1) If a widow marries a Kohein Gadol, or a divorcee marries any Kohein, her slaves who are her Nichsei Melug can't eat Trumah. After all, the woman now becomes a Chalala and is forbidden to eat Trumah, so she can't feed her slaves Trumah either. [Tosfos says: even according to the opinion that an acquisition on the produce of an object is as if he owns the object, and the husband owns the produce of the slave; they agree that, regarding Trumah, it depends on who owns the actual body, or else it wouldn't be classified as “his money acquisition.” This is why the slave doesn't go out when the husband knocks out a tooth or eye. A proof to this, if a master makes his slave Hefker, if he hadn't given him his freedom document, he can eat Trumah despite that the master no longer owns his labor.”]

2) We say that the acquisition of what the Kohein acquires eats Trumah. Therefore, whatever his wife or slave owns, should eat. [Rashi says the slave can own a slave if someone gives him money on condition that his master can't have any access to it. Tosfos says: even according to R' Meir who says that, even in this case, a slave can't acquire anything without his master, we can say the case is when the master made him Hefker, but didn't get his freedom document yet.

Tosfos says: although the Chalala woman can't feed her slave for being her acquisition, but since she's her husband's acquisition, the slaves should eat because they're the Kohein's acquisition's acquisition.] However, that's only when the acquisition can eat, then the acquisition's acquisition can eat. (This is not similar to an uncircumcised Kohein, or a Tumtum, who can't eat, although their acquisitions may eat; that's because they're really eligible to eat, but they have an outside prevention that they can't eat until they fix something, and it's similar to someone who can't eat because his mouth hurts.)

3) Rava answers: it's a rabbinical enactment not to allow them to eat. So that the wife would feel that it's not a real marriage if neither she or her acquisition eats Trumah. Thus, she'll feel as just a promiscuous woman and he'll leave him.

4) R' Ashi answers: it's a decree to forbid for a case where a widowed Kohein's daughter marries a Kohein Gadol. After all, her slaves ate Trumah after her first husband died. If her slave continues to eat Trumah when she's under her second husband, the Kohein Gadol, she'll think they eat after he dies too. They decreed to forbid a Yisrael's daughter in order not to permit it when she's a Kohein's daughter.

5) However, a slave of Nichsei Tzon Ubarzel may eat since the husband accepted responsibility to pay if anything happens to it. This is like when a Kohein 'assesses' a cow from a Jew. [Rashi explains: he rents it, but accepts to pay back the worth if it gets weak, or if it goes down in price, or any other Onness that might happen to it. Tosfos says that this would be a problem of Ribbis. Rather, it's just a general borrowing.] The Kohein can feed it horse-beans of Trumah. [Tosfos explains: it can't be mainly human food, or else you may not destroy the Trumah by feeding it to an animal. However, it must be edible to a human, or else it wouldn't be obligated in Trumah and Maasar.] However, if a Yisrael gets it from a Kohein, he may not feed it Trumah [Tosfos: although Trumah is not forbidden to a Yisrael to have pleasure from, but he's not allowed to have pleasure from the Trumah's destruction (like by feeding it to his animal).]

6) However, if a Kohein rents a cow from a Yisrael, he can't feed the cow Trumah [Tosfos: since it's not an acquisition from his money], but if a Yisrael rents it from a Kohein, he may feed it Trumah [Tosfos: since it's like a Yisrael selling his Trumah to a Kohein (that he inherited from his Kohein maternal grandfather), that he may keep the proceeds.] Granted that he has the responsibility to pay if it gets lost or stolen [Tosfos: it seems because we Paskin that a renter has the same obligations as a hired watchman], but that doesn't make it like his own since he's not responsible for an Onness.

7) When a woman gets divorced and wants to collect from the slaves and utensils that she brought into the marriage (Nichsei Tzon Barzal) (since they have sentimental value), and the husband wants to keep them and pay her the Kesuva in money; R' Ali says that he's correct. We have a Braisa like that, since it says that those slaves go free if the husband knocks out an eye or tooth, but not if the woman does so. [Tosfos says: this is even after his death, (since it's simple that this is the Halacha if the husband is still living). The reason why it doesn't go free, at that point, if the woman knocks it out because the husband can keep them if he wants, and doesn't go to her in her Kesuva. However, there is no proof that it goes out with his knocking out the limb, since everybody would agree to that, even R' Yehuda (as we'll bring his opinion soon). After all, even if she has the right to collect them, right now she hadn't collected them yet.]

