(Mishnah): A Mamzer can disqualify or permit eating.

How is this? If Leah was born (1) to a Kohen from a Bas Yisrael or (2) to a Yisrael from a Bas Kohen, and Leah had a child from a Nochri or slave, the child is a Mamzer;

If [the Mamzer's] father's mother was a Bas Yisrael to a Kohen (case 1), she may eat Terumah (even if Leah died. Her grandchild, the Mamzer, is considered seed from a Kohen);

If his father's mother was a Bas Kohen to a Yisrael (case 2) she may not eat Terumah (even if Leah died).

(Gemara) Question: Does this argue with Rav? Rav said that a Nochri or slave who had Bi'ah with a Bas Yisrael, the child is Kosher!

Answer: He explains that it discusses a Pasul Nochri or a Pasul slave. (OHR SOMAYACH Hilchos Isurei Bi'ah 12:19 - we find that R. Eliezer holds that a Shifchah's son from a Mamzer is an Eved Mamzer (Kidushin 3:13). The Yerushalmi holds that likewise, a Nochris' son from a Mamzer is a Nochri Mamzer, unlike the Bavli.)

(Mishnah): Sometimes a Kohen Gadol can disqualify [from Terumah].

How is this? If a Bas Kohen married a Yisrael, and she gave birth to a daughter (Leah), and Leah married a Kohen and gave birth to a son, the son could be appointed to be Kohen Gadol. He permits his mother to eat Terumah, and disqualifies his mother's mother.

She says (laments) 'there should not be (many) like my son the Kohen Gadol, who disqualifies me from Terumah' (this will be explained).

(Gemara - Bar Kapara - Beraisa): A one-day old disqualifies and feeds.

Our Mishnah should say 'not like my grandson the Kohen Gadol, who disqualifies me from Terumah.' (His grandmother says so.)

How is this? If a Bas Kohen married a Yisrael, and she gave birth to a daughter, and a Bas Yisrael married a Kohen and gave birth to a son, and (the son and daughter) married each other, and they had a son, he could be appointed a Kohen Gadol and serve on the Mizbe'ach;

He permits his mother to eat Terumah, and forbids his mother's mother. [The latter] says 'not like my grandson the Kohen Gadol, who disqualifies me from Terumah.'

(Mishnah): An Arel (uncircumcised man) or Tamei may not eat Terumah. His wife and slaves may eat.

A Petzu'a Daka or Krus Shafchah may eat and his slaves may eat, but his wife may not. If he did not have Bi'ah with her since becoming a Petzu'a Daka or Krus Shafchah, she may eat.

(Gemara): [Why does] "Ish Ish" include an Arel (he is like a Tamei, who may not eat Terumah? Perhaps rather,) "Ish Ish" includes an Onen (one of his close relatives died today)!

Answer (R. Yosi ben Chaninah): It says "v'Chol Zar Lo Yochal Kodesh" - I (the Torah) forbade [Terumah] to you due to Zarus (not being a Kohen). I did not forbid to you due to Aninus.

Question (R. Tiyofah Semuka, to R. Yosi): Perhaps we should say 'I forbade to you due to Zarus. I did not forbid to you due to Orlah and due to Aninus'!

Answer (R. Yosi): Since one verse includes and one verse excludes, I include an Arel [to be forbidden] because he is lacking an action to his body (Milah), and I exclude an Onen, for he is not lacking an action to his body.

Question: This is according to R. Akiva [who expounds doubled expressions]. According to R. Yishmael (who does not), how can we answer?

Answer (Beraisa - R. Yishmael): It says "Toshav v'Sachir (a resident or hired worker)" regarding [Korban] Pesach, and also regarding Terumah. Just like Toshav v'Sachir regarding Pesach, an Arel is disqualified [from eating it], also Toshav v'Sachir regarding Terumah, an Arel is disqualified.

Question (R. Chagai): Just like Toshav v'Sachir regarding Pesach, an Onen is disqualified, also Toshav v'Sachir regarding Terumah, we should disqualify an Onen!

Answer: (In Bechoros 57a, the Bavli asked about why the first Tana holds that Tumtum and Androginus enter the pen for Ma'aser, and does not exclude them from the Gezeirah Shavah "Tachas-Tachas".) R. Heila said that the Gezeirah Shavah "Tachas-Tachas" was learned only for matters in the Parshah. Tumtum and Androginus are learned from elsewhere;

(Also here, "Toshav-Toshav" was learned only for matters in the Parshah.) Onen (for Pesach) is learned from [elsewhere, i.e.] Ma'aser Sheni. (We explained this like BEN ARYEH, SEFER NIR.)

Question (R. Avun): Terumah should be forbidden to an Onen from a Kal v'Chomer. Ma'aser [Sheni], which is permitted to Zarim, is forbidden to an Onen. Terumah, which is forbidden to Zarim, all the more so it should be forbidden to an Onen!

Answer: If you say so about Ma'aser, which needs [to be eaten within] a Mechitzah (the walls of Yerushalayim), will you say so about (learn to) Terumah, which does not need a Mechitzah?!

Because there is in [Ma'aser, a stringency] not in [Terumah, i.e. Ma'aser needs a Mechitzah], and there is in [Terumah, a stringency] not in [Ma'aser, i.e. it is forbidden to Zarim], we cannot learn one from the other.