Explanation #1: A fetus disqualifies slaves of his [dead] father, and does not feed his mother.

Suggestion: Perhaps both refer to slaves! He disqualifies slaves of his father, and does not feed slaves of his father.

Rejection: Since it taught that he disqualifies, we cannot find [even a Hava Amina] that he feeds!

Explanation #2 (Rashi): The entire matter refers to his mother.

Implied question: This was taught regarding slaves!

Answer: It means that a fetus disqualifies and does not feed his mother, and likewise he disqualified his slaves.

Implied question: You are forced to say that we expound "[only] one who was born feeds", for this is why we say below that a Bas Yisrael was [widowed] from a Kohen, and she was pregnant, he (the fetus) does not feed;

There you cannot say that a fetus in the womb of a Zarah is a Zar, for even a Zar feeds his mother, and even a Mamzer, like we say below (69b)!

Answer: In any case, we ask about slaves, for we can say that only regarding his mother, about whom it says "vi'Ylid Beiso Hem Yochlu", from which we expound that he feeds his mother, we expound that "[only] one who was born feeds";

However, slaves eat due to "Kinyan Kaspo." The verse does not say that only one who was born feeds, but not one who was not born.

Explanation: Rabanan who said this to him held that the reason is because [only] one who was born feeds.

Implied question: He could have said that Rabanan's reason is because they do not expound "one who was not born does not feed" regarding slaves, and also they do not hold that a fetus in the womb of a Zarah is a Zar!

Answer: He had a tradition that their reason is because the fetus did not acquire.

Question: Presumably, their earnings until he is born belong to the fetus, and not to the family!

Question (Ri): It says in Nidah (44a) that a one-day old disqualifies from Terumah. The Gemara asked why it discusses a one-day old. Even a fetus [disqualifies]!

Rav Sheshes answered that the Mishnah discusses a Kohen with two wives, one divorced and one not divorced;

He has children from the latter, and a one day old boy [a Chalal] from the divorced wife [and the father died]. The baby disqualifies his father's slaves [from Terumah];

The Tana teaches unlike R. Yosi, who says that even a fetus forbids. Rather, a one day old disqualifies, but a fetus does not disqualify.

Summation of question: Why must he establish it when he has two wives? Even when he has only one wife, a divorcee, [he can teach that] only a one day old disqualifies, but a fetus does not!

[Before he is born], Rabanan hold that the slaves eat due to the entire family!

Answer (Ri): Rav Sheshes teaches like he taught elsewhere. He holds in Bava Basra (142a) that one who is Mezakeh for (acquires on behalf of) a fetus acquires. The slaves may not eat due to the family (because the fetus owns them).

Therefore, he established the Mishnah to discuss when he has children from the wife who was not divorced. The fetus in the womb of the divorcee does not disqualify, for we are not concerned for the minority;

We join the minority of miscarriages to the half of all babies that are females, so [viable] males are the minority, like we say below.

This is unlike R. Yosi. R. Yosi is concerned for the minority.

Support: In Bava Basra (142a), we ask according to the opinion that one who is Mezakeh for a fetus acquires from the Mishnah in Nidah (44a) that a one day old inherits and bequeaths, but a fetus does not;

We do not ask from the Reisha , which says that a one day old disqualifies, for we could establish it to be when he has two wives...

Implied question: In Kesuvos (59a), Shmuel rules like R. Yochanan ha'Sandlar, that a person cannot be Makneh (transfer ownership of) Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam (something not yet in the world)!

Answer: Shmuel considers a fetus to be Ba l'Olam (it is already in the world).

Question (R. Shmuel b'Ribi Chayim): Even when the fetus is a Nefel, it disqualifies!

Source: This is clear from Bava Basra (142a), that according to the opinion that one who is Mezakeh for a fetus acquires, the fetus acquires his father's property until she miscarries!

Citation (142a - Beraisa): If a convert died and Yisre'elim seized his property, then heard that his wife is pregnant, and returned the property, and afterwards they heard that she miscarried, and again they seized his property, the latter seizures acquire, but the initial seizures do not.

Answer (Ri): Here we have a Safek perhaps it is already a Nefel (already died in the womb).

Question: Here, R. Yosi is concerned for the minority. Below (105b), he says that a minor girl does Chalitzah;

What is the reason? She cannot do Yibum! Since he is concerned for the minority, we are concerned perhaps she will be found to be an Ailonis. Since she cannot do Yibum, she cannot do Chalitzah!

Answer: She is considered one who can do Yibum, since if Eliyahu would come and say that she is not an Ailonis, she could do Yibum;

She is unlike one who did Chalitzah within three months. Even if Eliyahu would come and say that she is not pregnant, we do not heed him [to be Machshir the Chalitzah].

