1)

(a)The Beraisa informs us that (in the case of a Safek) it is possible to perform Chalitzah with one's blood-relatives. One would come to perform Chalitzah with ...

1. ... one's mother - in a case where the second son of each of two became mixed-up, and each of the known sons then marries the woman who is not his mother and died. Each of the two mixed-up sons is now obligated to perform Chalitzah with both women because he does know which of them is his mother and which one, his Yevamah.

2. ... one's (let us call him Reuven) sister - in a case where his mother and another woman (each of whom already had a son from their current husbands) both give birth to a daughter (Reuven's mother, from a second husband [who is not his father]) and the two then become mixed-up. Later, when they grow-up, her two paternal brothers marry the two women and die, leaving them both to their Reuven for Yibum (though one of the two women is his maternal sister). He has no option but to perform Chalitzah with both women because he does not know which one is his Yevamah and which one his sister.

3. ... one's daughter - if his wife and another woman give birth to two girls who become mixed-up. Later, when they grow up, his two brothers marry the two women and die. He has no option but to perform Chalitzah with both women, because he does not know which one is his Yevamah and which one his daughter.

(b)This latter case cannot speak when the brothers of each of the two husbands marry one of the daughters and dies, leaving the original husbands to perform Chalitzah, each one with his Yevamah, who may in fact, be his own daughter - because that is not what is implied by 'Achoso mi'Safek' (but rather 'Safek Achoso' - which is not what the Tana said).

2)

(a)If one purchases an Eved and a Shifchah from a Nochri, their two sons are Nochrim, because as long as they are not purchased by Jews, they are not Avadim, because (as we learned above in 'ha'Choletz') a Nochri cannot acquire an Eved from another Nochri.

(b)If one of those brothers converts, he is a Ger. In the event that the owner then Tovels the two parents as Avadim, and they have a third child - the parents will have produced a Nochri, a Ger and an Eved.

(c)Rebbi Meir states the possibility of those parents ending up with children of five 'nationalities'. The ...

1. ... fourth, if - after the owner set the Shifchah free, the Eved had relations with her and she bore him another son (a Mamzer).

2. ... fifth, if - after setting the Eved free too, the two of them marry and have a fifth son, who is a fully-fledged Jew; leaving them with sons from five 'nationalities': a Jew, a Ger, a Mamzer, a Nochri and an Eved.

(d)Rebbi Meir's chief Chidush is - that 'Akum v'Eved ha'Ba al bas Yisrael, ha'Vlad Mamzer' (which we have already discussed a number of times in the Masechta).

3)

(a)The Beraisa presents the possibility of a son selling his father to pay for his mother's Kesubah. The case is if someone purchases an Eved and a Shifchah and they have a son. He then sets the Shifchah free, marries her, bequeaths all his property (including his slave [the son's own father] to the son) and dies, and the woman claims her property from the heir (her son).

(b)The Chidush is possibly based on the fact that the author of this Beraisa too, is Rebbi Meir - who considers Avadim like Metaltelin (movable goods) - in this regard (see Tosfos DH 'Mani'), and he is teaching us here that even Metaltelin are mortgaged for a woman's Kesubah.

(c)If the author of the Beraisa is not Rebbi Meir, then the Chidush is - that despite the fact that Avadim move, they have the Din of Karka (land) like they do in all other areas of Halachah, and not Metaltelin.

4)

(a)The Mishnah now discusses the case of a woman, whose son became mixed-up with the son of her daughter-in-law. The two boys grow up, marry and die. The Tana obligates the other sons of the daughter-in-law to perform Chalitzah with their wives, but not Yibum - due to the Safek that the woman is their aunt (their uncle's wife), who is forbidden.

(b)The sons of the mother-in-law on the other hand, are even permitted to perform Yibum, should they wish - because the woman is either their Yevamah, or their niece, who is permitted.

(c)Should the known sons die ...

1. ... each of the mixed-up sons must perform Chalitzah with the wife of the mother-in law's son, but not Yibum, in case she is his aunt.

2. ... one of them performs Chalitzah with the wife of the daughter-in-law's son (in case she is his Yevamah) and the second one, Yibum - because she is either his Yevamah or his niece ...

(d)... who is permitted to him provided the other son performs Chalitzah first, in case she is his Yevamah (with the status of Yevamah l'Shuk until he does).

5)

(a)The Tana permits the son of a Kohenes who became mixed-up with the baby of her Shifchah, to eat Terumah - because both the son of a Kohenes and a Shifchah of a Kohen are permitted to eat Terumah.

(b)When they go to the granary, they receive one portion between them. The Tana - forbids each one from becoming Tamei Mes, in case he is a Kohen.

(c)He prohibits each of them from marrying a woman who is ...

1. ... Kasher - in case he is the Eved.

2. ... Pasul - in case he is the Kohen.

6)

(a)The Tana rules that, in the event that the two sons eventually grow up and set each other free, they...

1. Can only marry a woman that is fit for a Kohen, but are not permitted ...

2. ... become Tamei Mes, or ...

3. ... to eat Terumah.

(b)If they did become Tamei Mes or ate Terumah b'Mezid - they are not subject to Malkus, because each one is a Safek.

