Explanation: Even according to the opinion that Kinyan Peros (the right to eat the produce) k'Kinyan ha'Guf (is like permanent ownership of the property itself), these (Avdei Melug) are not considered the Kohen's Kinyan, since the Guf is not his.

Support: [Avdei Melug] do not go free if the husband destroyed an eye or tooth, even according to the opinion that Kinyan Peros k'Kinyan ha'Guf, like it says in Bava Kama (89b).

There is somewhat of a proof that Terumah depends on Kinyan ha'Guf. In Kerisus (24b) regarding one was Mafkir his slave, he goes free, he needs a Get Shichrur [and] he may eat Terumah, even though [after Hefker] the master owns only the Guf, but not Peros;

This is even according to the opinion that Kinyan Peros k'Kinyan ha'Guf.

Implied question: We could ask from the Seifa of the Mishnah, which says that if a Bas Yisrael married a Kohen, her Avdei Melug eat!

Answer: We did not ask from there, for one might have thought that they eat due to her herself, for she may eat, but not due to her husband, i.e. they are the Kinyan of his Kinyan;

Therefore, we asked from the Beraisa, which teaches that a Kinyan who acquires a Kinyan, he (the latter Kinyan) eats;

If so, even if she may not eat, they (her slaves) should eat!

Implied question: The same applies if he was Mekadesh! (Why does it discuss Nisu'in?)

Answer: It discusses Nisu'in, because mid'Rabanan an Arusah does not eat, due to Ula's concern [lest she feed Terumah to her siblings], or due to Simpon (lest she has a blemish that invalidates Kidushin due to Mekach Ta'os).

Implied question: Above (57a), we expound [this verse] regarding a Kohen Petzu'a Daka who married a convert's daughter!

Answer: There, we expound the word "Nefesh", which is extra.

Explanation: Even according to R. Meir, who holds that an Eved [Kena'ani] cannot acquire something without his master acquiring it, even [redemption money given] on condition that his master not acquire it, it is possible for slaves to acquire slaves;

The case is, he was Mafkir his slave. He eats Terumah [if his master is a Kohen], like it says in Kerisus (24b).

Explanation: Regarding Avdei Tzon Barzel, no decree applies, even according to the opinion that ha'Din Imah (she can demand to receive them back, if they are intact);

This is because as long as she did not collect them in Beis Din, they eat due to him. After she collected them and Beis Din appraised them, it is as if she bought slaves after her husband died. (Obviously, if she cannot eat, they cannot eat!)

Question: This is different! There, one cannot err, for in her husband's lifetime she herself ate, and now she does not eat;

However, here if her slaves will eat in her husband's lifetime, even though she does not eat, we should decree lest she feed them also after death [of her husband].

Alternate text: Some texts say "a Bas Yisrael who married a Kohen should not eat!" He asks that she herself should not eat, lest she eat after death.

Answer: Also according to the texts that say "she should not feed", we can say that he asks about the entire matter, that she should not eat and not feed;

He mentioned that she should not feed, for he prefers to ask from slaves to slaves.

Explanation (Ri): Karshinim (horsebean) is primarily for animals. If it were primarily for people, it would be forbidden to give it to animals, due to wasting Terumah;

In any case, it is [also somewhat] proper for people. If it were not proper for people at all, it would be exempt from Terumah and Ma'aser, like it says in Shabbos (68a).

Implied question: A Mishnah (Eruvin 26b) permits making an Eruv for a Yisrael with Terumah. This shows that a Yisrael may benefit from it! (If so, why can't he feed it to his animal?)

Answer (R. Tam): A Yisrael may benefit only in ways that do not consume it, but not Hana'as Kiluy, e.g. to feed it to his animal.

Similarly, he may not light it (e.g. oil) or burn it under his pot, like a Mishnah teaches;

Citation (Terumos 11:10): One may light Terumah oil in dark alleys for the sick with a Kohen's permission.

Explanation: It is permitted when there is a Kohen who needs the light, for a lamp for one person serves 100 people. However, a Yisrael's permission does not help.

Implied question: It says in Pesachim (34a) that Aba Sha'ul was the kneader in Rebbi's house. He used to heat water with Tamei Terumah oil!

Answer (R. Tam): That was for Kohanim in Rebbi's house.

Explanation (Ri): The reason we forbid only Hana'as Kiluy it is based on a Drashah in Shabbos (26a) regarding the Isur to light Tamei Tevel;

"Es Mishmeres Terumosai" discusses two Terumos, Tamei Terumah and Tahor Terumah;

Just like the primary benefit from Tahor Terumah, i.e. eating, is permitted only after it is separated, the primary benefit from Tamei Terumah, i.e. lighting it, is only after separation.

