Observation: Below we establish this like R. Meir, who says that there is a lien on Metaltelim to pay the Kesuvah.

Question (R. Tam): Everywhere it connotes that the argument is to collect from him, in Kidushin (65b) regarding two men who came from overseas with a package and a woman. (Each man claims that she is his wife, and the other man is his slave. She claims that they are her slaves.)

She collects her Kesuvah from the package. We establish it like R. Meir [who says that there is a lien on Metaltelim to pay the Kesuvah].

Also in Nedarim (65), regarding "even if you sell the hair on your head, you must give a Kesuvah", we learn that there is a lien on Metaltelim to pay the Kesuvah.

The primary argument is in Kesuvos (80b), regarding one whose brother left him money. R. Meir and Rabanan argue about whether or not there is a lien on them to pay the Kesuvah.

Inference, and summation of question: They argue about from orphans, but from him (the husband) Rabanan agree that there is a lien [on Metaltelim], just like a creditor, who can collect the shirt off his back!

Answer (R. Tam): A Yavam is in place of his brother. However, from orphans, even R. Meir agrees that there is no lien.

Support (Ri): If R. Meir held that there is a lien even from orphans, his reasoning would be opposite to Rabanan's!

Rabanan hold that [rights to collect] a Kesuvah is weaker than a creditor, for there is no lien on Metaltelim for a Kesuvah, and a creditor collects even the shirt off his back;

R. Meir holds that it (a Kesuvah) is stronger, for it has a lien even against Metaltelim of orphans, but a creditor does not!

Conclusion: Rather, all agree that there is no lien on Metaltelim for a Kesuvah.

Question: Here it connotes that R. Meir holds that there is a lien on Metaltelim of a gift, and a gift is stronger than orphans!

A document without Acharayus (rights to collect from property that the borrower sells) is not collected a gift recipient, like it connotes in Bava Metzi'a (12b);

The Mishnah teaches that [if one found] a document without Acharayus, he returns it. We are not concerned for a scheme against a gift recipient (the document will be used to collect from him).

However, we hold that even a Milveh Al Peh (a loan without a document) is collected from orphans (Bava Basra 176a)!

Answer (Ri): Here we discuss a Matanas Shechiv me'Ra (a gift of a dying person). It is weak, like inheritance;

However, [a Kesuvah] is not collected from the gift of a healthy person. It connotes like this in Bava Basra, for it says "a widow is fed from a Torah inheritance. All the more so she is fed from a Matanas Shechiv me'Ra, which is mid'Rabanan!

Application: Based on the [Ge'onim's] enactment that a woman collects her Kesuvah from Metaltelim or orphans, all the more so she collects Matanas Shechiv me'Ra;

However, from a healthy person's gift, which is stronger, they did not enact that she collects.

Implied question: Everywhere, we say that slaves are equated to land!

Answer: Here it is proper to consider them like Metaltelim, for one does not rely on [collecting from] them, since they die and flee;

The opinion that considers them like land holds that one relies on them like land.

Citation (Yerushalmi): This teaches that one may marry the wife of his brother's son (after her husband died or divorced her).

Explanation: Even though this could lead to Bitul Mitzvas Yevamin, if he will die and she will fall to Yibum to his brother (and she is Ervah, i.e. Kalaso), even so it is permitted.

Observation: This supports Rivan, who explained above (62b) that [the verse] praises only one who marries his sister's daughter, but it is not such a Mitzvah to marry his brother's daughter, for this can lead to Bitul Mitzvas Yevamin. (If the verse praised even one who marries his brother's daughter, the Yerushalmi would not need to infer a Heter from our Mishnah!)

Question (Ri): Why doesn't it teach that one is not lashed, like it teaches in the Seifa?

Suggestion: Since it was taught in the Seifa, the Tana saw no need to repeat it [in the Reisha].

Rejection: [The Reisha] teaches that they may not become Tamei Mes, even though it was taught in the Seifa!

Note: Maharsha answers that the Reisha discusses minors, for when they mature, they must free each other. Rashash questions this, for they do not free each other until 20 years!

Explanation: Even though they need not pay it, they must separate it, for Kaparah.

Implied question: If both of them come, and stipulate "if I am a Kohen, give to me for my sake. If my colleague is a Kohen, give to me for his sake" [we should give to them]!

Answer: Even so, we do not give, since they may not eat it. We are concerned lest [giving to them] lead to transgression.

Explanation #1 (Rashi, first Perush): If they were obligated an Olah, Chatas or Asham, we do not force them to give it to Kohanim of the Mishmar [those whose turn it is to serve that week], so Kohanei Mishmar will merit to offer them and keep the skins;

This is because each [of the Safek Kohanim] says "I am a Kohen. A Kohen may offer whenever he wants, even in [the week of] a different Mishmar";

Rather, either the Mishmar offers the Korbanos for them and returns to them the meat, and they give it to anyone they want, or they (the Sefekos) make any Kohen they want to be a Shali'ach to offer their Korban.

Question (Rashi): We say in Bava Kama (110a) that when he cannot serve, also he cannot make a Shali'ach!

Answer (Ri): Here is different, for if Eliyahu would come and say that he is a Kohen, he could serve;

This is like a sick or old Kohen, who may give to Mishmar he wants, since he could serve with difficulty.

Support: R. Elchanan found that the Yerushalmi says so explicitly. It says that if he was old or sick, he gives it to Mishmar he wants;

If he was Tamei or a Ba'al Mum, he gives it to that Mishmar.

It concludes that we treat the Sefekos like an old or sick Kohen, for the Mishnah says "we do not take theirs from them."

Explanation #2 (Rashi, second Perush): We do not give to them Kodshim, i.e. Bechor or Cheramim.

Question (Ri): [A Beraisa] in Erchin (29a) teaches that before Chermei Kohanim are given to a Kohen, they are like Hekdesh. After they are given to a Kohen, they are like Chulin in every way.

If so, how can we leave Cherem with them? (If he is a Zar, it is Hekdesh!)

Answer (Ri): They give to each other and stipulate [to return it].

Explanation: Obviously, they receive only one portion.

Question (R. Elchanan): According to the opinion below that we do not give Terumah to a woman due to [concern lest she continue to take when she is] a divorcee, also regarding a slave, we should be concerned lest he request Terumah after he is freed!

Answer (Ri): We need not be concerned for this. He would not establish himself to be a slave.

Implied question: We should be concerned lest his master sell him to a Yisrael, and he will request Terumah!

Answer: Since his master must feed him, the slave would not sin, for he does not benefit from it [in any case he receives food].

Question: We conclude in Gitin (12a) that a master can tell his slave "work for me, and I will not feed you";

We should be concerned lest he request Terumah then, for his master is not feeding him!

Answer: Perhaps this is not common.

The text: It seems that this is not in the text. This question applies only when the Chacham himself stumbles in eating Isur. This is not the place to elaborate.

Explanation: This is only a minor who does not know how to lift his hands (give Birkas Kohanim);

Source - Citation (Sukah 42a - Beraisa): One who knows how to lift his hands, we give to him Terumah.

This refers to a minor. It said "a minor who knows how to lift his hands, he ascends [to give Birkas Kohanim] with adults, but not by himself, until he brings two hairs.

This is like it says in Megilah (24a), that he may not give Birkas Kohanim regularly until his beard fills out.

Question: Why do we send to a Cheresh and lunatic? They will not guard the Terumah in Taharah!

Answer: The case is, they have an overseer in their house. (He will guard it in Taharah.)

Implied question: If so, we should give to them a portion!

Answer: We do not, lest people give to them a portion even when they have no overseer.