Explanation: We ask a contradiction in R. Oshaya.

Question: Below, we conclude that R. Yochanan asked according to R. Eliezer ben Yakov, but according to R. Elazar and R. Shimon, perhaps he permits a convert's daughter [to eat Terumah];

R. Shimon permits one who converted before three years old to marry a Kohen. Perhaps he also holds that Kahal Gerim are not called Kahal Hash-m (so a Petzu'a Daka may marry them)!

Answer: However, Rashi explains that the Gemara concludes that R. Yochanan's question was according to R. Eliezer ben Yakov. R. Oshaya did not resolve anything. (Therefore, the Gemara properly asked a contradiction. Here R. Oshaya says that Tana'im argue about this!)

Question: Why does he feed her before Bi'ah according to Abaye? She awaits forbidden Bi'ah!

Abaye does not hold that "she already ate" is a reason to eat, like it says below!

Question #2: Also, how can Rava say "there is different, for she already ate"? We ask according to R. Elazar;

R. Elazar holds below (75a) that we do not say "because she already ate", regarding the very Mishnah (70a) of one who did not have Bi'ah with her [after becoming a Petzu'a Daka];

Citation (75a) Question: Who is our Tana, who permits a woman awaiting a Bi'ah forbidden mid'Oraisa, to eat Terumah?

Citation (cont.) Answer #1 (R. Elazar): Tana'im argue about this. Our Mishnah is like R. Elazar and R. Shimon.

Citation (cont.) Answer #2 (R. Yochanan): Our Mishnah is even like R. Meir. The case is, she already ate (before he became a Petzu'a Daka).

Answer: All agree that the reason "she already ate" helps for this, that she eats according to R. Elazar and R. Shimon, even though he does not permit to eat elsewhere;

R. Elazar and R. Yochanan argue only about R. Yochanan's teaching that she eats even according to R. Meir, because she already ate;

[He holds that] she is not considered to be awaiting a forbidden Bi'ah, since she initially ate due to a permitted marriage. It is as if the marriage still endures, so she may eat due to it.

Explanation: Abaye brings this regarding a Petzu'a Daka who was Mekadesh. It is considered that he is Ma'achil (permits his wife to eat Terumah) elsewhere, since he is Ma'achil when he did not have Bi'ah with her;

Rava holds that this is not considered that he is Ma'achil elsewhere, since he is not Ma'achil there through an action now, rather, because she already ate.

Inference: This implies that Reish Lakish was great when he came in front of R. Yochanan [to learn], like R. Tam explained in Bava Metzi'a (84a);

He learned in front of R. Oshaya, the Rebbi of R. Yochanan. (Also see Tosfos Eruvin 65b.)

Question: He should have said that whether or not he retains his Kedushah, she does not eat, due to these two reasons, that the daughter of a male convert is like the daughter of a male Chalal (i.e. she is a Chalalah), and Kahal Gerim Ikri Kahal!

Note: The first reason suffices! Tosfos ha'Rosh brings only the first reason. Why did Tosfos need the latter reason? Indeed, Be'er ha'Mayim changes the text to say "due to one of these two reasons." However, Tosfos does not explain why the latter reason suffices by itself. Perhaps it is obvious that if Kahal Gerim Ikri Kahal, she is forbidden to a Petzu'a Daka, so he does not feed her.

Even if he does not retain his Kedushah, she does not eat, because a male convert's daughter is like a male Chalal's daughter;

She is like a Chalalah, and a Chalalah may not eat Terumah. This is clear from Kidushin (77a)!

Suggested answer: If R. Yehudah holds that the daughter of a male convert [is like a Chalalah] because it says "mi'Zera Yisrael", like it is clear from there, we could say that she is not totally like a Chalalah, only regarding the Isur to marry a Kohen.

Difficulty: However, there it connotes that R. Yehudah's primary reason is a Kal va'Chomer. A Chalal comes from a Kosher drop [of semen, i.e. his father was a Yisrael]. If so, he should consider her to be a full Chalalah!

Observation: We still need the reason that he holds that Kahal Gerim Lo Ikri Kahal. He was not concerned to mention it [now]. Rather, he waited until he said "if he does not retain his Kedushah, she eats..."

