1)

(a)In a case where two objects of Nichsei Tzon Barzel originally worth one thousand Zuz, go up in price and are now worth two thousand - Rav Yehudah rules that besides taking the one article that is her due, the woman also takes the other, though she is obligated to pay for it.

(b)He says that on the basis of - 'Shevach Beis Avihah'.

(c)In spite of having taught us the principle of 'Shevach Beis Avihah' earlier, he nevertheless finds it necessary to repeat it here - because it is one thing to say that she can take the object in preference to the money, but quite another, to say that, even though she has already received what is her due, she is permitted to buy the second object.

2)

(a)In a case where a Kohen who is married to a bas Yisrael dies, leaving his wife pregnant Rebbi Yosi in our Mishnah forbids Avdei Tzon Barzel to eat Terumah - because of the portion of the Ubar.

(b)The reason he gives is because 'ha'Ubar Posel v'Eino Ma'achil' (an Ubar [an unborn fetus] invalidates but does not feed). When he says ...

1. ... 'she'ha'Ubar Posel', he means - that the Obar invalidates a bas Kohen who married a Kohen, who died leaving her pregnant. The Ubar prevents her from eating Terumah 'in her father's house'.

2. ... 'v'Eino Ma'achil', he means - that a bas Yisrael who married a Kohen may neither eat Terumah, nor feed her Avadim Terumah.

(c)the Rabanan object to Rebbi Yosi's reason in that he should not have confined his words to a bas Yisrael who married a Kohen, seeing as the same ought to apply to a bas Kohen who married a Kohen (since by the same token, they cannot eat on account of the portion of the Ubar).

(d)One of the two possible reasons for Rebbi Yosi's ruling is because an Ubar in the stomach of a Zarah is a Zar; the other - because it is only a born child who can feed, not an Ubar.

(e)The difference between the two reasons will manifest itself - in a case where the pregnant is a bas Kohen.

3)

(a)Rabah adopts the first reason to explain Rebbi Yosi. Rav Yosef learn extrapolates from the Pasuk in Emor "v'Yelid Beiso Hem Yochlu b'Lachmo" - the second reason.

(b)When the Rabanan in a Beraisa asked Rebbi Yosi what the Din will be in a case where the deceased Kohen's wife is a bas Kohen, he replied - 'Zu Shamati, v'Zu Lo Shamati' ...

(c)... that a bas Yisrael who is pregnant does not feed her Avdei Tzon Barzel Terumah, because 'Ubar b'Me'ei Zar, Zar Hu'; whereas a bas Kohen does, because the Ubar is not a Zar ...

(d)... a Kashya on Rav Yosef. (Note, that despite this Kashya, on the next Amud, we will nevertheless explain Rebbi Yosi like Rav Yosef.

4)

(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel says that it is only Rebbi Yosi who holds 'Ubar Eino Ma'achil', but according to the Rabanan - if he leaves sons, the Avdei Tzon Barzel eat because of his sons; if not, they eat because of his brothers, and if he does not even leave brothers, then they eat because of the rest of the family (even if his wife is pregnant).

(b)Shmuel told Rav Chana Bagdesa'ah to collect ten men. Rav Chana was called by that name - either because he was an expert in Agadah (b'Agadeta), or because he came from Baghdad.

(c)Shmuel wanted to declare in their presence - that if someone acquires something on behalf of an Ubar, the Kinyan is effective, and it now belongs to the Ubar.

(d)We see from here that Shmuel holds like Rebbi Yosi - who says that an Ubar can acquire (even though he is not yet alive).

5)

(a)Shmuel (who just stated that the Rabanan disagree with Rebbi Yosi) reconcile this with Rebbi Zakai, who stated that when Rebbi Yosi repeated his ruling in the name of Shemayah and Avtalyon, the Chachamim agreed with him ('Hodu Lo') - by interpreting 'Hodu Lo' to mean that they lauded his opinion, but not that they positively agreed with it (otherwise, he [Rebbi Zakai] would have said 've'Kiblu Devarav'.

6)

(a)The Beraisa discusses the various possibilities (with regard to Avdei Milug and Avdei Tzon Barzel eating Terumah after the husband, who is a Kohen, dies). Should he die, leaving behind either sons and a wife who is not pregnant, or sons and a wife who is, the Tana rules - that Avdei Milug, who belong to the wife, may eat Terumah.

(b)According to Rebbi Yosi, in the event that he dies leaving behind ...

1. ... sons and a wife who is not pregnant - Avdei Tzon Barzel may eat Terumah.

2. ... sons and a wife who is - they are not permitted to eat Terumah.

7)

(a)Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi quoting his father, says that a daughter feeds, a son does not (this will be clarified later). Rebbi Shimon says that if he leaves behind sons, then the Avdei Tzon Barzel may eat, even if his wife is pregnant. He does not contend with the possibility that she may give birth to a boy ... like Rebbi Yosi (despite the fact that, in principle, he holds like him) - because he follows the majority, and the majority of women give birth either to a girl or to a still-born baby (and only a minority of babies are males).

(b)If he leaves only girls, he says, they are not permitted to eat - because, he says, perhaps the baby will be a boy, in which case, the girls will not receive a portion, only the Ubar, and an Ubar does not feed.

(c)It was not really necessary to attribute the prohibition to the possibility that the baby will be a boy - because, even if it had turned out to be a girl, she would, in her capacity of an Ubar who is destined to receive a portion, not have fed the Avadim Terumah. He only wanted to point out that even if the Ubar turned out to be a boy, it would still not have been able to feed them.