8) R' Yehuda says that she's correct, and we have a proof from a Braisa like him too. We say that neither the husband and wife can sell the Nichsei Tzon Barzel, and if the husband sells them, he can remove it from the buyer. [Rashi says: after the wife dies. Tosfos says: from Rashi, it would seem, that when the wife is alive, the wife can't protest. Even if we say not like Rashi, and she could protest, but as long as she didn't protest, the sale is in place. That, which the husband can remove it from the buyer for free, even though he was the one who sold it, and he should have accepted responsibility to pay for any loss that comes from him. As we see in Kesuvos: if a son sold his mother's Kesuva on condition that his mother won't protest, and if she does (and wants to collect her Kesuva with it), he doesn't have any responsibility to refund his purchase. The mother died before she protested, the son can't say that, since he inherits his mother's Kesuva, he can't demand to collect the field for the Kesuva, because then he'll need to refund the purchase. After all, although he said explicitly that he doesn't accept responsibility for his mother's action, but he sure accepts responsibility for his own action. We must say that they enacted that this sale shouldn't take effect at all. This is not similar to other properties of the husband that he can sell, although the wife might need to collect it for her Kesuva, since she might not need to collect because there might be unsold property that she can collect from. However, here, she would collect even if there is unsold property since she has the right to collect these properties that she brought into the marriage.]

9) The Halacha is like R' Yehuda, since his reason makes sense since it has sentimental value to her since it's her family's property. Even if the utensils went up in price, she has the right to buy the extra (that's more than the worth of her Kesuva) with money.

10) If a daughter of a Yisrael marries a Kohein, the slaves she brings in may eat Trumah, whether they're Nichsei Melug or Tzon Barzel.

11) R' Yossi holds: if a daughter of a Yisrael married a Kohein and he dies when she's pregnant, neither the mother, nor his slaves, can eat Trumah because of the fetus, since it has a status of a non-Kohein while it's still in the body of a non-Kohein. However, if she's a daughter of the Kohein, they all eat, although the slaves' owner is the fetus, R' Yossi holds that it can feed the slaves Trumah before it's born. [Tosfos says: he holds that it's only a Gezeiras Hakasuv by a fetus in a mother, that it doesn't help her mother eat until it's born. (However, without that, we would allow her to eat, even though the child has a status of a non-Kohein, since a non-Kohein descendent allows the wife to continue eating Trumah.) However, if it has the status of a Kohein, it doesn't need to be born to allow his slaves to eat.] However, his colleagues claimed to him: if so, then even if it's in a daughter of the Kohein, he can't allow the slave to eat [Tosfos: since they hold that only born Kohanim allow the slaves to eat.]

12) The Chachumim say that the slaves can eat (even if she's a daughter of the Yisrael) since the fetus is not the owner until it's born, so the owner is the father's other sons, if he has any, or, if he doesn't, his brothers. If he doesn't have brothers, anyone else in his family. [Tosfos asks: if they're the slaves' owners until the fetus is born, why can't they keep the slaves' work until the fetus's birth?] However, we see that Shmuel held like R' Yossi since he holds that someone could acquire something for a fetus. [Tosfos says: even though Shmuel holds that you can't make an acquisition with something that's not in this world, he considers a fetus as if it's already in the world.]

13) R' Yossi says: even if the husband had other children, the Tzon Barzel slaves can't eat Trumah, but the Nichsei Melug slaves do since they're owned by the mother. R' Shimon b. Yachoi says that this is only if the children are females, since the fetus probably owns the slaves. As if it's a boy, he owns all of them, and even if it's a girl, she has a portion in the slaves. However, If there are male children, they eat Trumah. After all, there's a fifty percent chance that it's a girl and has nothing. Even if it's a boy, there's a chance that it miscarried. Therefore, it's only a minority chance that the fetus is a viable male and has a portion in the slaves. (R' Yossi forbade since he holds that we need to worry for a minority chance.) [Tosfos says: it only would be permitted if the fetus was already dead at the time, but it would still have a portion in the slaves if it would be alive, even if it's eventually miscarried.]

