Question: Everywhere, we make a Hekesh (equate matters) stringently. Here, we ask that we should make the Hekesh leniently!

Note: Tosfos ha'Rosh says that here there is a reason to make the Hekesh leniently, because they are considered like an animal.

Question: We need the inclusion of Leviyah and Yisraelis to teach that she returns for her son, like it says below (87a)!

Answer: He holds that we need Leviyah and Yisraelis for everything the verse discusses;

We do not need it to teach that even when she has seed from the Nochri she eats due to her son, since it teaches about a Kohenes, whose body has Kedushah. (His seed does not disqualify even her. Surely it does not disqualify a Leviyah or Yisraelis!)

Question: Also according to him (R. Akiva), we can establish it to discuss a widow to a Kohen Gadol according to R. Simai, or a Be'ulah to a Kohen Gadol even according to R. Yeshevav! (There is Kidushin with them.)

Answer #1: We learn that all Pesulei Kehunah disqualify to Terumah from "Lo Yechalel."

Answer #2: He does not, for "l'Ish Zar" does not connote a Kohen.

Question: Why don't we establish it to discuss a Sotah whose husband had Bi'ah with her on the way [to the Mikdash to make her drink]? There is only an Isur Aseh of v'Nitme'ah (so Kidushin Tofsin Bah)!

Answer: We require that she is forbidden to him from birth, even according to R. Akiva, since the child is not a Mamzer.

Question: Why must he say that "Ki Sihyeh" means that she had Bi'ah?

We could have asked simply, why does R. Akiva need a verse for a Nochri or slave? The child is a Mamzer. Need we teach that he disqualifies through Bi'ah?!"

We say so in Kidushin (75b).

Explanation: This is like it says in Kidushin (78a) if he had Bi'ah, he is lashed for Lo Yechalel.

Question: How do we know this, that we do not require both (Kidushin and Bi'ah)? The verse says "Lo Yikach v'Lo Yechalel"!

Answer: Regarding the son, we do not require Kidushin, for all the more so [he is disqualified] without Kidushin. Since the son is disqualified, also she is disqualified.

Explanation: The primary reason is due to l'Ish Zar, but we learn from a widow to a Kohen Gadol how it is reasonable to establish the verse;

If not for the verse l'Ish Zar, we could not learn from a Kal va'Chomer (from a widow), for she herself is disqualified, like I explained above (15b).

Implied question: Why didn't it teach a minor with them? Chachamim did not enact Nisu'in for a minor, like it says (below 96b) "if a lunatic or minor married... (there is no Yibum or Chalitzah after they die)."

Answer (R. Yitzchak): It is because the Seifa needs to teach "if she gave birth...", which does not apply to a minor.

Observation: There was no need to teach that rape or enticement does not feed. It was taught due to "they do not disqualify";

Even according to R. Elazar, who says that if a bachelor had Bi'ah with a single woman not for the sake of Kidushin, he made her a Zonah, it seems that she is not disqualified to Terumah, for this is not "l'Ish Zar."

Question: Why doesn't it say that Nichbeshah with a slave, like it says [about her son] "Nichbash with a Shifchah"? Nisu'in does not apply to her [in both cases]! (Ya'avetz - the expression "Nichbash Al" connotes the Bo'el, so it does not apply her. (It seems that Tosfos' text said Nichbash Im - PF.) We find in Tanach expressions of Nisu'in with slaves.)

Explanation (Rashi): A woman who is Mezanah turns over so [the semen will fall out, and] she will not become pregnant.

Implied question: [Why don't we forbid a Kohenes married to] a lunatic [Yisrael? She does not turn over. Perhaps she is pregnant from him!]

Answer: Also here she turns over. She does not want to become pregnant, for she fears that she cannot endure him (living with a lunatic. She prefers not to have children, since she is prone to leave him.)

This is like we say below (112b), that a person cannot live with a snake in one basket.

Reference: In Kidushin (75a), we explain their argument in three ways. (Rav holds that the child is a Vadai Mamzer and may marry a Mamzeres, or we switch the opinions of Rav and Shmuel, or Rav merely means that the child may not marry a Bas Yisrael.)

Explanation: This version affects how we explain in Kesuvos (13b), regarding the Arus and Arusah who came in front of Rav Yosef. She said that she is pregnant from him, and her Arus agreed...

Citation (13b - Rav Yosef): What concern is there? Firstly, the Arus agrees. Also, Rav Yehudah said [that the Halachah follows R. Gamliel, that a woman is believed to say that she became pregnant from a Kosher man].

According to Abaye, who holds here that according to Rav, the child is a Mamzer even if she is not suspected of others, Rav Yosef's first reason does not suffice without the latter support.

Explanation: When she is not suspected of others, Abaye agree that the child is not a Mamzer. Rather, it was taught...

Abaye and Rava argue about when she is suspected of him and of others.