If he does not retain his Kedushah, the reason Kahal Gerim Lo Ikri Kahal suffices by itself. (He preferred to teach each reason with one side of the question about whether he retains his Kedushah.)

Explanation: This is a Mishnah in Bikurim (1:5). It is not difficult why we didn't bring the Mishnah in Kidushin (77a), for also this [that we brought] is a Mishnah.

Explanation #1 (Rashi, according to the Ri): They argue about Chupah without money [beforehand]. Rav and Shmuel hold like Rav Huna, who holds (Kidushin 5a) that Chupah acquires (makes Kidushin).

Rav holds that just like Kidushei Chupah acquires a Kosher wife, it acquires a Pasul wife.

It is stronger than Kidushei Kesef. Even R. Elazar and R. Shimon, who say that Kidushei Kesef does not disqualify, agree about Chupah, since it is close to Bi'ah, like we say in the Dichuy of Rami bar Chama's words.

Implied question: We should say Dayo! (We learn that Chupah makes Kidushin from a Tzad ha'Shavah of Kesef, Shtar and Bi'ah. It cannot be stronger than any of them!)

Answer: The law that a woman awaiting a Bi'ah forbidden mid'Oraisa is forbidden to Terumah is mid'Rabanan. Chachamim were more stringent than about Chupah, since it is close to Bi'ah.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Rav holds that She'er applies also to Pesulos. Just like she is called She'ero through Chupah after Kidushin, to make her a Nesu'ah regarding giving a Sotah to drink; we require "Tachas Ishech", i.e. a Nesu'ah...

[Also, Chupah] helps for a [Besulah Na'arah] Arusah, to remove her from the law of Skilah (for Zenus) to Chenek (like a Nesu'ah);

It acquires also without Kesef to make her an Arusah.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Shmuel holds that Ein Chupah l'Pesulos. Chupah helps only for Kesheros, for Chupah is Kiruv (coming close) to Bi'ah. It helps only for those proper for Bi'ah, but not for Pesulos, who are not proper for Bi'ah.

Also Chupah after Kidushin does not help according to Shmuel for Pesulos, for She'er and Kiruv Bi'ah do not apply to them.

Proof: We bring [a Mishnah that says that a Sotah answers "Amen"] that I was not Mezaneh when Arusah... to support Rav. It discusses Chupah after Kidushin (with a Pesulah, for she was warned and secluded during Eirusin. We wanted to derive that now, due to the Chupah, she is considered Nesu'ah) without Bi'ah. This teaches that Chupah takes effect on Pesulos.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Rami bar Chama says that Tana'im argue about whether Yesh Chupah l'Pesulos. He argues with Rav and Shmuel;

He argues with Rav, who disqualifies according to all [Tana'im], and with Shmuel, who says that no [Tana] disqualifies;

Rather, just like they argue about Kidushin, they argue about Chupah.

Conclusion: We must explain Rashi like this.

Implied question: Why didn't he explain that we discuss Chupah after Kidushin?

Answer: If so, Shmuel could not say that all agree that Chupah does not disqualify, for she is already Pesulah from the time of Kidushin according to R. Meir!

Implied question: Why didn't he explain that we discuss Chupah after Kidushin, and there was no Pesul at the time of Kidushin, e.g. he became a Petzu'a Daka after Kidushin, or a Kohen Gadol who was Mekadesh a minor and she became a Bogeres while Mekudeshes to him?

Answer: Also in such a case she is disqualified. This is clear from the question below (59a) of a Kohen who was Mekadesh a minor and she became a Bogeres during Eirusin, according to the Ri.

Suggestion: Perhaps we can bring a proof also from what it says below (75a) that even R. Yochanan, who establishes the Mishnah of one who did not have Bi'ah with her even like R. Meir, connotes that this is only for a Nesu'ah, who already ate, but not for an Arusah!

Rejection: There we discuss a Bas Yisrael. She eats only due to him. Therefore, she may not begin to eat through Pasul Nisu'in;

However, for a Bas Kohen married to a Kohen, we can say that since she ate before, she may eat also after he became a Petzu'a Daka.

Question: Why didn't [Rashi] establish [Rav and Shmuel to argue] about an Arusah who already ate when the time [set for Nisu'in] arrived, according to Mishnah Rishonah?

