1)

(a)Our Mishnah now discusses Nichsei Milug - (property that a wife brings into the marriage, which is not inserted in her Kesubah and for which her husband does not therefore take responsibility) and Nichsei Tzon Barzel - (property which she does insert in the Kesubah and for which her husband takes responsibility, and corresponding to which he tends to bring into the marriage property of his own).

(b)A husband is obligated to feed his wife's Avdei Milug - in spite of the fact that they are considered his wife's property.

(c)If a Kohen Gadol marries an Almanah, Avdei Tzon Barzel - who, as we just explained, are considered his property, are permitted to eat Terumah, whereas Avdei Milug are not - because they belong to her, and she is a Chalalah (as we will explain shortly).

(d)Both the Avdei Milug and the Avdei Tzon Barzel of ...

1. ... a bas Yisrael who marries a Kohen - are permitted to eat Terumah.

2. ... a bas Kohen who marries a Yisrael - are not.

2)

(a)The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "v'Kohen Ki Yikneh Nefesh (Kinyan Kaspo) Hu Yochal Bo" - that the wife (even if she is a bas Yisrael) and the Avdei Kena'anim of a Kohen are permitted to eat Terumah.

2. ... "v'Kohen ki Yikneh Nefesh Kinyan Kaspo Hu Yochal Bo" - that if a Kohen's wife or Avadim acquire Avadim, they too, are permitted to eat Terumah.

(b)We need a Pasuk to include Eved she'Kanah Avadim", for a case where someone presented an Eved with money on the express condition that his master does not acquire it (in which case 'Mah she'Kanah Eved Kanah Rabo' does not apply).

(c)The problem posed by this Beraisa with our Mishnah is - why the Tana forbids Avdei Milug of an Almanah l'Kohen Gadol to eat Terumah. Why are they not permitted because of Kinyano she'Kanah Kinyan?

(d)We initially try to resolve it - by restricting the right to feed to those who are themselves permitted to eat, but not to those who are not.

3)

(a)In spite of what we just learned, the Avadim of a Kohen who is an Arel or who is Tamei are permitted to eat Terumah, even though they themselves are not - because their situation is only temporary, and stands to be reversed (like someone whose mouth hurts, who is just waiting for a cure); whereas an Almanah l'Kohen Gadol will remain a Chalalah forever.

(b)We query this from a Mamzer, who is not allowed to eat permanently, yet he permits his grandmother to eat. In fact, 'Mamzer' is only mentioned arbitrarily (because that is what the Mishnah is talking about). The case is that of a bas Yisrael who married a Kohen, bearing him a daughter. The daughter then married a Yisrael, bore him a son and died. The Kashya is - from the child's grandmother, who is permitted to eat because she has off-spring from a Kohen, even though the son himself is forbidden to eat because he is a Zar!

(c)Ravina answers the Kashya - by emending the text of the earlier Beraisa from 'Kol ha'Ochel Ma'achil', to 'Kinyan Ochel Ma'achil; Eino Ochel Ma'achil' - confining the prohibition to Avdei Milug, but precluding a Kohen who is a Mamzer or an Arel.

4)

(a)Rava disagrees; according to him, min ha'Torah, the Avdei Milug of an Almanah l'Kohen Gadol are permitted to eat Terumah, and it is the Chachamim who forbade it - in order to make her feel that, if neither she nor her Avadim are permitted to eat Terumah, she must be a Zonah, thereby creating an atmosphere that will lead to a quick divorce (which is what we want).

(b)Rav Ashi too, ascribes the prohibition to a Rabbinical decree. We refute his initial suggestion, that it is because she might continue to feed them after her husband dies - because, if that was so, we ought to forbid every bas Yisrael who marries a Kohen to feed her Avadim Terumah, for the same reason.

(c)We conclude that Rav Ashi is referring to a bas Kohen who married an Almanah, and whose Avadim we forbid to eat Terumah - because we are afraid that if they were permitted to eat before she married the Kohen Gadol, and they were still permitted to eat now (because of her husband), she will assume that they will remain permitted even after her divorce, without realizing that, since she is a Chalalah, she will no longer be able to feed them, and there is no other reason for them to be able to eat.

