(Rava): Presumably, Rav's law is when she is not suspected of Bi'ah with her betrothed, and is suspected of Bi'ah with others.

If she was suspected of Bi'ah with him, even if she was also suspected of Bi'ah with others, we would attribute the child to her husband.

Support (Rava, for himself - Mishnah): If a woman (raped or enticed by a Kohen) gave birth, she may eat.

Question: What is the case?

If she is suspected of Bi'ah with him but not with others, surely she eats. The Mishnah would not need to teach this!

Answer (Rava): Rather, we must say that she is also suspected of Bi'ah with others.

Even though she is forbidden both to him and to all others, we assume that the child is from him.

Here, an Arusah is permitted to her husband and forbidden to all others. All the more so, we should assume that the child is from her husband!

Objection (Abaye): Perhaps Rav disqualifies the child whenever she is suspected of others, even if she is also suspected of her betrothed;

In our Mishnah, she was not suspected of Bi'ah at all (except for the time she was raped or enticed).

(Mishnah): A slave disqualifies through Bi'ah (but not due to seed).

Question: What is the source of this (that children of a Shifchah are not attributed to their father)?

Answer: "The woman (the Shifchah designated for an Eved Ivri) and her children will be (slaves to her master)".

(Mishnah): A Mamzer can disqualify or permit eating.

(Beraisa) Question: "V'Zera Ein Lah" teaches only that children forbid. What is the source that grandchildren forbid?

Answer: "V'Zera Ein Lah" - any seed. (Note: The continuation of the Gemara suggests that perhaps the text should be like in Kidushin 4a, we read "Ein Lah" like 'Ayen Lah', investigate her. Even if she has no living children, grandchildren forbid her.)

Question: This teaches that Kosher children forbid. What is the source that Pasul children (Mamzerim) forbid?

Answer: "Ein Lah" - 'Ayen Lah'.

Question: We expounded this to teach that grandchildren forbid her!

Answer: Really, the verse is not needed for grandchildren, for we know that they are like children. The verse is needed only for Mamzerim.

Question (Reish Lakish): (The Mishnah says, if a Nochri or slave had Bi'ah with the daughter, her child is a Mamzer.) Is this like R. Akiva, who says that Mamzerim come from Chayavei Lavin?

Answer (R. Yochanan): It is even like Chachamim. They agree about a child from a Nochri or slave:

(Rav Dimi, citing Rebbi): The child of a Nochri or slave from a Bas Yisrael is a Mamzer.

(Mishnah): Sometimes a Kohen Gadol can forbid eating.

His grandmother says, 'I should atone for my grandson the Mamzer, who permits me to eat Terumah, but not for my grandson the Kohen Gadol, who forbids me.' (One woman does not say both of these. The Tana merely teaches that both of these are possible.)

(Mishnah): An Arel (uncircumcised man) or Tamei may not eat Terumah. His wife and slaves may eat.

A Petzu'a Daka or Krus Shafchah may eat and his slaves may eat, but his wife may not. If he did not have Bi'ah with her since becoming a Petzu'a Dacha or Krus Shafchah, she may eat.

A Petzu'a Daka is one whose Beitzim were crushed, even one of them;

A Krus Shafchah is one whose Ever was cut. If even a hair's width remains from the crown, he is permitted.

(Gemara - Beraisa - R. Eliezer) Question: What is the source that an Arel may not eat Terumah?

Answer #1 (R. Eliezer): It says "Toshav v'Sachir (a resident or hired worker)" regarding Korban Pesach, and also regarding Terumah;

Just like an Arel may not eat Korban Pesach, he may not eat Terumah.

Answer #2 (R. Akiva): We need not learn from there. It says "Ish Ish" (regarding the Isur for a Tamei to eat Terumah) to include an Arel.

Suggestion: The words ("Toshav v'Sachir") must be extra, for otherwise we can challenge R. Eliezer's Gezeirah Shavah:

Korban Pesach is more stringent. One is Chayav [Kares] for eating it if it is Pigul (was offered with intent to eat it past the allowed time) or Nosar (left past the allowed time), or if one eats it when he is Tamei. We cannot learn to Terumah, which lacks these stringencies!