14) [Tosfos says: although R' Yossi allows doing Chalitza to a minor, although she's not fit for Yibum since he holds that you need to worry about the minority of cases that she's an Iylanus; we must say that she's fit for Yibum since, if Eliyahu informs us that she's not an Iylanus, she can have Yibum. (This is not similar to what we say that she's not considered fit for Yibum within three months of his death, since it won't help if Eliyahu informs her that she's not pregnant (since it's a full enactment not to do Chalitza then). Although R' Yossi allows a woman who was raped by an unknown man to marry a Kohein if the majority of people around her are Kosher; since he's not stringent when there's a tangible majority, but just when there's a statistical majority. However, it's difficult since R' Yossi in Bava Basra holds that you can extract money with a majority, although we generally hold that it's harder to extract money with a majority than to permit a prohibition. However, it's possible to differentiate between them.]

15) Even if you say that R' Shimon held that you need to worry about a minority of cases, he holds that the slaves can still eat through the following fix like R' Nachman. If minor heirs want to split the estate, Beis Din appoints an administrator for each one, and they pick out a good portion for their client. Shmuel says that the minors could protest the split after they grow up. R' Nachman says they can't protest since, if they could, what power does Beis Din have (if their split is not binding)? However, we don't want to say that this is what R' Shimon and R' Yossi argue about, since we don't want to establish R' Nachman's opinion as a Tannaic argument.

16) Even if they're slaves from a small estate (that they're all designated for the girl's food until they grow up) they can't eat Trumah because of the girls (since the fetus wouldn't have a portion in it even if it's a girl, since the enactment was only to give it to girls that were already born). After all, since, if the brothers transgress the enactment and sell it, it's a sale [Tosfos: and they can keep the proceeds], we still consider it as not the property of the girls to feed them Trumah. [Tosfos says: this seems that, even if Beis Din grabs the slaves for the girls, the boys have the ability to sell it, or else the Gemara should explain the case where they can eat Trumah is after Beis Din grabbed it. Alternatively, the Gemara only refers to right after the father's death, when the Beis Din didn't have a chance to grab it for the girls.]

17) The pregnant wife doesn't eat Trumah after her husband's death, whether she's a Kohein's daughter who married a Yisrael, or a Yisrael's daughter who married a Kohein. The same applies to a wife who fell to Yibum, that she can't eat whether she's a Kohein's daughter who married a Yisrael (since she doesn't return yet to her father's house), or a Yisrael's daughter who married a Kohein, since she's not his acquisition from money, but his brother's acquisition. [Tosfos points out that this last one is an Asmachta, and not a true Drasha, since she may eat from the Torah. The Gemara in Kesuvos says that, originally, we say that if she already ate Trumah in her husband's house, (like when they had Nesuin), she could eat when she fell to Yibum. After all, you don't need to worry that she has a blemish that will make it a mistaken marriage, since his brother already checked her out. We don't need to worry that she'll go back to her father's house and feed them Trumah, since she doesn't return to eat with them, and they'll designate an area for her to eat herself. Rather, since she's similar to an Arusah who's time came to bring her to Chuppah, since their time to be brought into the house is immediate; so, if you give the Yevama to eat Trumah, you'll end up feeding an Arusah Trumah too.] An Kohein's daughter Arusa to a non-Kohein Pasuls her, and a Yisraelis to a Kohein doesn't eat since she may offer some to her siblings. Also a deaf-mute marriage is rabbinic, so he can't allow his wife to eat if he's a Kohein, but he Pasul her if he's a non-Kohein.

18) If a nine year old (and one day) had relations with his Yibum [Tosfos qualifies: he doesn't acquire her from the Torah, since we exclude it from the Pasuk “a man's wife,” implying, but a minor can't have a wife], it's like a Maamar from an adult, and she can't eat Trumah.

19) Boys who are Pasul to Kehuna, or to marry into the Jewish nation, who had relations with a girl when he's nine years old and a day, Pasuls her. He Pasuls her even if we're in doubt if he reached nine yet. [Tosfos says: although we should place her on a Chazaka that she's kosher to a Kohein, and him on a Chazaka that he hadn't yet reached nine years of age; we make a special stringency by a Kohein not to follow the majority or Chazaka to permit. Although R' Gamliel allows a girl who was raped to say that it was a Kosher person who raped her, that's only because she's claiming that she's definitely Kosher for a Kohein.] She's also Pasul from eating Trumah [Tosfos explains: when he's definitely nine when he comes before us, that ruins the Chazaka of him not being nine yet.]

20) All women who are Chayiv Karies, or Lavim, or a Chalal, Pasuls her for Kehuna, besides [those Chayiv Lavim] that was not a stranger to him originally, like if he took back his ex-wife after she married someone else.

