1)

(a)To establish Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Oshaya (who permits the wife of a Kohen Petzu'a Daka to eat Terumah according to Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon), Abaye says 'Ho'il u'Ma'achilah b'Lo Yad'ah', which means - that a Kohen who has already been feeding his wife, and who becomes a Petzu'a Daka, may continue to feed her, provided he is not intimate with her.

(b)Rava resolves Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Oshaya - by pointing out that a Kohen Petzu'a Daka too, feeds his slaves Terumah.

(c)

1. Abaye does not learn like Rava - because, in his opinion, we can only apply the Sevara of 'Ho'il she'Kvar Achlah', from a Kinyan Ishus to a Kinyan Ishus, but not from Kinyan Avdus on to Ishus.

2. Rava does not learn like Abaye - because we cannot compare a case where the woman has not yet eaten to where she already has.

(d)Abaye proves that the fact that she has already eaten makes no difference, from a bas Yisrael who was married to a Kohen, and who is not permitted to eat Terumah after his death, in spite of the fact that she already ate in his lifetime. Rava refutes this proof however - because there, the fact that she already ate makes no difference simply because his Kinyan (that permits her to eat in the first place) dissolved when he died (which is not the case by a Kohen Petzu'a Daka).

2)

(a)When Rebbi Yochanan asked Rebbi Oshaya whether a Petzu'a Daka Kohen may feed his wife who is a bas Gerim Terumah, he did not answer. When, immediately after that, Resh Lakish asked him a She'eilah which he did answer, Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'ah queried him - as to whether his refusal to answer Rebbi Yochanan was perhaps because he did not consider him in high esteem.

(b)The real reason that Rebbi Oshaya remained silent however, was - because he was stymied by the She'eilah.

(c)Assuming that a Petzu'a Daka Kohen retains his Kedushah, Rebbi Yochanan's She'eilah cannot have been according to ...

1. ... Rebbi Yehudah - because he holds 'Bas Ger Zachar k'Bas Chalal Zachar' (and a Bas Chalal is definitely forbidden to eat Terumah).

2. ... Rebbi Yosi - because he holds 'Af Ger she'Nasa Giyores, Bito Kesheirah li'Kehunah' (in which case, she is obviously permitted to eat Terumah).

(d)If, on the other hand, a Petzu'a Daka Kohen does not retains his Kedushah, the She'eilah cannot have been according to ...

1. ... Rebbi Yehudah - because he holds 'Kehal Gerim Ikri Kahal', in which case a Giyores will be forbidden to marry a Petzu'a Daka.

2. ... Rebbi Yosi - 'Kehal Gerim Lo Ikri Kahal' (so she is permitted to him).

3)

(a)So Rebbi Yochanan's She'eilah can only have been according to Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov - who says (in a Mishnah in Bikurim) 'Ishah bas Gerim Lo Tinasei li'Kehunah ad she'Tehei Imah mi'Yisrael'.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan's She'eilah is - whether this means that she is Kasher (but not Kadosh, to be called a Kahal), and is permitted to a Petzu'a Daka, or whether it means that she is also Kadosh, and is therefore considered a Kahal, in which case she will be forbidden to marry a Petzu'a Daka.

(c)We ultimately resolve Rebbi Yochanan's She'eilah from a Beraisa quoted by Rav Acha bar Chinena mi'Daroma, which specifically permits a Petzu'a Daka to feed his wife who is a bas Gerim, Terumah. The Tana learns it from the Pasuk - "v'Kohen Ki Yikneh Nefesh Kinyan Kaspo ... Hu Yochal Bo" (and his wife falls under the category of 'Kinyan Kaspo').

(d)The author of that Beraisa cannot be Rebbi Yehudah - because he holds that irrespective of whether a Kohen Petzu'a Daka retains his Kedushah or not, she is not permitted to eat; nor can it be Rebbi Yosi - because he holds that, whether the Kohen retains his Kedushah or not, she is permitted to eat due to a S'vara, in which case he would not require a Pasuk.

4)

(a)Rav Holds 'Yesh Chupah li'Pesulos' - meaning that, Chupah without Kidushin (see Tosfos DH 'Rav') invalidates a widow who is a bas Kohen who marries a Kohen Gadol, from eating Terumah (like Bi'ah does).

(b)Shmuel says 'Ein Chupah li'Pesulos'.

(c)Shmuel claims that Rav will agree with him in the case of a girl under three - on the basis of the fact that she is not subject to Bi'ah, in which case she is not subject to Chupah either.

5)

(a)Rava prove this from the Mishnah in Nidah, which validates the Kidushei Bi'ah of a three-year-old girl and rules that ...

1. ... a Yavam who performs Bi'ah with a three-year-old Yevamah - acquires her.

2. ... someone who commits adultery with a three-year-old girl who is married - is Chayav because of Eishes Ish.

(b)When the Tana adds ...

1. ... 'u'Metam'ah es Bo'alah ... ' - he means that a girl of three who is a Nidah renders the Bo'eil Tamei to the extent that he makes the sheets on which he is lying, Tamei too.

2. ... 'l'Tamei Mishkav Tachton k'Elyon' - he means that it makes them Tamei like the covers on top of a Zav (to render food and drink Tamei, but not people and vessels like the sheets of the Nidah herself).

(c)A bas Yisrael of three who marries a Kohen - is permitted to eat Terumah.

(d)The Mishnah finally forbids a bas Kohen to eat Terumah in her father's house if she is raped by one of the Pesulim - Chalal, Nasin or Mamzer even by a Kohen Hedyot, or an Almanah by a Kohen Gadol.

6)

(a)We can extrapolate from the Mishnah - that the Bi'ah of a girl under three is not considered Bi'ah regarding all the above areas of Halachah.

(b)Based on what the Tana just said, Rava extrapolates - that (on the current assumption that Chupah acquires whenever Bi'ah acquires) just as Bi'ah does not invalidate a girl under three from Terumah, Chupah does not invalidate her, either ...

(c)... bearing out Shmuel's earlier statement.