(Mishnah - R. Yosi): If a Bas Yisrael was married to a Kohen, and he died, and he left her pregnant, her slaves do not eat Terumah because the fetus owns part of them. A fetus forbids from eating, but does not permit eating;

Chachamim: After you testified to us about the son of a Bas Yisrael married to a Kohen, even if a Bas Kohen was married to a Kohen, and he died and left her pregnant, her slaves should not eat Terumah due to the fetus' share of them!

(Gemara - R. Elazar): Our Mishnah should say that her slaves (i.e. Melug slaves) eat [Terumah], but his (her husband's, i.e. Tzon Barzel) slaves do not eat Terumah [because the fetus owns part];

If you would not say so, she eats, but her slaves do not eat! (This is unreasonable.)

Rebuttal (R. Yoshiyah citing R. Yochanan): This is not a proof. I can say that even she does not eat (while she is pregnant).

(R. Chagai, in front of R. Yosah): R. Yochanan does not argue [with R. Lazar's law], just [he says that] from here [there is no proof, for I can say that] even she does not eat. (SEFER NIR - R. Elazar inferred that her husband has other sons, for R. Yosi discusses the fetus' share. She eats due to her other sons, so also her slaves eat. R. Yochanan points out that perhaps his sons are from other wives, and this wife has no sons, just she is pregnant, so she and her slaves do not eat.)

A case [of a pregnant Bas Yisrael widowed from a Kohen] came in front of R. Yehoshua ben Levi. He said, go and see how the Tzibur conducts.

(R. Avun citing R. Yehoshua ben Levi): Not only in this Halachah - rather, any Halachah that wavers in Beis Din, and you do not know how to rule, go and see how the Tzibur conducts, and conduct like them.

[Here], we see that the Tzibur [holds that she and her slaves] do not eat.

Inference (R. Yosah): A fetus does not disqualify one who is proper to eat, and does not feed one who is not proper to eat.

(Beraisa - R. Yishmael bar Yosi, citing his father): If [the widow was pregnant, and] there was a daughter [and sparse property, so even if the fetus is a boy, he does not inherit, for all the property is used to feed the girl], she feeds [the slaves].

(R. Imi citing R. Yochanan): This is because it was proper to seize [the slaves] for food [for the daughter].

Question: Is [the widow] not proper to seize [the slaves] for [her own] food?!

Answer: She is proper to claim her Kesuvah and lose her food. (It is not certain that she will be fed, therefore this is not a reason to permit the slaves.)

Question: Terumah is mid'Oraisa, and food for the daughters is mid'Rabanan. Do Chachamim's words uproot Torah law (permit to eat Terumah?! - Emek Yehoshua)

Answer: This is like the opinion that [in Bayis Sheni] they accepted Ma'aseros [and Terumah] on themselves [so also Terumah is only mid'Rabanan].

It turns out that R. Yishmael bar Rebbi argues with R. Avun, for R. Simon said in the name of Chilfai that Rebbi, R. Yishmael bei Rebbi Yosi and Bar ha'Kapar voted about the airspace of Ashkelon, and were Metaher it (it does not have Tum'ah of Chutz la'Aretz);

This was based on R. Pinchas ben Ya'ir, who said that [Kohanim] may descend to the market of Ashkelon, buy wheat (without concern for Shemitah or Ma'aseros), and ascend to our city, immerse and eat our Terumah.

The next day they wanted to vote about it to exempt it from Ma'aseros. R. Yishmael bei R. Yosi withdrew his hands (to show his disapproval); he had been leaning on Ben ha'Kapar.

R. Yishmael bei R. Yosi (to Bar ha'Kapar): My son, why didn't you ask me 'why did you withdraw your hands?' I would have told you, yesterday I was Metamei, and I was Metaher (Tum'as Chutz la'Aretz is mid'Rabanan, so Chachamim can be lenient when they want);

Now [to exempt from Ma'aser], I say to you, perhaps it was conquered [and Ma'aser applies] mid'Oraisa. How can I exempt from Torah law?! (We explained this like PNEI MOSHE.)

Question: When is [Ashkelon] due to [Tum'as] Chutz la'Aretz?

Answer (R. Simon citing R. Yochanan): It is from when one delays there 40 days.

It was found taught in the name of Abaye that [in Bayis Sheni] they accepted Ma'aseros on themselves (mid'Oraisa, they were exempt).

[Above, R. Yosi] said properly [that if there was a daughter, she feeds] - food for the daughters is mid'Rabanan, and Chachamim's words uproot their words (Terumah of Bayis Sheni).

R. Shimon ben Yochai says, if there were males (sons), they feed [the slaves]. If there were female (daughters), they do not feed;

If there were males, they feed, for there are two Sefekos - perhaps [the fetus] is a male, and perhaps it is a female (a female has no share in the slaves. And even if it is a male, it is a) Safek viable baby, Safek Nefel (a Nefel has no share in the slaves). When there are two Sefekos, we are lenient about Torah laws;

If there were females, they do not feed, for there is one Safek - [the fetus] is a Safek viable baby, Safek Nefel. [If it is viable,] no matter what you will say, [it owns a share];

If it is a male, all [the slaves] are his. If it is a female, she divides [the slaves] with [the daughters].