Explanation: The first Tana holds that he feeds them and they eat Terumah, for Chupah does not disqualify her from eating Terumah, for Ein Chupah l'Pesulos;

R. Yishmael holds that Yesh Chupah, for he says "whenever Bi'ah does not permit her to eat, also Chupah disqualifies her from Terumah;

Explanation #1: This is even if she is a Bas Kohen. If he taught that Chupah does not permit a Bas Yisrael to eat, the first Tana would not disagree, based on what I explained that our Mishnah discusses a Bas Kohen;

Explanation #2: Rashi explained that they argue also about a Bas Yisrael, and R. Elazar and R. Shimon permit her to eat when the time [set for Nisu'in] arrives, even if she is Pesulah;

We can explain here that he infers from the equation of Chupah to Bi'ah, like Rashi explained. It connotes that the Chupah is like Bi'ah.

Question: According to the first Tana, since Ein Chupah l'Pesulos, why must he feed them?

Answer: This is no worse than when the time [for Nisu'in] arrived. They eat Terumah, for since she entered the Chupah, there is no concern for mixed a cup [of Terumah wine for her siblings], and not for Simpon.

Question: Still, why must he feed Pesulos? We say below (85a) "she is standing to be expelled. Is she fed?!

Answer: The Mishnah teaches about different cases together. They are fed from him (his estate) after death. They eat Terumah in his lifetime.

Question: Why may he stipulate about Zenus of a Yevamah? A Mishnah (Sotah 18b) teaches that in any case that Bi'ah would not forbid her to him, he cannot stipulate about it!

Answer: Indeed, Zenus of a Yevamah forbids her, like Rav Hamnuna, who says that if a Shomeres Yavam was Mezanah, she is forbidden to the Yavam.

In Sotah (18b) we bring from here a support for Rav Hamnuna. We reject the support, for perhaps the Beraisa is R. Akiva, who says that Ein Kidushin Tofsin on Chayavei Lavin. (Shomeres Yavam resembles an Eshes Ish, therefore Zenus forbids her to her husband.)

Question: How can we learn all of these Drashos from one extra Amen? We expound Amen to (acceptance of) the curse, Amen to the oath, [that she was not defiled] from this man (about whom she was warned), and not from any other man, not while Arusah, Nesu'ah, Shomeres Yavam or Kenusah!

Answer: One Amen refers to everything written in the Parshah. The curse and oath are written explicitly, and also from another man - "mi'Bil'adei Ishech";

The extra Amen teaches about Arusah and Shomeres Yavam. (The primary oath is for now, that she is Nesu'ah. Also Kenusah is Nesu'ah, i.e. in the case that he did Yibum.)

Explanation: Now, we do not exclude from "Tachas Ishech", since now, at the time he gives her to drink, she is under (in the Reshus of) her husband.

Question: What is the source [that the water checks for Tum'ah during Eirusin]? The verse connotes that seclusion was when she is Nesu'ah, for it says "Tum'ah Tachas Ishech"!

Answer: Just like we include from "Ish Ish" Kinuy of Eirusin in Sotah 24a, we include also seclusion [of Eirusin].

Question: We should establish it to be when he had Bi'ah with her b'Shogeg, and at the time he did not yet know that she had been secluded!

In such a case he is considered to be "free of sin", for when we establish [liability for during Eirusin] through Gilgul Shevu'ah (once she must swear, we include other matters in the oath), we do not considered that he is not free of sin if she was Mezanah during Eirusin!

Answer: Here, since at the time he gives to her to drink, he knows that he had Bi'ah with her b'Isur (he later heard that she was secluded beforehand), even if he had Bi'ah with her b'Shogeg, he is not considered to be "free of sin";

However, through Gilgul, he does not know at the time he gives to her to drink (whether she was secluded before he had Bi'ah with her), he is called "free of sin."

Explanation #1 (Rashi, Version #2): We establish it like this in order that we cannot ask that a Shomeres Yavam does not drink;

However, we do not ask that her husband must have Bi'ah with her before the Bo'el, for the Mes had Bi'ah with her first, and this is like Bi'ah with her [current] husband.

Question #1: "Di'Kevasei" (the corresponding case) connotes unlike this;

It connotes that for the same reason we establish the case of an Arusah when he had Bi'ah with her when she was an Arusah in her father's house, in order to fulfill that her husband had Bi'ah with her first, we should establish the case of Shomeres Yavam in her father-in-law's house!

Question #2: In Sotah (24b), it explicitly says "d'Kevasei Shomeres Yavam" regarding the question that Bi'as Ba'al must precede Bi'as Bo'el! (Tosfos will now bring the Sugya there, which connotes that we should establish the case of Shomeres Yavam similarly.)

Citation (24b) Question: Only due to these verses [we know that a Shomeres Yavam does not drink]. If not, one might have thought that she drinks;

Citation (cont.): Rav Acha bar Chanina [brought a Beraisa teaching] "but not (the Parshah does not apply) if she had Bi'ah with the Bo'el before her husband."