Question: In Kesuvos (14b), R. Yosi is not concerned for the minority regarding a girl who was raped!

Answer (Ri): Regarding a Ruba d'Isa Kaman (all elements in the Safek are in front of us, and we know which is the majority), all agree that we are not concerned for the minority.

Question: In Bava Basra (93b), R. Yosi follows the majority [of people who buy flax seeds] for planting to take money [from one who sold them Stam, and they did not grow];

We bring from him a proof for Rav, who says that we follow the majority in monetary laws!

Inference: R. Yosi is not concerned for the minority regarding monetary laws. All the more so he is not concerned regarding Isurim!

Answer: We can distinguish these. (Tosfos ha'Rosh - regarding Isurim, we are stringent for the minority. Regarding money, since mid'Oraisa we follow the majority, we should not uproot his money (the one whom the majority supports) to be stringent for the minority. Perhaps he means that all the more so, we must be concerned for the majority, and not give the money to his opponent! - PF)

Reference: This is explained in Gitin (34a).

Implied question: In Kesuvos (51a), we rule that food of the widow and daughter is collected from land (that the husband left over), but not from Metaltelim. (If so, the daughters have no share in the slaves!)

Answer: Our Sugya holds that slaves are considered like land, like R. Elazar, who says (Bava Kama 11b) that the Halachah is, we collect from slaves.

Pesak: However, this is not the Halachah. Rather, the Halachah follows Rav Nachman, who argues with him.

Proof: We hold like all the teachings that R. Aba sent to Rav Yosef bar Chama (Bava Basra 128a). We conclude there that he sent that we do not collect.

Suggestion: [Our Sugya] considers slaves like Metaltelim, and he holds like Rebbi, who says (Kesuvos 51a) that food of the widow and daughter is collected from both land and Metaltelim.

Rejection: Below, we ask how he can establish the argument to be when there is little property. The Gemara gave a difficult answer, that the Seifa discusses when there is much property;

It should have answered that R. Shimon holds like R. Shimon ben Elazar, for we hold like him (51a), that food is collected from land, but not from Metaltelim!

Inference: "Kadmu" connotes that we discuss when they sold before Beis Din was Machazik in (took possession of) the property for needs of the daughters.

Rejection (Ri): If so, we should have established it (the Beraisa, like Abaye said) when the daughters already were Machazik in the property through Beis Din! (After this, the boys cannot sell, therefore the slaves eat due to the girls.)

Conclusion: Rather, no Chazakah helps.

Rather, "Kadmu" means before the daughters ate.

Rebuttal (Ri): We can dispel the proof. (Really, after Chazakah, the boys cannot sell.) He (the Tartzan) holds that "a daughter feeds" connotes immediately after the husband dies, without Chazakah through Beis Din. (Therefore, the Beraisa cannot mean that she feeds after Chazakah.)

Explanation: The money is theirs. If not, the slaves would be considered to be in the daughters' Chazakah (and we would not need to retract from Abaye's answer)!

Support: In Sotah (21b), it says that a cunning Rasha is one who counsels the sons to sell in a case of sparse property. (If the money is used for the daughters, the counsel does not change anything!)

Explanation (R. Tam): This is a mere Asmachta. Mid'Oraisa, she eats;

According to Mishnah Rishonah (Kesuvos 57a), when she ate in her husband's lifetime, she eats in her Yavam's lifetime!

Source #1 (R. Tam): It teaches there that even if all [of the 12 months that an Arusah to a Kohen waits until she eats Terumah] were in front of her husband (i.e. in his lifetime), except for one day [which was after death, while awaiting Yibum, she does not eat now];

Inference: If all [of the 12 months] were in front of her husband, she eats [while awaiting Yibum]!

Source #2 - Citation (Tosefta Kesuvos 5): This is Mishnah Rishonah. However, Raboseinu said that a woman does not eat Terumah until Chupah, and a Yevamah does not eat until Bi'ah.

Inference: According to Mishnah Rishonah, she (a Yevamah) eats [before Bi'ah]!

Source #3 - Citation (Yerushalmi Kesuvos Perek 5): When the time [set for Chupah] came and they did not have Nisu'in, or their husbands died, they are fed from his property, and they eat Terumah.

Explanation: This (when the husband died) is without Bi'ah (Yibum). If it were after Bi'ah, this is obvious! She is his full wife!

Implied question: Why does Mishnah Rishonah say that she does not eat [while Shomeres Yavam] if she did not eat [before her Arus died]?