(d)The Tana does not specifically confine the decree to an Almanah who is a bas Kohen (and not a bas Yisrael) - because Chazal did not want to differentiate between one Almanah and another ('Lo Plug').

5)

(a)If a divorced woman claims back the original objects of Nichsei Tzon Barzel, and her husband insists on paying her money, Rav Yehudah rules that the Din is with her - because of 'Shevach Beis Avihah' (i.e. in honor of her father's house [a sort of family heirloom, which has special sentimental value]).

(b)According to Rebbi Ami, the Din is on his side - because, seeing that he accepts full responsibility (as we learned in our Mishnah), the objects are considered his.

(c)Rav Safra finds a snag in Rebbi Ami's reasoning in the words 'Ho'il v'Chayav b'Acharayusan' - which merely teaches us that he is responsible, but not that he actually becomes the owner.

6)

(a)The Mishnah in Terumos rules that ...

1. ... a Yisrael who hired a cow from a Kohen - is permitted to feed it oats of Terumah.

2. ... a Kohen who hired a cow from a Yisrael - is not.

(b)To resolve the discrepancy between the latter and the Kohen feeding Avdei Tzon Barzel, Terumah in our Mishnah - we point out that whereas the latter accepts full responsibility for them, the Kohen who hired a cow from a Yisrael only accepts responsibility for theft and loss, but not for accidents, physical decline and devaluation.

(c)The Seifa of the Mishnah in Terumos, which speaks about 'Sham Parah', conforms with our Din of Avdei Tzon Barzel - because 'Sham Parah' means that one assesses the animal at the time of hiring, and undertakes to return the assessed value under all circumstances, including accidents, physical decline and devaluation (like a borrower).

(d)The Tana rules there 'Yisrael she'Sham Parah mi'Kohen - Lo Ya'achilenah Karshinei Terumah, Aval Kohen she'Sham Parah mi'Yisrael, Ya'achilenah Karshinei Terumah (just like the Din of Avdei Tzon Barzel).

7)

(a)Rabah and Rav Yosef were sitting at Rav Nachman's Derashah when they cited Beraisos to prove both the opinions of Rav Yehudah and of Rebbi Ami.

(b)The Beraisa that supports the opinion of ...

1. ... Rebbi Ami rules - that if a husband or a wife knocks out a tooth or who blinds the eye, of an Eved of Tzon Barzel, he goes out to freedom.

2. ... Rav Yehudah states - that the husband is not permitted to sell Nichsei Tzon Barzel.

(c)The Tana adds - that he is not even permitted to sell the corresponding property that he brought in to the marriage.

(d)When a case came before Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, he ruled that - if either the husband or the wife sell Nichsei Tzon Barzel without the consent of the other, the husband may claim it back from the purchaser.

8)

(a)Rav Nachman ruled like Rav Yehudah (that the woman is entitled to her objects in preference to cash), despite the Beraisa that supports Rebbi Ami - because his reasoning is sound.

(b)When the heirs took a coat of Nichsei Tzon Barzel after their father's death and placed it over their dead father's body - Rava ruled that 'the dead body had acquired it' (that the woman could no longer claim it).

(c)This ruling appears to contradict Rava Amar Rav Nachman's previous ruling - inasmuch as there, he ruled that she had the right to reclaim her Nichsei Tzon Barzel after her husband divorced her (or died).

(d)In reply, Rav Kahana explained to Na'na'i (Rava's grandson) that even Rav Yehudah would concede that, in this case, the widow would have no claim - seeing as he did not say that the Nichsei Tzon Barzel belonged to her, but that she had a right to claim them. In fact, they belonged to the heirs. Consequently, when they placed the coat on their dead father's body (which has a Din of Hekdesh), the Mes acquired it, removing the Shibud (the right to claim).

9)

(a)The above ruling of Rava conforms with his own ruling regarding the three things that remove Shibud - Hekdesh, Chametz and Shichrur (like we learned in Perek ha'Choletz).