuk in Yehoshua "Eleh ha'Nachalos Asher Nachalu Elazar ha'Kohen vi'Yehoshua ben Nun v'Rashei ha'Avos l'Matos Bnei Yisrael" - by making use of the Torah's comparison of the leaders of the community to the fathers, to teach us that just as fathers are empowered to inherit to their children whatever they wish, so too, are the leaders of the community.

9)

(a)We learned that the Ketanah's husband buries her (even if he is a Kohen). Rabah explains that, in spite of the fact that min ha'Torah, it is her father who is obligated to bury her, in this case, the Ketanah's husband is obligated to do so (even if he is a Kohen) - because, seeing as her father does not inherit her, he will not take the trouble of burying her either, and we have learned in a Beraisa that, a Mes that has nobody to bury it, has the Din of a Mes Mitzvah.

(b)And to explain the fact that the Tana permits her to eat Terumah (immediately after the betrothal), despite the fact that even a Gedolah is not permitted to eat Terumah after she becomes betrothed to a Kohen (as we learned above in Arba'ah Achin) - Rabah explains by establishing the Beraisa by Terumah d'Rabanan.