Conclusion: Correct! The words are extra.

Question: Where are the words extra, regarding Pesach or regarding Terumah?

Suggestion: The words regarding Terumah are extra.

Rejection (Beraisa): ("Toshav v'Sachir", Avadim Ivriyim of a Kohen, may not eat Terumah.) "Toshav" is an Eved Ivri acquired until Yovel. "V'Sachir" is an Eved Ivri acquired for (six) years.

Question: It should suffice for the Torah to say that a Toshav does not eat!

If one acquired until Yovel does not eat, all the more so one acquired for years does not!

Answer: Had it said only "Toshav", we would have thought that this refers to one acquired for years, but one acquired until Yovel eats!

Therefore it also says "v'Sachir" to teach that even one acquired until Yovel does not eat.

Answer: The words are extra regarding Pesach:

Question: "Toshav v'Sachir (may not eat Korban Pesach)" - to whom does this refer?

Answer #1: It refers to Avadim Ivriyim acquired for years or until Yovel.

Rejection: He is not exempt from Pesach!

He may not eat Terumah (even if his master is a Kohen). This shows that his master does not own his body;

Regarding Pesach he should be obligated, since his master does not own him (he is a proper Yisrael).

Conclusion: The words are extra. (Tosfos - we can say that they refer to Nochri workers, but this is no Chidush at all, for it already forbids Arel and Ben Nechar.)

Question: The Gezeirah Shavah is free only from one side. R. Eliezer holds that we learn from such a Gezeirah Shavah only if it cannot be challenged (and this one can be challenged, like above (f:1))!

Answer: Since neither word ("Toshav" or "v'Sachir") is needed, we can apply one of them to what we wish to learn (Terumah), and one to the source (Pesach), and now the Gezeirah Shavah is free from both sides.

Question: An Onen should be forbidden to eat Terumah, just like he may not eat Pesach!

Answer (R. Yosi bar Chanina): "Any Zar (will not eat Terumah)" - a Zar is forbidden, but an Onen is not.

Question: We should say that a Zar is forbidden, but not an Arel!

Answer: The Gezeirah Shavah forbids an Arel.

Question: Why does he say that the Gezeirah Shavah forbids an Arel, and "V'Chol Zar" permits an Onen (and not vice-versa)?

Answer: It is more reasonable to forbid an Arel, since he has the following stringencies:

He needs to do an action (circumcision);

This action must be done to his body;

The punishment for remaining Arel is Kares;

The Isur applied before Matan Torah;

Failure to circumcise one's sons and (male) slaves prevents him (from eating Pesach).

Question: We should forbid an Onen due to his stringencies!

Aninus can apply at any time (whereas Orlah never returns after Milah);

It applies to men and women;

An Onen cannot fix himself (end his Aninus when he wants).

Answer #1: There are more stringencies of an Arel.

Answer #2 (Rava): Even if there would not be more, we would rather learn Arel from Pesach to Terumah, since Arel is written regarding Pesach. Onen is not written regarding Pesach; we learn from Ma'aser.

Suggestion: Just like failure to circumcise one's sons or slaves forbids the father or master to eat Pesach, it should forbid him to eat Terumah!

Rejection: "You will circumcise him, then he will eat it" - failure to circumcise sons and slaves forbids eating Pesach, but not eating Terumah.

Question: If so, we should also expound "Any Arel will not eat it" - an Arel may not eat Pesach, but he may eat Terumah!

Answer: The Gezeirah Shavah "Toshav v'Sachir" forbids an Arel to eat Terumah.

Question: Perhaps we should learn oppositely (the Gezeirah Shavah forbids one to eat Terumah until he circumcises his sons and slaves, and "it" permits an Arel to eat Terumah)!

Answer: It is more reasonable to forbid an Arel himself, because:

The action must be done to his own body;

The punishment for remaining Arel is Kares.

Question: We should forbid one who did not circumcise his sons and slaves, because it can apply at any time!

Answer #1: There are more stringencies of an Arel himself.

Answer #2: Even if there would not be more, we never find that one's own Arelus does not forbid him (to do something), but someone else's Arelus does!