(Mishnah): (Whether the Yavam was Shogeg or Mezid...) whether he did Ha'ara'ah or full Bi'ah, he acquired her.

Question: (If one did Yibum without intent,) regarding what does he acquire?

Answer # 1 (Rav): He acquires in all respects.

Answer #2 (Shmuel): He acquires only regarding what is written in the Parashah, i.e. to inherit his brother and to exempt her from Yibum (if he dies with children).

Version #1: If she fell to Yibum from Nisu'in, all agree that she eats (Terumah), since she ate before. They argue about when she fell from Kidushin;

Rav says that she eats, since the Torah considers Bi'as Shogeg like Mezid;

Shmuel says, it is considered Bi'ah to make the Yavam like the deceased husband, but not to make him stronger!

This is consistent with another teaching of Shmuel.

(Shmuel): The Yavam permits her to eat (Terumah, through substandard Bi'ah) only if the deceased husband permitted her.

Question (Beraisa): If a Kohen was Mekadesh a Bas Yisrael and he became deaf before Nisu'in, she does not eat. If he died and she fell to Yibum to a deaf brother, she eats. In this case the Yavam is stronger than the first husband.

This is like Rav and unlike Shmuel!

Answer: The Beraisa means, if he did not do Nisu'in before he became deaf, she does not eat. If he did Nisu'in and then became deaf, she eats. If he died and she fell to Yibum to a deaf brother, she eats.

Question: Why does it say 'in this case...'? (Also a deaf husband permits her!)

Answer: If her husband was deaf from the beginning, he would not permit her. The Yavam permits her even if he was always deaf.

Version #2: If she fell to Yibum from Kidushin, all agree that she does not eat, since she did not eat in the life of her husband. They argue about when she fell from Nisu'in;

Rav says that she eats, since she ate before.

Shmuel says, the Torah considers Bi'as Shogeg like Mezid only regarding things written in the Parashah.

Contradiction (Shmuel): Whenever the deceased husband permitted her to eat, the Yavam permits her.

Correction: Shmuel taught that the Yavam permits her to eat only with the kind of Bi'ah with which the husband (when he did Chupah) permits her.

Question (Beraisa): If a Kohen was Mekadesh a Bas Yisrael and he became deaf before Nisu'in, she does not eat. If he died and she fell to Yibum to a deaf brother, she eats. In this case the Yavam is stronger than the first husband.

Answer: Rav can answer like we answered for Shmuel in Version #1.

This is difficult for Shmuel in this version.

(Beraisa): If a Kohen was Mekadesh a Bas Yisrael and he became deaf before Nisu'in, she does not eat. If she bears a son, she eats;

R. Noson says, if the son dies, she eats;

Chachamim say, she does not eat.

Question: What is R. Noson's reason?

Answer #1 (Rabah): Since she already ate, she continues to eat.

Objection (Abaye): According to this, if a Bas Yisrael was married to a Kohen and he died, she should continue to eat, since she once ate?!

Rather, since he died, his Kedushah leaves her. Here also, when the son dies, his Kedushah leaves her!

Answer #2 (Rav Yosef): R. Noson holds that Nisu'in when he was deaf permits her to eat Terumah (if he was healthy at the time of Kidushin). We do not decree lest she eat even if he was deaf at the time of Kidushin.

Question (Abaye): If so, why did the Beraisa mention the birth of a son?

Answer: This shows that Chachamim argue even in that case.

Question: R. Noson should disagree with Chachamim in the Reisha!

Answer: He waited until they finished saying their law, then argued with them.

Question: If so, R. Noson's words should follow Chachamim's!

This is left difficult.

(Mishnah): Similarly, if one had Bi'ah with any Ervah...

(Rav Amram citing Rav Sheshes): If a Yisrael's wife was raped, even though she is permitted to her husband, she is disqualified to Kehunah.

Support (Mishnah): Similarly, one who has Bi'ah with any Ervah (...disqualifies her. We do not distinguish between different kinds of Bi'ah.)

Question: Why does it say 'Similarly'?