Citation (cont.) Answer (Rami bar Chama): The case is, he had Bi'ah with his Arusah in her father's house.

Citation (cont.) Question: Di'Kevasei Shomeres Yavam... (we should establish it similarly)!

Answer (Ri): Rashi's first Perush is correct. In order that Bi'as Ba'al will precede Bi'as Bo'el, we say di'Kevasei Shomeres Yavam, he had Bi'ah with her in her father-in-law's house;

The Mishnah of "I was not Mezanah while Shomeres Yavam or Kenusah" is like R. Yoshiyah. He holds that a Shomeres Yavam drinks, like he learns there;

He needs to establish it when the Yavam had Bi'ah with her in her father-in-law's house only in order that she had Bi'ah with her husband first.

According to R. Yonason who argues with him, even if the Yavam had Bi'ah with her in her father-in-law's house, she does not drink, like we say there;

We establish like him the Mishnah of Arusah and Shomeres Yavam do not drink...

Question: Since these Mishnayos argue each other, what was the question above "rather, he warned her and was Mashkeh her when she was Arusah? A Mishnah says that an Arusah and Shomeres Yavam [do not drink]!

Answer: R. Yoshiyah and R. Yonason argue only about Shomeres Yavam, but no one argues about an Arusah. (All agree that she does not drink.)

Implied question: She is called Shomeres Yavam in the words of R. Yoshiyah and R. Yonason! They discuss when the Yavam had Bi'ah with in her father-in-law's house, and he did not give a Ma'amar.

Answer: There, it is because she is not his full wife regarding drinking (she may not drink Mei Sotah), she is properly called Shomeres Yavam;

Assertion: This is even according to Rav, who says that he acquired for all matters.

Source #1: R. Yonason excludes this in the Beraisa from "Tachas Ishech" (i.e. regarding drinking, she is not called his wife);

Also R. Yoshiyah calls her Shomeres Yavam, for it says "one might have thought that we exclude a Shomeres Yavam...", for if not for the inclusion "Ish Ish", we would have excluded her. We conclude like this there.

However, here he did not mention any reason why it is proper to call her Shomeres Yavam.

Source #2: Also, since he acquired for all matters, he should not have said "Shomeres Yavam and Kenusah" for also she (the Shomeres Yavam with whom he had Bi'ah not for the sake of Yibum) is Kenusah!

Implied question: Why don't we establish it when he fell from the roof, or he intended to press his Ever against the wall [and his Ever entered his Yevamah]?

Answer: "Va'Yiten Ish Bach Es Shechavto mi'Bal'adei Ishech", which implies that your husband had Bi'ah with you, connotes that we require that the husband intended for Bi'ah.

Explanation #1 (Rashi's second Perush): Really, he warned her and she was secluded when she was Arusah;

This Tana does not expound "v'Nikah ha'Ish me'Avon", and not the Drashah that requires that her husband had Bi'ah with her before [the Bo'el].

Question #1 (Ri): In Shevuos (5a) and Sotah (28a) and several places, we ask "does the water check her?! A Beraisa says "v'Nikah ha'Ish..."!, and we do not answer that it is like this Tana [who does not expound this];

Inference: No one argues with this Drashah.

Question #2: What is the source that this Tana does not require that her husband had Bi'ah with her before? Perhaps we discuss when he had Bi'ah with her during Eirusin in her father's house!

Explanation #2 (Rashi's first Perush): "You did not stray Arusah" does not mean that she was secluded during Eirusin;

Rather, you did not stray during Nisu'in to be punished for this through Kinuy of Eirusin.

Question: Also according to this version, since we need to bring a proof that Kinuy of Eirusin helps to give to her to drink for seclusion of Nisu'in, what is the source that the Tana holds like this?

We can explain "we warn an Arusah to give to her to drink when she is Nesu'ah", i.e. Kinuy was during Eirusin, and she was secluded and had Chupah without Bi'ah, like we explained our Mishnah above!

Explanation: We do not seek to learn Gilgul [Shevu'ah in monetary laws] from Gilgul of another man, for that is different;

It is proper to make her drink for Gilgul of another man, if he would have warned her about [seclusion with] him;

However, Shevu'ah does not apply to land at all.

Explanation (cont.): Rather, we properly learn from Gilgul of an Arusah, for one cannot give to her to drink at all, and even so, one is Megalgel (includes in the oath) Zenus of Eirusin.

Question: Above, we derived from this that Yesh Chupah l'Pesulos, and we do not establish it to be through Gilgul. [According to this], what is the source for Gilgul Shevu'ah?

Answer #1: We learn from Gilgul of another man, and we would not distinguish between land and another man.

Answer #2: He holds that "another man" connotes even a minor. This is like land, for one may not warn against seclusion with a minor, like the Mishnah in Sotah (26b).

Observation: Also this proves that she is considered awaiting a Bi'ah Pesulah even though the Kidushin was not forbidden.