(Mishnah): If a widow was married to a Kohen Gadol, or a divorcee or Chalutzah to a regular Kohen, and she brought into the marriage Melug slaves and Tzon Barzel slaves, the Melug slaves do not eat Terumah, but the Tzon Barzel slaves eat Terumah;

These are Melug slaves - [they are brought into the marriage on condition that] if they die, it is her loss; if they increase, it is her gain. Even though [her husband] must feed them, they do not eat Terumah;

These are Tzon Barzel slaves - [they are brought in on condition that] if they die, he loses; if they increase, it is his gain. Since he has Acharayos (he bears or receives any loss or gain from them), they eat Terumah.

(Gemara - Beraisa) Question: What is the source that if a Kohen married a woman or bought slaves, that they may eat Terumah?

Answer: "V'Chohen Ki Yikneh Nefesh Kinyan Kaspo [Hu Yochal Bo]."

Question: What is the source that if his wife bought slaves, or her slaves bought slaves, that [the latter slaves] eat Terumah?

Answer: "V'Chohen Ki Yikneh Nefesh Kinyan Kaspo" - even if [the Kohen's] acquisition (wife or slave) acquired, [the latter acquisition] eats.

(R. Yakov bar Acha citing R. Heila citing R. Lazar): [The verse ends "vi'Ylid Beiso] Hem Yochlu [b'Lachmo" - we read this] Hem Ya'achilu (they will permit others to eat).

Limitation: The Beraisa discusses a slave who bought slaves on condition that the master has authority over them, but if a slave bought slaves on condition that the master has no authority over them, they are the slave's acquisition (they may not eat Terumah).

(R. Yakov bar Acha citing R. Heila citing R. Lazar): If a slave bought slaves on condition that the master has no authority over them, and the slave [who bought them] died, whoever is first to take them, acquired them.

Question: (In our Mishnah, why do her Melug slaves not eat?) Are they not the Kinyan of [a Kohen's] Kinyan?!

Answer #1 (R. Heila citing R. Lazar): Hem Yochlu (we read this) Hem Ya'achilu - one who is proper to eat, feeds others. One who is not proper to eat, does not feed others.

Answer #2 (R. Yochanan): It is a fine (because their marriage is forbidden).

Question: What do they argue about?

Answer: If a Arel (uncircumcised) slave [of a Kohen] acquired slaves - if [in our Mishnah, her Melug slaves do not eat] due to a fine, here there is no fine (for there were no Aveirah). If it is because [only] one who is proper to eat, feeds others, this [Arel slave], since he may not eat, he does not feed others.

(R. Yakov bar Acha): [R. Lazar and R. Yochanan] argue about Tzon Barzel slaves. R. Yochanan said that if [her husband] sold them, they are not sold [for he has only rights to eat the Peros, i.e. their labor. She owns their Guf.]

Question (R. Lazar): They eat Terumah due to him, and you say so?!

Counter-question (R. Yochanan): [If a Kohen married a permitted woman,] her Melug slaves eat Terumah due to him, and you say (all agree) that if he sold them, they are not sold!

Answer (R. Lazar): From your [question against me, to prove that Terumah does not depend on ability to sell] we can (challenge) you! Really, [Melug slaves] should not eat Terumah (since he has no Achrayus for them, they are hers. Chachamim) said that they may eat (in a permitted marriage, for they gave a husband rights to eat the Peros, so they are like his), and they said that if he sold them, they are not sold. (However, Tzon Barzel slaves eat mid'Oraisa, for they are considered his; if he sold them, they are sold. We explained this like CHESHEK SHLOMO.)

(R. Yakov bar Acha citing R. Yoshiyah): A Beraisa supports this one, and a Beraisa supports this one;

Support (for R. Lazar - Beraisa #1): Melug slaves go free if she (the wife) knocks out a tooth or eye, but not if he (her husband) does. Tzon Barzel slaves go free if the husband knocks out a tooth or eye, but not if she does. (If he could not sell them, he could not cause them to go free!)

Question: How does R. Yochanan answer this?

Answer: It is a leniency of freedom;

Support (Beraisa): If one made his slave an Apotiki (designated that a loan will be collected only from the slave), and he sold him, he is not sold. If he freed him, he is freed. (This shows that there is greater power to free than to sell.)

Support (for R. Yochanan - Beraisa #2): Melug slaves and Tzon Barzel are the same - the law of Yom Oh Yomayim (if one strikes his Eved Kena'ani and he dies more than 24 hours later, he is exempt) does not apply to them, and they do not go free due to [loss of] a tooth or eye, whether he or she [struck the slaves, for neither totally owns them].

