1)

(a)In connection with our Mishnah, we learn from the Pasuk "u'Bas Kohen Ki Siheyeh Almanah u'Gerushah" - that a bas Kohen whose son from a Levi dies, leaving her with a son from a Kohen to whom she was previously married, is permitted to eat Terumah.

(b)We justify establishing this Derashah even according to the Rabanan of Rebbi Akiva, who do not Darshen 'Vavin' - on the basis of the fact that here, the entire word "u'Bas" is redundant.

2)

(a)We know that a bas Kohen who is married to a Yisrael may return to her father's house to eat Terumah, in the event that her husband dies and leaves behind no children. The Beraisa forbids her however, to eat Chazeh v'Shok (from Shelamim).

(b)Rav Chisda Amar Ravina bar Shilo learns it from "Hi bi'Terumas Kodshim Lo Sochel" - since the word "bi'Terumas" is otherwise superfluous.

(c)Granted, the Pasuk is speaking about a bas Kohen who is currently married to a Yisrael - but seeing as "bi'Terumas" is superfluous, the Pasuk must be coming to teach us that there is another case of someone who eats Kodshim (i.e. Terumah), but not 'Moram', with reference to the Pasuk that follows (which speaks about a bas Kohen who returns to her father's house to eat Terumah).

3)

(a)Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah learns it from "mi'Lechem Avihah Tochel" - which he Darshens "mi'Lechem" 'v'Lo Kol Lechem' ...

(b)... and food in general is called 'Lechem' (like we find in Daniel "Belshatzar Malka Avad Lechem Rav").

(c)Rami bar Chama asks whether we should not preclude a bas Kohen who returns to her father's house from something quite different than Chazeh v'Shok - namely, the right of her father to nullify her vows (Hataras Nedarim).

(d)Rava answers - that Tana d'Bei Rebbi Yishmael has already learned that from another source (as we shall now see).

4)

(a)The problem that Tana d'Bei Rebbi Yishmael has with the Pasuk "v'Neder Almanah u'Gerushah Yakum Alehah" is - that if it refers to a divorcee, then it is obvious that nobody can negate her vows any more, seeing as she is no longer under the jurisdiction of either her father or her husband.

(b)He therefore establish the Pasuk - by a woman whose father or his Shaliach handed her over to the Shaliach of her husband, and whose husband then dies or divorces her. And the Pasuk teaches us that, once a girl leaves her father's jurisdiction, she does not return to it.

(c)Consequently - we do not need to learn it from "mi'Lechem Avihah", as Rami bar Chama suggested.

(d)Rav Safra precludes a Chozeres from Chazeh v'Shok from the Pasuk "mi'Lechem Avihah Tochel", implying "Lechem", 'v'Lo Basar'.

1. Rav Papa precludes them from "mi'Lechem Avihah" - 'Lechem ha'Kanuy l'Avihah', to preclude Chazeh v'Shok, which is not the personal belongings of the Kohen, but which he acquires from Hash-m's table ...

2. ... Rava, from the Pasuk in Shemini "v'Es Chazeh ha'Tenufah ... Tochlu Atah ... u'Venosecha Itach" - implying 'at the time when they are with you, but not once they are married and have left your jurisdiction'.

5)

(a)The Beraisa says that a bas Yisrael, who eats Terumah on account of her son from her deceased husband, who was a Kohen - may also eat Chazeh v'Shok on his account.

(b)When Rav Mordechai quoted this Beraisa to Rav Ashi - he asked him how this was possible, seeing as a bas Yisrael who eats on account of the son of her first husband who was a Kohen is derived from "u'Bas Kohen" (as we learned above), how can she be any better than the bas Kohen herself, who does not go back to eat Chazeh v'Shok?

(c)Rav Ashi replied - that all the Pesukim that come to exclude from eating Chazeh v'Shok, are written by a bas Kohen who returns to her father, whereas "u'Bas" does not have any word that excludes.

