1)

(a)Rav Papa and Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua argue over the reason for not giving a Kohenes Terumah in the granary. According to one of them, it is because her husband may have divorced her (and she is no longer entitled to receive Terumah), in which case she is a Zarah. According to the other - it is because we are worried that it may lead to the Isur of Yichud (being secluded with a woman).

(b)There are two differences between the answers; one of them where the granary is close to the town (so that everyone knows about the Kohenes' marital status), but where it is sparsely frequented (so that the suspicion of Yichud remains). The other - where the granary is far from town, but where it is well-frequented.

2)

(a)One of the only two Kohanim who does not receive Terumah at all is a Kohen who is Tamei. The difference between him and an Arel, to whom one does send Terumah (because he is an Ones) is - that whereas the latter is a complete Ones (seeing as his two brothers died through the Milah), a Tamei is not (because he should have been more careful).

(b)After stating that one does not give an Eved or a woman a portion of Terumah in the granary, the Beraisa discusses a case where one does - with reference to Ma'aser Ani.

(c)The reason that the Tana gives precedence to a woman by Ma'aser Ani is - because the embarrassment of a woman in having to linger in a public area, is greater than that of a man (particularly in view of the Pasuk in Tehilim "Kol Kevudah bas Melech Penimah").

(d)Taking his cue from this Beraisa, Rava began giving precedence to the Din Torah of a woman before that of a man. Initially however, he would give precedence to the Din Torah of a man - because of the various time-related Mitzvos (as well as Torah-study) which a man is Chayav and a woman is not, rendering the time of a man more precious than that of a woman).

3)

(a)Our Mishnah, discussing the Din of the son of the Kohen and the son of the Eved who became mixed-up, mentions the case of 'Higdilu ha'Ta'aruvos, v'Shichreru Zeh es Zeh'. We object to this Lashon - because it implies that setting each other free is a voluntary act on their part, whereas in fact it is obligatory to complete the process, so that they should be able to fulfill the Mitzvah of 'Peru u'Revu' (like in the case of an Eved who is half free).

(b)So we emend it to read - 'Kofin Oso u'Meshachrerin Zeh la'Zeh'.

4)

(a)Rav Papa explains the final statement in our Mishnah 'Nosnin Alav Chumrei Kohanim v'Chumrei Yisraelim' with reference to the Minchah that either of them bring. The Minchah of a Kohen differs from that of a Yisrael in that - a. it does not requires Kemitzah (the separation of a fistful) and b. it is entirely burnt.

(b)A Kemitzah is not taken from the Minchah of a Kohen - precisely because it has to be burned (so what is the point of the Kemitzah?!).

(c)Rav Papa now explains 'Nosnin Alav Chumrei Kohanim v'Chumrei Yisraelim' to mean - that a Kemitzah must be taken from their Minchah (like the Minchah of a Yisrael).

(d)However, the rest of the Minchah must be entirely burned (like that of a Kohen).

5)

(a)The problem with burning the remainder of the Minchah is - that whenever a part of a Korban has to be burned on the Mizbe'ach, there is a Lav to burn the remainder (which is meant to be eaten) on the Mizbe'ach.

(b)To answer the question, Rebbi Yehudah brei d'Rebbi Shimon ben Pazi cites Rebbi Elazar, who learns from the Pasuk "v'El ha'Mizbe'ach Lo Ya'alu l'Rei'ach Nicho'ach" - that although one is not permitted to bring it on the Mizbe'ach as a Re'ach Nicho'ach (as an official Korban), one is permitted to bring it as if it was a piece of wood (i.e. as fuel).

(c)But the Rabanan disagree with Rebbi Elazar. So we deal with our problem by establishing the case like Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, according to whom, the Minchas Chotei of a Kohen (Tamei Mikdash who is very poor, and the Minchah in our case) - must be scattered on the Beis ha'Deshen besides the ramp of the Mizbe'ach.

(d)The Rabanan (i.e. Rebbi Shimon) disagree with Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon by the Minchas Chotei of a Kohen. They say ...

1. ... there - that the Kometz is brought independently and so is the rest of the Minchah (which is not meant to be eaten anyway).

2. ... in our case - like Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon (because maybe the Safek is a Zar, in which case his Korban needs to be eaten and the Lav of bringing it on the Mizbe'ach therefore applies).

6)

(a)Our Mishnah now discusses the case of a woman who married within three months of her husband's death, and who subsequently gives birth to a baby. The problem with this is - that we do not know whether he is the ninth-month son of her first husband or the seventh-month son of the second husband.

(b)If the woman has children from both husbands, and the Safek later marries and dies leaving no children - they must perform Chalitzah (in case he is their maternal, but not their paternal, brother).

(c)In the reverse case, her son from the first or from the second husband marries and dies without children - then the Safek is obligated to perform Chalitzah.

(d)If the Safek has a brother from each of the two men, but from a different mother, and one of them marries and dies without children, then the Safek must perform Chalitzah. In the event that he marries and dies without children - one of them performs Chalitzah, the other, Yibum ...

(e)... because if the Safek was his brother, then he is merely performing Yibum, whereas if he was not, then the other son was, and having performed Chalitzah, he has permitted her l'Shuk.