8)

(a)We explained above that Rebbi Shimon does not contend with the fact that the Ubar might turn out to be a boy, because he goes after the majority. In fact, it is possible to establish his opinion even if he contends with the minority - because Rebbi Shimon speaks when the Beis-Din distributed the property in such a way that the children who were already born received the Avadim, and the Ubar, other property, like Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel.

(b)Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel says that when orphans come to divide up their father's property - Beis-Din provide them with an Apotropos (an administrator) to give each one property that is the most suitable for him.

(c)According to Shmuel, when the orphans grow up, they will have the authority to nullify the Beis-Din's division of property, and will be permitted to re-divide it. Rav Nachman says - that to so would be tantamount to undermining the Beis-Din's authority. Consequently, he maintains, the Beis-Din's decision, in this matter, is final.

9)

(a)Rebbi Shimon maintains that, if the Kohen dies and leaves sons, the Avdei Tzon Barzel are permitted to eat Terumah; the Tana Kama holds that they are not. We initially suggest - that Rebbi Shimon holds of Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel's Takanah, whilst the Tana Kama does not.

(b)As a matter of fact, the Tana Kama too, would agree with the Takanah, if they were arguing in a case when the Beis-Din divided the orphans' property. In fact however - they are arguing when the orphans divided the property themselves; Rebbi Shimon, who permits the Avadim to eat, does not contend with the minority (of cases that the Ubar will turn out to be a boy - as we explained on the previous Amud), whereas the Tana Kama does.

(c)Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi quoting his father, says that a daughter feeds, a son does not. Abaye initially establishes this by a case of 'Nechasim Mu'atim' - where normally, the daughters are fed from the property, and the sons must go begging, if necessary.

(d)The case of 'ha'Bas Ma'achil' of Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi is - when there is one daughter and one son, and the deceased Kohen's wife is pregnant.

(e)And the reason that we do not forbid the Avdei Tzon Barzel to eat, in case the Ubar turns out to be a daughter is - because mi'Mah Nafshach; if the Ubar turns out to be a son, he is not better than the first son, who has no portion in the property anyway. Whereas, should it turn out to be a daughter, then she too, will not receive a portion as an Ubar, seeing as the fact that daughters receive Nechasim Mu'atim and not sons, is mid'Rabanan, and it is only by a Yerushah min ha'Torah that Rebbi Yosi holds that an Ubar inherits, but by a Yerushah mid'Rabanan, he inherits only once he is born.

10)

(a)Even though, as we just explained, Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi is speaking by Nechasim Mu'atim, Rebbi Shimon (whose statement follows that of Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi) says 'Nekevos, Lo Yochelu, Shema Yimatzei Ubar Zachar, v'Ein l'Banos b'Makom Ben' - because he is speaking by Nechasim Merubim.

(b)We have been assuming that Nechasim Mu'atim belong to the daughters. Rav Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan says however, that - if the sons sold Nechasim Mu'atim, their sale is valid.

(c)According to what we just said, Nechasim Mu'atim (in spite of the fact that it is the daughters who are fed from them) really belong to the sons, disproving our interpretation of Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi (that the daughters feed the Avdei Tzon Barzel).

(d)So we explain the 'ha'Bas Ma'acheles' of Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi to mean 'ha'Em Ma'acheles' - meaning that she feeds her Avdei Milug Terumah (because she has sons).

(e)This is indeed the same as the Tana Kama quoting Rebbi Yosi - because the Tana Kama is none other than Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi.

11)

(a)Our Mishnah discusses an Ubar, a Yavam, betrothal, a deaf-mute, and a nine-year old. What they have in common is - the fact that, on the one hand, they invalidate a bas Kohen l'Yisrael from eating Terumah, and, on the other, they do not authorize a bas Yisrael l'Kohen to eat it.

(b)The Tana of our Mishnah also incorporates - a Safek nine-year old and a Safek Gadol who betrothed a woman, in this list.

(c)'Nafal ha'Bayis Alav v'al Bas Achiv (who is his wife), v'Eino Yadu'a Eizeh Mes Rishon'. If the husband died first - then both wives will fall to Yibum simultaneously, in which case, the Tzarah will be Patur from Yibum because of Tzaras ha'Bas (even though, the Yavam's daughter subsequently died; whereas, if his daughter died first, then the Tzarah alone will fall to Yibum, and she will be Chayav Yibum.

(d)The Tana therefore rules - that she performs Chalitzah and not Yibum.

12)

(a)We learn that 'ha'Ubar Posel' (by a bas Kohen l'Yisrael) from the Pasuk "ki'Ne'urehah Beis Avihah" - because, seeing as she is pregnant, she is not like she was in her youth (before she was married).

(b)Our Mishnah rules 'ha'Ubar Eino Ma'achil" (by a bas Yisrael l'Kohen) - due to the principle 'Yelud Ma'achil, she'Eino Yelud, Eino Ma'achil' (like Rav Yosef on the previous Amud).

(c)We learn 'ha'Yavam Posel' from the Pasuk "v'Shavah el Beis Avihah" (since a Yevamah is not free to return to her father's house). And we learn 'Eino Ma'achil' from "Kinyan Kaspo" - because she is not his Kinyan Kaspo, but the Kinyan Kaspo of his brother.

13)

(a)Our Mishnah invalidates a Bas Kohen who is betrothed to a Yisrael from eating Terumah - because the Yisrael has acquired her.

(b)And Erusin does not feed a bas Yisrael to a Kohen because of Ula - who explains that Chazal issued a decree forbidding her to eat, in case she sends a cup of wine that her future in-laws give her, to her brothers and sisters (who are Zarim).