This is the source that one may not light Tamei Tevel.

Also regarding Tahor Tevel, the episode with R. Pinchas ben Ya'ir (Chulin 7a) connotes that Hana'as Kiluy is forbidden. (His donkey would not eat Tevel, for then R. Pinchas would benefit from Tevel.)

Explanation #1: This is because we return to learn Tahor Terumah from Tamei. (The verse equated them.)

Explanation #2 (Rashi there): [We may not light Tamei Tevel, and] all the more so [not] Tahor Tevel.

Rejection: This is not a Kal va'Chomer. Rather, we learn Tahor from Tamei.

Just like we learn to forbid Hana'as Kiluy of Tevel, we learn this also regarding Terumah. From when it is separated, Hana'as Kiluy is permitted only to Kohanim, but not to Yisrael.

Explanation (Ri): This is because an animal that eats is the monetary acquisition of the Kohen. The Yisrael benefits only from the value. It is as if he sells the Terumah to the Kohen, and the money is his;

However, when a Kohen rented a Yisrael's cow, he may not feed it. It is not the monetary acquisition of the Kohen, for rental does not acquire.

Inference: This connotes that the Halachah follows the opinion that a renter is like a Shomer Sachar (one who is paid to guard a deposit. He is liable for theft and loss), in Bava Metzi'a (80b);

This is the Halachah, like it connotes in Bava Metzi'a (36a) regarding a renter and a borrower [who swore falsely. It says that] sometimes both of them are liable an Asham...

Also Bava Metzi'a (97a) regarding the mule rented to people of Bei Chuzai [connotes that this is the Halachah].

Explanation #1 (Rashi): When he rented it from him, he stipulated to return this value if it will be weakened, or Ones will occur, or cows will become cheaper.

Objection (Ri): This is forbidden, due to Ribis! This is clear from Bava Metzi'a (64a).

Explanation #2: Rather, we discuss a borrower.

Question (Ri): What is the proof from here to R. Ami? Also Rav Yehudah agrees that they go free due to Shen v'Ayin for the man, for he is considered his slave;

This is just like he is considered his money regarding Terumah, like the Mishnah says that Avdei Tzon Barzel eat Terumah. Terumah and Shen v'Ayin are one matter [depend on each other], like I explained in the Mishnah.

Question (R. Moshe Kohen): Rav Yehudah agrees that they need to be collected. If so, they are in her husband's Reshus. Freedom uproots a lien, like it says below regarding the silk cloak spread over the Mes.

Even Rav Yehudah holds that [freedom] uproots a lien.

Even freedom due to Shen v'Ayin, which is automatic, we say in Bava Kama (89b) that it uproots a lien!

Suggestion: Rabah and Rav Yosef infer that the Beraisa supports R. Ami, because R. Ami holds unlike Rava, who says that freedom uproots a lien.

Rejection: Rava derived this from a Mishnah (Gitin 40b).

Suggestion: Rabah and Rav Yosef do not hold that since they need to be collected, they are in her husband's Reshus.

Rejection: Rava holds like this below, and even so, he said to Rav Nachman that the Beraisa supports R. Ami!

Answer (R. Shmuel b'Ribi Chayim of Vardish): He (Rava) infers from "but not for the woman." There is no need to teach this in his lifetime. This is obvious!

Rather, it teaches about after death. They do not go free due to her (if she destroyed a limb), because ha'Din Imo.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Even if she died, he takes from the buyers.

Inference: As long as she is alive, her husband cannot take from the buyers when he himself sold;

However, when she dies, he inherits her rights, and she could have protested while alive.

Question #1: Since the sale is valid as long as she is quiet, why can she annul his sale through a needless protest? She has no rights in his lifetime!

Question #2: Even if she could take the property in his lifetime, her husband cannot take it after death. We do not say that he is in place of her, since he himself sold it!

Kesuvos (91b) connotes like this. A man sold Tovas Hana'ah of his mother's Kesuvah (the right to collect it if she will be widowed or divorced). He said "if mother will come and protest, I will not compensate you." His mother died, and the son protested.

Rami bar Chama wanted to say that he is in place of his mother (and he stipulated not to compensate if she protests). Rava said that he did not accept Acharayos for her protest, but for his own, he certainly did!

Explanation #2 (R. Chananel): The sale is not valid even for a moment. Rabanan enacted that she need not toil to take it from the buyers after her husband dies.

Distinction: This is unlike a woman who takes from buyers property that had a lien on it for her Kesuvah.

There, it was a sale, for perhaps she will not need to toil, for they (they heirs or her husband) will pay her, or she will collect from Bnei Chorin (property that was not sold);

However, when they cannot dispel her with other property, they enacted that the sale is Batel immediately.