This would be like R. Yochanan, who says that when she already ate, she is not disqualified due to awaiting a forbidden Bi'ah, according to R. Meir.

Answer #1: It is difficult to establish the Mishnah like Mishnah Rishonah.

Answer #2: [The Sugya] connotes that Rav and Shmuel discuss Pesulos of the Mishnah, i.e. a widow to a Kohen Gadol, and a divorcee or Chalutzah to a Kohen Hedyot. (Such women are not fed. They would not eat when the time arrived. If they discussed a Kohen Hedyot who was Mekadesh a widow, and after the time arrived he was appointed to be Kohen Gadol, they should have specified.

Question #1 (against Rashi - Ri): Rami bar Chama's words, "according to R. Meir, who says that Kidushin disqualifies, also Chupah disqualifies", connote that we discuss Chupah after Kidushin;

If he discussed Chupah without Kesef, also Chupah is Kidushin! He should not have said Stam Kidushin, rather, Kesef or Shtar.

Question #2 (R. Tam): According to Rashi, Rav and Shmuel are unlike the Halachah, for we do not hold like Rav Huna;

Proof #1 - Citation (Kidushin 3a): The Minyan in the Reisha (a woman is acquired in three ways) excludes Chupah;

Citation (cont.) Question: According to Rav Huna, who holds that Chupah acquires, what does it (the Minyan) exclude?

Proof #2: It says (5b) that Rav Huna holds that we do not find money [that acquires b'Al Korchah] in marriage. This implies that the Halachah does not follow him.

Question #3 (R. Yom Tov of Yuni): Shmuel says that Ein Chupah l'Pesulos, but there is Chupah for Kesheros. What is the reason?

Rav Huna learns that Chupah acquires from a Tzad ha'Shavah of Kesef, Shtar and Bi'ah. We can challenge this. All of those acquire Pesulos, but Chupah does not, even after we learn that it acquires!

We can challenge [a Tzad ha'Shavah] like this, like we find in Menachos (6a) regarding offering a Tereifah to Hash-m, and in Bava Kama (40b) regarding a stadium bull [that is enticed to gore].

Suggestion: This is not considered a challenge, because Chupah of Pesulos is not called Chupah.

Rejection: Even so, it is a challenge, like we ask there "Kesef redeems Hekdesh and Ma'aser Sheni. You cannot learn to Bi'ah..." [even though Bi'ah is not called redemption]!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam, and the Ri agreed): Rav and Shmuel discuss Chupah after Kidushin. They refer to "if she was widowed or divorced" in the Mishnah (56b);

Rav says that Yesh Chupah l'Pesulos. If they were widowed or divorced after Chupah, all [Tana'im] agree that they are disqualified, since there is Chupah, and it is considered like Bi'ah to disqualify permanently;

Shmuel says that Ein Chupah l'Pesulos. They [are like women who] were widowed or divorced from Eirusin, who are Kesheros even according to R. Meir.

Question: Why wasn't [their argument] fixed on the Mishnah of "they were widowed or divorced"? (I.e. the Gemara should have cited this from the Mishnah before bringing the argument of Rav and Shmuel!)

Answer: It is because they discuss the argument of R. Meir and R. Elazar and R. Shimon. (Therefore, it was taught after the Beraisa of R. Meir and R. Elazar and R. Shimon.)

Implied question: Rami bar Chama said "according to R. Meir, who says that Kidushin disqualifies [also Chupah disqualifies." She was already disqualified from the time of Kidushin!]

Answer: He means that since R. Meir is so stringent, that even during Eirusin she may not eat, similarly through Chupah, if she was widowed or divorced [afterwards], she may never eat.

Also according to R. Tam's Perush, Rami bar Chama argues with Rav and Shmuel.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): "Aba" is an expression of importance.

Rejection (and explanation #2): No. "Aba" was Rav's name, like the Aruch explained (Erech Aba);

This is like it says in Berachos (47a) "if they would bring mushrooms or young fowl for Aba..."

Also Rav Kahana said (Berachos 62a) "Aba's mouth [talks] like one who never tasted a dish", and it says in Chulin (137b) "who is Rosh Yeshiva in Bavel? It is Aba Aricha (the tall one)."

Question: Rav Kahana was a Talmid of Rav. Why was he allowed to call him by his name?