6)

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

1. ... "v'Shavah el Beis Avihah" - that a Shomeres Yavam Kohenes does not return to her father to eat Terumah (because she is still tied to the Yavam).

2. ... "ki'Ne'urehah" - that the same applies to a Kohenes who is pregnant.

(b)We query the need for this latter Derashah from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Yibum to make 'Ubar ki'Yelud' - because if, in a case when we do not consider the child from her first husband like a child from her second one (to exempt a Yevamah from performing Yibum if her second husband died without children), the fetus that she is carrying is nevertheless considered like a live child to exempt her from Yibum; there where the child from her first husband is considered like a child from her second one (to forbid her to return to her father's house to eat Terumah, on account of her child from her first husband), then her fetus should certainly be considered like a live child, to prevent her from eating Terumah.

(c)We refute it however, on the basis of 'Asah Meisim ka'Chayim' - meaning that we cannot learn the prohibition of eating Terumah from the exemption from Yibum, because Yibum has a unique Din, inasmuch as even though the child on whose account she was exempt from Yibum died, she remains Patur, whereas if the child on whose account she is forbidden to eat Terumah dies, she becomes permitted to eat.

(d)In spite of having written ...

1. ... "v'Zera Ein Lah" (to teach us that if a bas Kohen has children, she may not return to her father's house to eat Terumah), the Torah nevertheless needed to write "ki'Ne'urehah" - because we might otherwise have thought that, in the case of a fetus, where they are still one body, she may.

2. ... "ki'Ne'urehah", it needed to write "v'Zera Ein Lah" - because we might otherwise have thought that, in the latter case, where her body remains unchanged, she may.

7)

(a)In the case of a bas Kohen who had a son from her first husband who was a Yisrael, he prevents her from returning to her father's house, even if she subsequently married someone else who died, yet if that son died, we do not consider him as if he was alive. Nevertheless, we do not say that, in our case, seeing as a baby from her first husband does not exempt her from Yibum from her second one, we should certainly not consider her son to be alive (to obligate her to perform Yibum or at least Chalitzah, if her son dies) - because of the Pasuk in Mishlei "Derachehah Darchei No'am" (meaning that it is not nice to reinstate the obligation to perform Yibum once she has been exempted from it, because, if she married l'Shuk, performing Chalitzah then would cause her husband to despise her).

(b)Whereas, using the reverse logic, we do not consider Meisim ka'Chayim to forbid a Chozeres to eat Terumah even if her son died - because the Torah writes "v'Zera Ein Lah", and she doesn't have children!

(c)Nor do we learn from a 'Kal va'Chomer' (from the fact that 'Asah Meisim ka'Chayim' by Yibum) that a son from her first husband will exempt a Yevamah from Yibum should her second husband die without children - because the Torah writes "u'Ben Ein Lo" (stressing the husband), and he doesn't have children!

(d)And by the same token, we do not learn a 'Kal va'Chomer' to permit a bas Kohen whose second husband dies without children, to return to her father's house and eat Terumah, even though she has children from her first one - because the Torah writes "v'Zera Ein Lah" - and she has!

8)

(a)Our Mishnah - permits a woman to marry on the testimony of one witness who testified that her husband died.

(b)If she does, and her husband returns - she has to leave both men.

(c)She is not considered an O'nes - because she should have made more extensive inquiries.

(d)The children that she subsequently bears from either husband are Mamzerim - those of the second one are Mamzerim d'Oraisa; those of the first, Mamzerim d'Rabanan.

9)

(a)The Tana rules that ...

1. ... the woman is not entitled to claim her Kesubah or any of the Tena'ei Kesubah.

2. ... if either husband is a Kohen - he is not permitted to bury her.

3. ... neither husband is entitled to receive whatever she finds or produces, or to nullify her vows.

10)

(a)She will ...

1. ...become Pasul to marry a Kohen (even should both men die) if she is a bas Yisrael - because she is a Zonah.

