Answer #1: It is because he is not obligated to feed her, unless he stood in judgment and fled, like we said above (41b), and he does not designate a place for her [so Ula's concern applies, lest she feed Terumah to her siblings].

Answer #2: There is concern also for Simpon (a blemish that invalidates Kidushin due to Mekach Ta'os). Perhaps there is a Simpon, and she was never his wife, since the time did not arrive in her husband's lifetime, so he did not check [her for blemishes].

Question: According to Ula, who says (Kesuvos 57a) [that an Arusah does not eat] lest she give [Terumah wine to her siblings] to drink, even when she ate in her husband's lifetime, she should not eat!

Since the Yavam is not obligated to feed her, he does not designate a place for her [so Ula's concern applies]!

Answer: Once she merited [to eat Terumah], she merited. (We do not decree to forbid her.)

Question: If so, what was the question (Kesuvos 57b) "if so, a Kohen Lakit (worker living) in a Yisrael's house may not eat Terumah? [We should say that] a Lakit is different, for he already ate his entire life!

Answer: Since the time already came, and he designated a place for her in her father's house, she does not budge from there. (We are not concerned lest she give Terumah to her siblings);

This is unlike a Kohen Lakit in a Yisrael's house.

Question: Since mid'Oraisa she (a Yevamah) may eat, why does Mishnah Acharonah forbid her until Bi'ah, even if she fell from Nisu'in? There is no concern for Simpon!

Answer: Since Mishnah Acharonah forbids an Arusah from when the time [set for Nisu'in] arrived, it forbids also a Yevamah, for they can be confused. For both of them, it is immediately time to enter her [into his house].

Distinction: Above (66a), we expound that a Bas Yisrael [Mekudeshes] to a Kohen may eat Terumah from "Kinyan Kaspo." This is an absolute Drashah [even though the Diyuk we expounded, to exclude his brother's Kinyan, is only an Asmachta].

Proof: Above (57a), we expound from there that a Petzu'a Daka Kohen who married a convert's daughter feeds her Terumah. (Mid'Oraisa, Kidushin suffices. There, it is a bigger Chidush that she eats even after Nisu'in; it is not as if she has Bi'ah with one who disqualifies her. Without this proof, one might have thought that the verse discusses only slaves.)

Implied question: In Kidushin (10b), we learn it (a Bas Yisrael Mekudeshes to a Kohen) from Ben Bag Bag's Kal va'Chomer!

Note: Tosfos does not answer this question. In Kidushin, Ravina concludes that really, we learn from Kinyan Kaspo. Ben Bag Bag's Kal va'Chomer teaches that we should not decree to forbid her. However, Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak explained simply, that it is a Kal va'Chomer mid'Oraisa. Perhaps the Sugya on 57a, which proves that Kinyan Kaspo is an absolute Drashah, is like Ravina. Or, we can answer like Tosfos (Kidushin 10b DH u'Mah), that the Kal va'Chomer reveals how to expound the verse.

Implied question: The Sifri expounds a Nesu'ah from "Kol Tahor b'Veischa", and some learn from "Atem u'Veischem"! (If the Torah permits an Arusah, it need not permit a Nesu'ah!)

Answer: The Sifri is a mere Asmachta. There are several Drashos in the Gemara that the Toras Kohanim and Sifri expound from other verses.

Question: We bring this Asmachta "this is his brother's Kinyan" in Kesuvos (58a) regarding Mishnah Rishonah!

It was taught there "a Yavam is not Ma'achil." According to what I explained, this is only if she did not eat [while married].

Summation of question: According to the Drashah, even if she ate in the husband's lifetime, she does not eat in the Yavam's lifetime!

Answer (R. Tam): There, it means that the Torah said that "Kinyan Kaspo" eats Terumah, and Rabanan enacted [that she eats only] after 12 months;

This is his brother's Kinyan. Chachamim did not enact that she eats due to the Yavam until after Bi'ah, unless she already ate in the husband's lifetime.

Inference: The words connote that we learn from "Ki Sihyeh l'Ish Zar", like Rashi explained.

Rebuttal: However, below we learn from "v'Shavah El Beis Aviha", which connotes that until now, she did not eat;

We establish "Ki Sihyeh l'Ish Zar" to teach about one who had Bi'ah with someone forbidden to her. He disqualified her;

Explanation #1: Here, the Gemara brings the simpler Drashah. Had we not learned from v'Shavah, we would have established [Ki Sihyeh l'Ish Zar] to teach that Eirusin forbids [to Terumah].

The Gemara does so in many places.