In Sanhedrin (100a), it says that Gechazi was punished because he called his Rebbi (Elisha) by his name!

Answer: Perhaps Rav Kahana was permitted because he was a Talmid Chaver of Rav, like it says in Sanhedrin (36b);

[A Talmid Chaver is] like Rav Kahana and Rav Asi, who needed Rav to hear teachings from him, but they did not need his reasoning (they were qualified to reason by themselves).

Also in Bava Kama (117b), it says that R. Yochanan asked [Rav Kahana] all his Sefekos. (This implies that Rav Kahana was a Chacham comparable to Rav.)

Explanation #1: This is if her father accepted Kidushin for her.

Question: Why did this need to be taught? We learn it from the Seifa, which says that if any of the Arayos had Bi'ah with her, they are killed;

It is clear from Sanhedrin (69a) that this includes Eshes Ish;

It is clear from Sanhedrin (55b) that this includes even bestiality, in the Sugya of mishap and disgrace (regarding when we kill an animal used for bestiality)!

Answer #1 (and explanation #2 - Ri): Rather, this clause refers to "if her Yavam had Bi'ah with her, he acquired her." It teaches that [other men are killed for Bi'ah with her, for] the Yavam totally acquired her mid'Oraisa;

This is unlike the Bi'ah of a nine year-old boy. That Mishnah (Nidah 45a) says that it acquires only mid'Rabanan, like we say "[Chachamim] made Bi'ah of a nine year-old boy like an adult's Ma'amar";

We exclude [from a Kinyan] mid'Oraisa in Sanhedrin (52b) and Kidushin (19a) from "Asher Yin'af Es Eshes Ish", to exclude a minor's wife.

Question: In Sanhedrin (69a), we infer that we follow the majority in capital cases. If not, we should be concerned lest she is an Ailonis (one who does not develop like a normal female), and he was not Mekadesh with intent for an Ailonis [so it is a Mekach Ta'os, and she is single, and the Bo'el is exempt].

According to the Ri, that we discuss [Misah for her after] her Yavam had Bi'ah with her, why do we ask that perhaps he, i.e. the first brother, was not Mekadesh with intent for this (an Ailonis)?

This forces us to say that also the Yavam did not do Yibum with intent for this [that if she is an Ailonis, so she was not his brother's wife, he is Mekadesh her through the Bi'ah]!

We should have asked better! We should be concerned lest he was Mekadesh with this intent, for then she is not the Yavam's wife! (There is no Mitzvah of Yibum with an Ailonis; Ein Kidushin Tofsin in Eshes Ach.)

Alternatively, we should have asked Stam, we should be concerned lest she is an Ailonis! This includes every case. Whether the first brother was Mekadesh with intent [even if she is an Ailonis], or not, she is not the Yavam's wife.

Answer: We mentioned "he was not Mekadesh with intent for this" because we want to ask also from the Seifa, "if any of the Arayos had Bi'ah with her..."

[The Makshan] knew that to [the question about Yibum in the] Reisha, he (the Tartzan) can answer that "Chayav" refers to a Korban, like he answered. He then asked that [the Seifa, which need not discuss Yibum] taught that they are killed due to her. From the beginning, this was the basis of his question.

[The Tartzan] answered "the case is, he accepted on himself." This refers to the Seifa. In the Reisha, we must say that "they are liable" refers to Korban, for there it does not help that he accepted, like we explained.

Answer #2 (to Question (b) - Riva): We need "one is liable for her for Eshes Ish." Had this not been taught, we would have established "if any of the Arayos had Bi'ah with her..." to discuss only Arayos, but not an animal;

However, now that it says "one is liable for her for Eshes Ish", and the same applies to all Arayos, we need the Seifa only for an animal;

Based on this, the Gemara in Sanhedrin (55b) inferred "all Arayos - even an animal."

Proof: In the Seifa, regarding a nine year-old boy, it says "all Arayos in the Torah are killed due to him", and even so it teaches "and an animal is killed due to him";

Inference: An animal is not included in "all the Arayos."

Explanation: However, if she is less than three years, since she is not proper for Bi'ah, he does not check her [for blemishes], and there is concern for Simpon;

Also, he sends her back to her father's house. (If she may eat Terumah, there is concern lest she feed some to her siblings -Kesuvos 57b.)