(c)If they ate Terumah b'Shogeg - they are not obligated to pay Keren v'Chomesh, because each one can say that he is a Kohen (and we will apply the principle 'ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro Alav ha'Re'ayah'.

(d)They are not allowed to receive Terumah under any circumstances. As far as their own Terumah is concerned, they are permitted to sell it to Kohanim.

7)

(a)

1. 've'Einan Cholkin b'Kodshei ha'Mikdash' means - that they may not receive a Bechor Behemah or the skins of Kodshei Kodashim.

2. 've'Ein Nosnin Lahen Kodshim' means - that one may not even give them a piece of Bechor to eat or a skin as a gift, and ...

3. ... 've'Ein Motzi'in es she'Lahen mi'Yadam' - that one does obligate them to give their own Cherem or Bechor to a Kohen.

(b)'ve'Ein Motzi'in es she'Lahen mi'Yadam' cannot mean that they are permitted to appoint whichever Kohanim they wish, to bring their Korbanos and who will receive their flesh and skin - on account of Gemara in Bava Kama, which teaches that whoever cannot perform the Avodah himself cannot appoint a Shaliach either.

(c)They are also Patur from giving to a Kohen, the Zero'a, Lechayayim and Keivah of their Chulin animals. Their first-born animals - are set free in the meadow to romp around until they obtain a blemish, when they become permitted to a Zar, and may be Shechted outside the Beis Hamikdash.

8)

(a)The Lashon of our Mishnah 'Mesu ha'Kesherim ... ' cannot be correct - because it assumes that the sons that became mixed-up are Pasul, which is obviously untrue.

(b)So we emend it to 'Mesu ha'Vada'in ... '.

9)

(a)In the case of the children of a Kohenes and her Shifchah who became mixed-up, we emend the Lashon of our Mishnah from 'Nosnin Lahem Chelek Echad' to 'Nosnim Lahem Chelek k'Echad' - because it is unnecessary to inform us that they receive one portion between them.

(b)What it means is - that the one cannot receive a portion of Terumah without the other one being present.

(c)This Halachah is based on the principle ...

1. ... 'Ein Cholkin Terumah l'Eved Ela-im-Ken Rabo Imo', which in turn, is based on the principle...

2. ... that a Kohen who receives Terumah must be Meyuchas, and is therefore eligible to serve on the Mizbe'ach without further proof ('Ma'alin mi'Terumah l'Yuchsin'), in which case one is only pernitted to distribute Terumah to someone who is Meyuchas]).

(d)This is the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah. Rebbi Yosi holds - 'Cholkin Terumah l'Eved Af-al-Pi she'Ein Rabo Imo'.

(e)Consequently, he must hold 'Ein Ma'alin mi'Terumah l'Yuchsin'.

10)

(a)On the sole occasion that Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok testified, he erred. He testified - that they distributed Terumah to an Eved without his master.

(b)His mistake was - that although what he saw took place in the location of Rebbi Yosi (where they hold 'Ein Ma'alin mi'Terumah l'Yuchsin'), he testified in the location of Rebbi Yehudah (where they hold 'Ma'alin ... ').

(c)We refute the initial text, where he testified that they actually raised an Eved to the status of Kohen through his testimony ('v'He'elu l'Eved li'Kehunah al Pi') - on the basis of the principle that Hash-m does not allow even the donkey of a Tzadik to sin ('Hashta Behemtan shel Tzadikim Ein Hakadosh Baruch Hu Mevi Takalah al Yadan ... ) ...

(d)... which they said with reference to the donkey of Rebbi Pinchas ben Ya'ir, which refused to eat un'Ma'asered crops), how much more so Tzadikim themselves (Tzadikim Atzman Lo 'Kol she'Ken!').

(e)The new version reads - 'Bikshu l'Ha'alos Eved li'Kehunah al Pi' (that they almost raised an Eved to the status of Kohen through his testimony).

11)

(a)The Tana lists ten people who do not receive a portion of Terumah in the granary, by which he means - that it is sent to their homes.

(b)There are two exceptions to this, inasmuch as they do not receive Terumah at all; one of them, is a Kohen who is Tamei - the other, one who married one of the Pesulei Kehunah. This is due to the Kenas (penalty) which Chazal imposed on them for abusing the Kehunah.

(c)The reason for not distributing Terumah to a Cheresh, Shoteh v'Katan (Chashu) is similar to the reason for not distributing a Tumtum and an Androginus. The reason for not giving Terumah to ...

1. ... the latter is - because it is not respectful to give Kodshim [Terumah is called 'Kodshei ha'Gevul'] to a freak.

2. ... a 'Chashu' is - because it is not respectful to give Terumah to people who do not posses Da'as.

(d)We discussed the reason for not giving a portion of Terumah to an Eved in the granary, earlier. One may not give ...

1. ... an Arel and Tamei - because they are considered Ma'us (disgusting).

2. ... a Kohen who married a woman who is Pasul li'Kehunah - because Chazal penalized him.

12)

(a)The tenth case, the one whose reason initially eluded us - is a Kohenes.