Explanation #2 (Ri): Because from this verse "Ki Sihyeh" we expound (68b) also that after Kidushin [to a Zar] she does not return to eat Chazah v'Shok [the chest and thigh parts of a Shelamim, which are given to Kohanim], we mentioned this verse also here.

Explanation: This is not precise. Rather, she is Zekukah to him, for Bi'ah of a nine year-old is only like a mere Ma'amar.

In Kidushin, we exclude that he does not acquire from "Eshes Ish", to exclude a minor's wife.

Alternate text: Some texts say "she is proper for him." This means that mid'Oraisa, she is Zekukah to him, and his Bi'ah is Bi'ah, and we do not require intent regarding a Yevamah;

One might have thought that he acquired her mid'Oraisa, and she may eat! [The Mishnah] teaches that this is not so, for he does not acquire her.

The text: This is R. Chananel's text, unlike Seforim that say oppositely.

Support: The Seifa (69a) says "if he is forbidden to marry into Yisrael."

Question: Since the Reisha taught Pesulei Kehunah, why must the Seifa teach Pesulei Kahal? All the more so [they disqualify]!

Answer: The Seifa reveals about the Reisha, lest we say that the Reisha discusses only Pesulei Kahal.

Question: How can a Safek nine year-old boy disqualify through Bi'ah? We should leave him in the Chazakah that he is less than nine, and leave her in Chezkas Kashrus!

Partial answer: Regarding Kehunah, this is fine. We do not rely on Chazakah regarding lineage, like R. Yehoshua said in Kesuvos (13a) "we do not rely on her claim. Rather, we assume that she had Bi'ah with a Nasin or Mamzer";

This is even if most [of the men who could be the Bo'el] are permitted to her, like it says there. We do not establish her in her Chazakah.

This is even according to R. Gamliel and R. Eliezer, who are Machshir. This is only because she says that the Bi'ah was with a Kosher man, but not here, for she does not know whether or not he was nine.

Question: However, regarding Terumah, we should leave them in their Chazakah!

We discuss even Terumah, just like regarding a fetus and a Yavam.

Regarding Terumah, we rely on Chazakah, for in Kesuvos (26a) regarding "we know that this one's father was a Kohen, and there were rumors that he is a Ben Gerushah..." we establish that there were contradictory pairs of witnesses;

Inference: If not for disgrace to Beis Din [who disqualified him after the first pair testified], all agree that [after the second pair testified that he is Kosher] we would return him [like his initial Chazakah];

This refers to Terumah, for regarding Kehunah, we do not return [to be Machshir] when there are contradictory pairs of witnesses.

This is clear in Kidushin (66a), regarding the episode with Yanai ha'Melech.

Answer: The case here is, when he comes in front of us now, he is Vadai nine years old;

Even though it was a Safek when he had Bi'ah with her, we do not establish him on his initial Chazakah. Rather, we go after his current status, that he is Vadai nine years, for his first Chazakah was weakened.

Note: Aruch l'Ner asks that normally, we say that the initial Chazakah is stronger than the present Chazakah! Also, his initial Chazakah and her Chazakah override his present Chazakah! Maharit (1:41) explains that we do not rely on the Chazakah that he is below nine, for it is prone to change! Tosfos really means that if we do not know that there was Bi'ah, we do not wipe out her Chezkas Kashrus due to Safek. However, if we know that now he is nine, the current Chazakah says that there was Bi'ah. Her Chazakah was weakened, so we do not rely on it.)

Explanation: If it forbids only to Terumah, the verse should have said b'Kodoshim, for the entire Parshah is expounded regarding Terumah;

Since it says bi'Terumas ha'Kodoshim, this teaches that it refers also to what is Muram (separated) from Kodshim (Chazah v'Shok).

Question: Perhaps it comes only for this, to teach that she does not return to Chazah v'Shok!

Answer (R. Yitzchak): The simple meaning of the verse discusses Terumah, for the entire Parshah discusses Terumah.

Reference: In Sanhedrin (51a), R. Akiva said "R. Yishmael my brother, I expound [the fact that it did not say] Bas, [rather,] u'Vas."

Question (R. Moshe of Rigensborg): Who is the Tana who argues with R. Akiva there regarding Bas u'Vas in Sanhedrin (51b)? It is R. Yishmael;

In that Sugya itself, we ask what does R. Yishmael learn from Bas u'Vas? It includes a daughter of [Kohanim] Ba'alei Mumim. (Also she is burned for Zenus.) This shows that also R. Yishmael expounds Vovim!

Answer #1 (R. Moshe): [Our Gemara] means "who is it like? It is like R. Akiva, who expounds Vovim, and establishes the Vov in u'Vas to include a Nesu'ah [for Sereifah]. He does not require a source to include the daughter of Ba'alei Mumim.