2. ... lose her right to eat Ma'aser, if she is a bas Levi and Terumah d'Rabanan, if she is a bas Kohen - on the basis of a Kenas (a penalty for her carelessness).

(b)If both men die without children, and each one has a brother - then each brother is obligated to perform Chalitzah.

(c)According to Rebbi ...

1. ... Yosi - she does receive her Kesubah from her husband.

2. ... Elazar - her first husband is entitled to her findings, what she produces, and may nullify her vows.

(d)Rebbi Shimon too, disagrees with the Tana Kama with regard to Yibum, in that - the brother of her first husband may even perform Yibum with her too ...

(e)... and any children that she bears from him are not Mamzerim.

11)

(a)The Tana continues 'Nises she'Lo bi'Reshus Beis Din, Muteres Lachzor Lo'. 'she'Lo bi'Reshus' means - through two witnesses (since, once their testimony is substantiated, she will not require Beis-Din's sanction to get married).

(b)Our Mishnah is more lenient in the case of marrying through the ruling of the Beis-Din with one witness than he is in the case of marrying independently through two witnesses - inasmuch as he exempts her from a Korban (because an individual who acts on the ruling of Beis-Din is Patur from a Korban).

(c)A woman who marries through two witnesses is not considered an O'nes to be Patur from a Korban - because she should not be in such a hurry to get married. She should wait a while to ascertain that her husband is really dead.

(d)Even if the Beis-Din permit her to get married - she is only Patur from a Korban if she actually gets married (and her husband returns), but not if she commits adultery (since that is not what Beis-Din permitted her to do).

12)

(a)We know that the Reisha of our Mishnah is speaking when the woman got married through the testimony of one witness - because, seeing as the Seifa ('Nises she'Lo bi'Reshus Beis-Din, Muteres Lachzor Lo') is speaking about two witnesses (as we just explained), the Reisha must be speaking about one.

(b)We also see from a Mishnah in ha'Ishah Basra that one witness is believed to authorize a woman to marry. The Tana rules there that 'Ed mi'Pi Ed' (one witness quoting another) is acceptable in these matters (although that is not generally acceptable by other testimonies).

(c)Even a woman is believed in this issue ...

1. ... even if she quotes - another woman ...

2. ... an Eved or a Shifchah.

(d)We extrapolate from the Mishnah in Kerisus 'Eid Echad Omer Achalta Chelev, v'Hu Omer Lo Achalti, Patur' that one witness is believed - because it implies that if the accused had remained silent, the witness would have been believed ...

(e)... mid'Oraisa (because otherwise, he would be bringing Chulin to the Azarah).

13)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk "O Hoda Elav Chataso" - that if he only discovers that he is Chayav a Chatas through a witness, but he does not know about it himself, he remains Patur from bringing it. This can only be speaking when he contradicts the witness, because if he remained silent, it would be included in "O Hoda Elav"!

(b)The Pasuk cannot be speaking in a case when there are two witnesses - because if was, we would not need a Pasuk to teach us that when he is silent, he is obligated to bring a Korban.

(c)We try to prove from here - that one witness is believed.

(d)We retract however - because it may well be that the Chatas that he brings is (not on account of the testimony of the witness, but) on account of the silence of the one accused, which is considered admission.

14)

(a)In the Seifa of the Mishnah in Kerisus, the Tana Kama states that if two witnesses testify that someone ate Chelev, and he denies it, he is Patur from bringing a Korban. Rebbi Meir disagrees - because if two witnesses can bring him to Misah with their testimony, then how much more so can they obligate him to bring a Korban.

(b)The Tana Kama counters however - that since the accused could have absolved himself from a Korban by confessing to having eaten it 'deliberately', we are forced to believe him with a 'Migo' (see Tosfos 88a DH 'u'Mah').

(c)We prove from here - that if the Rabanan hold in the Seifa (of the Mishnah in Kerisus) that even two witnesses are not believed, then how much more so one (and the reason that they obligate him to bring a Korban in the Reisha is due to his silence, as we explained, and not to the testimony of the one witness.