7)

(a)If one of the husbands is a Kohen and the other one a Yisrael, then all the Dinim of Safek Kohen that we learned in the previous Mishnah will apply here too. Should one of them die, he will ...

1. ... be obligated to practice the laws of Aninus - which entails a prohibition to perform the Avodah and to eat Kodshim or Ma'aser Sheni.

2. ... not be permitted to bury him.

(b)The same will apply with regard to them should he die. Neither does he inherit them - because the other heirs of each man can 'push him away' by demanding that he prove himself to be an heir.

(c)They do however, inherit him - since there is nobody to object.

(d)He is Patur for striking or cursing either of them. On the other hand, he serves in the Mashmar of both of them, but without receiving a portion of the Korbanos - though he will receive a portion if both men are from the same Mishmar (this too, will be qualified later).

8)

(a)Shmuel rules that a baby who is born to a woman with whom one of ten Kohanim were intimate - is called a 'Shtuki' (meaning that one silences him).

(b)He cannot mean that one 'silences' him from his father's property - because, seeing as we do not who his father is, that is obvious.

(c)What he means is - that a Kohen who does not know who his father is (due to the above circumstances), may not perform the Avodah.

(d)He learns it from the Pasuk (regarding the Kehunah) "v'Hayesah Lo ul'Zar'o Acharav" - implying that a Kohen is only Kasher for the Avodah if his seed is Meyuchas after him ('Ba'inan Zar'o Meyuchas Acharav').

(e)Shmuel explains the Pasuk "Liheyos Lecha l'Elokim ul'Zar'acha Acharecha" (said to Avraham, who was not a Kohen) - as a warning for a Jew not to marry a Nochris or a Shifchah, since the child will then be Meyuchas after her.

9)

(a)To reconcile his statement with the Beraisa (quoted above in 'ha'Choletz' [with regard to a child that is born to a Yavam who performed Yibum within three months of the death of his brother]) 'Safek ben Tisha l'Rishon, ben Shiv'ah l'Acharon, Rishon Ra'uy Liheyos Kohen Gadol' - Shmuel will establish it by the Din d'Oraisa, whereas he is speaking mid'Rabanan (and the Pasuk that he quoted is only an Asmachta [a support]).

(b)The Tana does not even invalidate him l'Chatchilah - because the Beraisa speaks about where she married legally, and the decree only pertains to a woman who has illicit relations.

(c)We query Shmuel however, from the case in our Mishnah, where a woman who married within three months 'after her husband' and who bears a child who is a Safek. Presuming that 'after her husband' means after he died, how do we explain the ruling 'Hu Onen Aleihem' vis-a-vis that same husband - with reference to gathering his bones (Likut Atzmos) to re-inter them in the family grave.

(d)The problem with this explanation is - how to explain the ruling that they are Onenim for him?!

10)

(a)So we try to establish the Beraisa where the first husband divorced the woman, in which case 'after her husband' means - after he divorced her.

(b)And the problem with the Seifa 'Hu Ein Mitamei Lahem' is - why he cannot be Metamei for the first husband, seeing as, even if he is the son of the second husband, he will be a Chalal (seeing as his mother is a divorcee).

(c)So we establish the Mishnah when she did not marry the first man, but was intimate, first with one of them and then with the other (or even if she married the second one - see Maharsha). And when the Tana writes 'Mi she'Lo Shahasah Achar Ba'alah' (implying that she lost her husband), he means - to say 'Mi she'Lo Shahasah Achar Bo'alah' (i.e. that she did not wait three months after being intimate with the Bo'el).

(d)The problem with Shmuel from the Seifa 'Oleh b'Mishmaro shel Zeh v'Shel Zeh' is - that since we do not know who his father is, he ought to be invalidated from doing the Avodah altogether.

(e)To answer the Kashya on Shmuel - Rav Shemaya establishes the Mishnah by a Mema'enes; she made Mi'un and then, without waiting three months, she married the second husband. There is no problem with her son doing the Avodah, seeing as the Mi'un negated the first marriage, in which case the second marriage was legal, and Shmuel's decree does not apply.

11)

(a)Establishing the case by a Mema'enes however, leaves us with a Kashya from Rav Bibi's Beraisa 'Shalosh Nashim Meshamshos b'Moch ... " (quoted in the first Perek). The three age groups discussed by the Tana are - less than eleven, when she cannot even become pregnant; between the ages of eleven and twelve, when pregnancy will lead to her death (which is the only time when she is permitted to use a cloth during Tashmish), and above the age of twelve, where there is no life-danger.

(b)In that case, if our Mishnah speaks by a Mema'enes (which only applies to a Ketanah) - how can she possibly have given birth?!

(c)We finally establish our Mishnah like Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel - who learns from the Pasuk (regarding a Sotah) ...

1. ... "v'Hi Lo Nispasah" - that if she was raped, she is permitted to remain with her husband.

2. ... the word "v'Hi" - that there is another case where, even if she was not raped, she remains permitted to her husband, and that is a woman whose first Kidushin turned out to be invalid.

(d)So we finally establish the case of 'Mi she'Lo Shahasah Achar Ba'alah Sheloshah Chodashim' - when the woman's first Kidushin turned out to have been an error, and she then went and married another man within three months.