Likewise, here he includes a Leviyah and Yisraelis.

However, R. Yishmael, who requires [a Drashah] to include a Ba'al Mum's daughter, like it says "since the verse distinguishes between Temimim and Ba'alei Mumim, perhaps we distinguish their daughters!"...

Also here, he should need a verse to include a Ba'al Mum's daughter, and we would not establish it to include a Leviyah and Yisraelis.

Question: Below, R. Yochanan says in the name of R. Yishmael "what is the source to include a Nochri or slave who had Bi'ah with a Kohenes, Leviyah or Yisraelis...", and he includes Leviyah and Yisraelis from "u'Vas";

The Gemara asks "whom is it like? It is like R. Akiva, who expounds Vovim." It should rather have asked a contradiction in R. Yishmael;

How can he expound u'Vas to include a Leviyah and Yisraelis? He needs "u'Vas" to include the daughter of Ba'alei Mumim, like he expounds there!

Answer (Ri): Here, we did not mention R. Akiva to exclude R. Yishmael, for also R. Yishmael expounds Vovim! Rather, it is to exclude other Tana'im who normally do not expound Vovim.

Proof: It does not say "you can even say that it is R. Yishmael", rather, "you can even say that it is Rabanan."

Answer #2: R. Yishmael does not expound Vovim.

Implied question: In Sanhedrin, the Gemara asked what he learns from Bas u'Vas!

Answer: It said so only to resolve his Drashah according to the opinion that expounds Vovim.

Implied question (Rashi): Similarly, we could have said that Chayavei Kerisos should not disqualify!

Answer #1 (Rashi): It mentioned a Nochri and slave because we discussed them above. "Kusi" refers to a Nochri, and the Mishnah (69b) says that a slave disqualifies through Bi'ah.

Explanation: The Gemara answered that they disqualify due to R. Yochanan's teaching. The verse discusses also Chayavei Kerisos.

Question #1 (Ri): Whenever the Gemara says "Kusi", it does not refer to a Nochri. Rather, it refers to a [Stam] Pasul!

Source #1 (Kidushin 74a - Mishnah): These are the Sefekos - Shetuki (one who does not know who is his father), Asufi (a deserted baby. We do not know either of his parents) and a Kusi.

Source #2: A Mishnah in Kesuvos (29a) teaches that there is a fine for Bi'ah (rape or enticement) of a Mamzeres, Nesinah or Kusis;

We infer (Bava Kama 38b) that the Tanai holds that Kusim (Nochrim that Sancheriv settled in place of the 10 tribes; they later converted) are true converts, since there is a fine for them.

Question #2: Why did R. Yochanan in the name of R. Yishmael discuss a Nochri or slave, and not Chayavei Kerisos?

Answer #2 (Ri): It is obvious to the Gemara that the verse of l'Ish Zar refers to Chayavei Kerisos;

It says in Kidushin (75b) about a Nochri or slave "the child is a Mamzer. Need we teach that he disqualifies through Bi'ah?!" (The same applies to Chayavei Kerisos.)

Implied question: Why is it obvious according to R. Yehoshua, who holds that Chayavei Kerisos [without Misas Beis Din] do not produce a Mamzer?

Answer: Even so, since they are severe, they are considered l'Ish Zar, even those in which he is not a Zar to her from birth (rather, through Kidushin), since the verse primary discusses Chayavei Kerisos.

Explanation: The Gemara asks "perhaps one who had Bi'ah with someone forbidden to her" refers only to Chayavei Kerisos, but not to Chayavei Lavin!"

It answers that the Torah says "Ki Sihyeh" to include Chayavei Lavin.

However, Chayavei Lavin are not severe, therefore we require that he is forbidden to her from birth, like it says below.

It asks that a Nochri or slave, who cannot have Havayah, should not disqualify, for Ki Sihyeh does not include them;

Also, they are not called Zar, because Mamzerus does not apply to them, and they are not severe. A mere Lav forbids them!

It answers that they disqualify due to R. Yishmael's teaching. We do not learn Chayavei Kerisos from there, for widowhood and divorce apply to them if they marry others;

Rather, we learn them from l'Ish Zar. The verse discusses primarily them.

Question: It needed to write Almanah and Gerushah to teach that she returns [to eat] when she is widowed or divorced! (It is not extra to exclude a Nochri or slave.)

Answer: If so (it teaches only returning), it should teach only one of them. He does not hold like R. Akiva below, who explains why we need both of them;

Since it wrote both of them, we expound it also to teach one to whom widowhood and divorce apply. This excludes...