Answer #1: We do not distinguish whether he was Shogeg or Mezid, willing or forced. In all cases, she is disqualified!

Rejection #1 (and Answer #2): No, 'similarly' refers to Ha'ara'ah (it is considered like full Bi'ah).

Objection: For which cases was this taught?

It cannot refer to Arayos, for this would connote that Ha'ara'ah of Arayos is learned from a Yevamah. However, the Torah taught about Ha'ara'ah of Arayos, and Yevamah is learned from Arayos!

Rejection #2 (and Answer #3): Rather, similarly one is liable for Bi'ah Lo k'Darkah with Arayos.

Objection: The Torah taught about Lo k'Darkah of Arayos (and Yevamah is learned from Arayos)!

Rejection #3 (and Answer #4): Rather, similarly one is liable for Bi'ah Lo k'Darkah with Chayavei Lavin.

Version #1 (Rabah): If a Kohen's wife was raped, her husband is lashed for Bi'ah with her (after this), since she is a Zonah.

Question: Is he lashed for Zonah, but not for Tum'ah ("Acharei Asher Hutama'ah")?

Answer: Rather, he is lashed even for Zonah.

Question (R. Zeira - Beraisa): If a married woman "was not grabbed" she is forbidden. This implies that had she been forced, she would be permitted. In another case even if she was forced, she is forbidden, i.e. a Kohen's wife.

Suggestion: This is a Lav derived from an Aseh, it is like a Mitzvas Aseh.

Answer (Rabah): The rule is, a married woman who was Mezaneh becomes a Zonah. The Torah revealed that if a Yisrael's wife "was not grabbed" she is forbidden, but if she was forced, she is permitted;

Regarding a Kohen's wife, the rule remains (even if she was forced).

Version #2 (Rabah): If a Kohen's wife was raped, her husband is lashed for Bi'ah with her, for Tum'ah.

He is lashed for Tum'ah, but not for Zonah. This shows that she does not become a Zonah when forced.

Question (R. Zeira - Beraisa): If a married woman "was not grabbed" she is forbidden. This implies that had she been forced, she would be permitted. In another case even if she was forced, she is forbidden, i.e. a Kohen's wife.

Suggestion: This is a Lav derived from an Aseh, it is like a Mitzvas Aseh.

Answer (Rabah): The rule is, a married woman who was Mezaneh is forbidden due to Acharei Asher Hutama'ah. The Torah revealed that if a Yisrael's wife "was not grabbed" she is forbidden, but if she was forced, she is permitted;

Regarding a Kohen's wife, the rule remains.

(Mishnah): (We adopt Rashi's preferred explanation, DH Almanah.) A widow Mekudeshes to a Kohen Gadol or a divorcee or Chalutzah Mekudeshes to a regular Kohen may not eat Terumah (even if she is a Bas Kohen, for she is awaiting forbidden Bi'ah);

R. Elazar and R. Shimon permit (even if she is a Bas Yisrael, if the time for Nisu'in came but Nisu'in was not yet done, according to Mishnah Rishonah. They later decreed that she may not eat until Chupah.)

If they were widowed or divorced from Nisu'in, they are disqualified. If they were widowed or divorced from Kidushin, they are Kesheros.

(Gemara - Beraisa - R. Meir): Kidushin of Heter (a Bas Yisrael to a Yisrael) does not permit a woman to eat Terumah. All the more so Kidushei Isur does not!

Chachamim: No. Permitted Kidushin (to a Yisrael) never permits eating Terumah (even after Nisu'in). You cannot learn to Kidushei Isur (to a Kohen), which permits eating Terumah (when she is permitted to him)!

(R. Oshaya): If a Kohen Petzu'a Daka (his private parts were crushed) was Mekadesh a Bas Yisrael, R. Meir argues with R. Elazar and R. Shimon about whether or not she may eat Terumah.

R. Meir forbids a woman (Arusah) awaiting Bi'ah forbidden mid'Oraisa to eat Terumah. Here also, she may not eat;

R. Elazar and R. Shimon permit a woman awaiting Bi'ah forbidden mid'Oraisa to eat Terumah. Here also, she may eat.