(Rav Yehudah): If she brought in two vessels worth 1000 Zuz, and they increased in value to 2000, she takes one for her Kesuvah (the dowry she brought in). She may pay the value of the other and take it also, due to glory of her father's house.

Question: Does he teach that what she brought from her father's house is hers? We already know this from his earlier teaching!

Answer: Above he discussed when her Kesuvah entitles her to take it all. One might have thought that she may not pay money to retrieve her Kelim. Rav Yehudah teaches that this is not so.

(Mishnah - R. Yosi): If a Bas Yisrael was widowed from a Kohen and she was 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: According to you, this should apply even if she is a Bas Kohen!

(Gemara) Question: What is R. Yosi's reason?

Does he hold that a fetus in the womb of a Zarah (non-Kohenes) is a Zar?

Or, does he hold that only one who is born permits others to eat Terumah?

The law of slaves of a pregnant Kohenes depends on this. (They eat only according to the first explanation.)

Answer #1 (Rabah): He holds that a fetus in the womb of a Zarah is a Zar.

Answer #2 (Rav Yosef): He holds that only one who is born permits others to eat.

Question (Beraisa - Chachamim): You forbid a pregnant Bas Yisrael widowed from a Kohen. What do you say about a Bas Kohen widowed from a Kohen?

R. Yosi: I did not hear that law [that she is forbidden; she is permitted]. I only heard the law I said.

We understand this if he forbids because a fetus in a Zarah's womb is a Zar. However, if he holds that only one who is born permits others to eat, why did he say that he did not hear about this? It is the same law!

This is left difficult.

(Rav Yehudah citing Shmuel): This is R. Yosi's opinion. Chachamim say, if the Kohen left sons, her slaves eat due to his sons. If he left no sons, they eat due to his brothers. If he left no brothers, they eat due to the whole family.

Question: 'This (is R. Yosi's opinion)' implies that Shmuel himself disagrees;

However, Shmuel told Rav Chanah 'gather a Minyan, and I will teach that an acquisition on behalf of a fetus is valid'!

Answer: Rather, this (is R. Yosi's opinion), and Shmuel agrees.

Question: Is Shmuel's Chidush that Chachamim argue with R. Yosi? They do not argue!

(R. Zakai): R. Yosi gave this testimony in the name of Shemayah and Avtalyon, and Chachamim admitted to him!

Answer (Rav Ashi): It does not say that they accepted it. They admitted that it is reasonable.

(Beraisa - R. Yosi): If he (died and) left sons, both types of slaves eat. If he left her pregnant, neither type eats. If he left sons and she was pregnant, Melug slaves eat like she does.

Tzon Barzel slaves do not eat, because the fetus owns a share, and a fetus forbids eating, but does not permit;

R. Yishmael bar R. Yosi says in the name of R. Yosi, a daughter permits them to eat, but a son does not permit them to eat;

R. Shimon says, if he left sons, both types of slaves eat. If he left daughters, they do not eat, lest the fetus is a male, and daughters do not inherit when there is a son.

Question: Why did R. Shimon say "lest the fetus is a male"? Even if it is a female, they do not eat!

Answer: True! R. Shimon covers both cases:

If it is a female, she also disqualifies them from eating.

If it is a male, the daughters do not inherit at all.

Question: Why does R. Shimon permit when he left sons? The fetus owns a share!

Answer #1: He is not concerned for the minority (that the fetus is a viable male. Half of all fetuses are male, and some of them are Nefalim.)

Answer #2: Really, he is concerned for a minority, but we fix things like Rav Nachman. (We give other property to the fetus (on condition that he is a male) so he has no share in the slaves.)

(Rav Nachman citing Shmuel): When orphans come to divide their father's estate, Beis Din appoints an overseer, who picks for them a nice share. When they grow up, they can protest;

Rav Nachman himself holds that they cannot protest. If they could protest, there is no strength to the enactment of Beis Din!

Suggestion: Tana'im argue about whether we make an enactment like Rav Nachman.

Rejection: No, all agree to it. They argue about whether or not we are concerned for a minority (when the enactment was not done).

(Beraisa - R. Yishmael citing R. Yosi): A daughter permits them to eat. A son does not permit them.

Question: Surely, a son does not permit them due to the fetus' share. The same should apply when he left a daughter!

Answer #1 (Abaye): The case is, the estate is small (no more than what the daughter will eat until she matures), and there is a son with the daughter. In either case, the fetus has no share:

If it is a male, it is no better than the son (who does not inherit);

If it is a female, a daughter eats due to Rabbinic enactment, and there is no enactment before she is born!

Objection #1 (Seifa - R. Shimon): (When he left daughters) the slaves do not eat lest the fetus is a male, and daughters do not inherit when there is a son.

This cannot discuss a small estate, for then it goes to the daughters!

Answer: The Seifa discusses a large estate.

Question: A small estate is not in the daughters' Reshus (even though all the money will be used for their food)!

(R. Asi): If (male) orphans sold property from a small estate, the sale stands!

Answer #2: Rather, R. Yishmael says that a daughter permits the slaves to eat, i.e. the mother (permits her Melug slaves).

Objection: R. Yosi taught that!

Answer: The Beraisa means that also R. Yishmael bar R. Yosi says so.

(Mishnah): A fetus, a Yavam, Kidushin, a deaf man, and a nine-year old disqualify but do not permit to eat (This and the coming clause are explained below);

In the following cases the widow does Chalitzah but not Yibum - we are in doubt whether or not a boy is nine years old, or whether or not a boy brought two hairs, or if a house fell on a man and his brother's daughter and we do not know who died first.

(Gemara): A fetus disqualifies a Bas Kohen widowed or divorced from a Yisrael - "Bi'N'ureha (she returns to eat Terumah)" excludes a pregnant woman;

If she is a Bas Yisrael widowed from a Kohen, a fetus does not permit her to eat. Only one who is born permits eating.

A Yavam disqualifies a Bas Kohen widowed or divorced from a Yisrael - "She will return to her father's house (ki'Ne'ureha" - Rashi) excludes a Shomeres Yavam.

A Yavam does not permit a Bas Yisrael widowed or divorced from a Kohen. "Kinyan Kaspo Hu Yochal Bo", but she was acquired by the Yavam's brother.

A Bas Kohen Mekudeshes to a Yisrael is disqualified from eating, since he acquired her.