Question: What do [R. Lazar and R. Yochanan] argue about - when he sold them permanently, or if he sold them temporarily?

If you will say that [they argue about] when he sold them permanently, but if he sold them temporarily, all agree that they are sold;

If you will say that [they argue about] when he sold them temporarily, but if he sold them permanently, all agree that they are not sold.

Answer: We learn from the following [Beraisa]. If Ploni made his field an Apotiki to his wife for [collection of] her Kesuvah, or to a creditor for his debt, and he sold it, it is sold. The buyer is concerned for himself (lest the wife or creditor later take the field);

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, [if it was] an Apotiki to his wife for her Kesuvah, it is not sold, for she did not fathom that a woman [marries on condition that the sale will be valid, and she] will need to pursue Batei Din (to authorize her to collect from sold property).

Assumption: R. Lazar holds like Rabanan (they are not concerned lest a woman need to pursue Batei Din. Likewise, a sale of Nichsei Tzon Barzel is valid), and R. Yochanan holds like R. Shimon ben Gamliel.

Conclusion: They argue about a temporary sale (for we equate their argument to that in the Beraisa, which is sold only until the wife or creditor will collect), but if he sold them permanently, all agree that they are not sold.

The child of a Melug animal belongs to the husband (for even if the mother dies, the wife will get something back, i.e. the hide). The child of a Melug Shifchah belongs to the wife (if the husband receives the child, perhaps the mother will die, and the wife will not get back anything)!

Chananyah ben Achi Yehoshua says, the child of a Melug Shifchah is like the child of a Melug animal (we are not concerned for death).

R. Lazar (to Rabanan): Know that R. Yochanan holds like Chananyah ben Achi Yehoshua.

Rav and Shmuel [argued about this]. Rav holds like Rabanan, and Shmuel holds like Chananyah ben Achi Yehoshua.

Question (Shmuel, to Rav): According to you, who say that [the child of a Melug slave] is hers, a Bechor should not receive a double portion [for it is like Shevach, i.e. the Shifchah increased in value. Chachamim say that a Bechor does not get a double portion of Shevach!]

Answer (Rav): Exert yourself [and you will find the answer]! If she brought in small slaves and they grew, they are hers, you agree to me that a Bechor receives a double portion (for the Shevach is in the matter itself. Also children are considered Shevach in the matter itself.)

(Beraisa): If she brought in children [and became adolescents], she takes them when they are adolescents. If she brought in two Kelim, if [they increased in value, and now] one was worth her Kesuvah (their total initial value), she takes it for her Kesuvah;

If one and a half were worth her Kesuvah, Rav Huna and Rav Nachman bar Yakov [argued about this. They are partners in the second Kli.] One of them said that he gives the [excess] value of the second and takes it. The other said that she gives the value of the second and takes it.

(R. Aba bar Kahana, in front of R. Ami, and R. Yakov bar Acha citing R. Yosa): Even if one of them was worth her Kesuvah, she gives the value of the second and takes it. She never fathomed that others will use her Kelim. (We explained this like SEFER NIR.)

Support (R. Yakov bar Acha citing R. Ze'ira - Beraisa): If she brought in [possessions and they were appraised] in money, she takes them for money (she pays what they increased. Her husband cannot demand that she take only an amount equal to what she entered.)

Question (R. Chiya bar Rav Ada bar Ahavah, to R. Mana): What are Melug slaves?

Answer (R. Mana): It is like you say 'Melig 'Melig' (one removes the feathers, and leaves the body intact. Here, the husband eats the Peros, and leaves the principal.)

(Mishnah): If one accepted Tzon Barzel from a Nochri (he accepted to raise animals, and appraised their value), the children are exempt [from Bechorah when they mature and give birth, for the Nochri has a lien on them to get back his principal]. Children of the children are obligated (when they mature, the Kohen gets their Bechoros, the fourth generation from the Nochri's animals).

Question (R. Yirmeyah): There, you say that children go to the first (the original owner, i.e. the Nochri). Here you (both Chananyah and the first Tana) say that children go to the second (the husband! Even according to texts that say that she gets the children, this is only of Melug animals, but not of Tzon Barzel!)

Answer (R. Yosah): There, the animal is primarily of the first (the Nochri, therefore the children pertain to him.) Here, the property is primarily of the second (the husband, just if she will be widowed or divorced, she gets it back), so the children go to the second.

(Mishnah): If a Bas Yisrael (Kosher to Kehunah) married a Kohen and brought in slaves, both Melug slaves and Tzon Barzel slaves eat Terumah;

If a Bas Kohen married a Yisrael and brought in slaves, both slaves of Melug and of Tzon Barzel do not eat [Terumah].