21) R' Yossi held that a second generation Egyptian and Adomi's relations doesn't Pasul her since their children are not Pasul to the Jewish people. R' Shimon b. Gamliel says that even a relations from a Moavi and Amoni doesn't Pasul her since not all of their children are Pasul (since their daughters may marry into the fold).

22) If there's a doubt whether a boy who gave a girl Kiddushin was thirteen, or in a case where one married a niece (besides another woman) and a house collapse on both of them (and we don't know if the niece died last, and the sister-wife would be exempt from Yibum for being the sister-wife of the Yavam's daughter); in both cases, the wife needs Chalitza and not Yibum.

23) If a Kohein seduces or rapes, or an insane person gives Kiddushin (which is nothing even rabbinically) [Tosfos: or a minor gives Kiddushin], it's doesn't allow a Yisrael's daughter to eat Trumah, and it doesn't prevent a Kohein's daughter from eating Trumah. If she becomes pregnant, then they both can't eat Trumah. If the fetus dies, the Kohein's daughter may continue to eat Trumah. If the fetus is born, the Yisrael's daughter may eat Trumah.

24) If an insane person, or minor, gives Kiddushin, if he dies, she doesn't even need Chalitza since the Kiddushin is nothing, even rabbinically.

25) The Kohein's daughter doesn't need to wait three months after the relations before eating Trumah to see if she's pregnant. After all, we're only concerned by a married woman that we need to wait three months to remarry to make sure we know who's the father. Also, if a Get's given to take effect a moment before the husband's death, she's forbidden to eat Trumah right away, since the husband may die soon after. However, by an out of wedlock relations, we don't need to worry for her impregnation since a woman stirs that area after such relations to make sure that she won't become pregnant. [Tosfos points out: even when she's living with him, like she married an insane man, she makes sure that she doesn't become pregnant since she's afraid that she won't be able to stand living with him, since someone “can't live in the same basket as a snake.”]

26) That, which we say that a Kohein's daughter who's husband dies may eat Trumah after she Toivels and doesn't need to worry that she was pregnant from a non-Kohein and can't eat Trumah; it is only for the first forty days, since it's considered only liquid, and not as a fetus, until forty days. However, if she ate after forty days and then finds herself pregnant, she needs to pay for the Trumah she ate, and add a fifth, just like any non-Kohein who ate Trumah.

27) The first version: if an Arus has relations with his Arusah, and she becomes pregnant; Rav says the child is a Mamzer (since we're afraid that, the same way she had promiscuous relations with the Arus, she had relations with others too). Shmuel says the child is a Safeik Mamzer. Rava says: this is only if she is suspected from other people, but if we only suspect her from the Arus, we don't need to worry that she had relations with anyone else. After all, if she was seduced by a Kohein and she became pregnant and gave birth, she can eat Trumah and we don't need to worry that perhaps, she had relations with others and this pregnancy is from them. Abaya rejects the proof: perhaps it refers to a case where they're both locked up in the same cell in prison, and no one else had access to her. However, regularly, we'll say; the same way she was promiscuous to one person, she was promiscuous to others too. [Tosfos says: according to this version: the Gemara in Kesuvos that says that we believe the Arus and Arusah to say that the child is from the Arus; that's only because we believe her since we Paskin like R' Gamliel that we believe the mother. However, the Arus's words doesn't count, since his word doesn't help us to know if she didn't have relations with others.]

28) In the second version: everybody holds that if we don't suspect her with anyone else besides her Arus, we can assume it's from her Arus. The only argument is if she's suspected from the Arus and others. Rava says that Rav doesn't hold it to be a Mamzer unless she's suspected from others and not the Arus. However, if he was suspected from the Arus [Tosfos: it's not exact, but we know that they had relations], and suspected from others [Tosfos: a suspicion, but we don't know that she had relations with them] it's suspected to be a Mamzer. Rava brings a proof from the fact that the above case where the Yisrael's daughter can eat Trumah when the baby's born and we don't worry that it came from another man. Abaya rejects it since it could be a case where she's only suspected from the Kohein and not for other men.

29) A grandchild who's a non-Jew (i.e., her son had relations with a non-Jewess) and it's the last surviving descendant; it doesn't allow a Yisrael's daughter to eat, nor it doesn't forbid a Kohein's daughter from eating. However, a grandchild Mamzer allows the Yisrael's daughter to eat (and it Pasuls a Kohein's daughter from eating); and a grandchild Kohein Gadol can Pasul a Kohein's daughter from eating Trumah (if her daughter married a Kohein and her grandchild was appointed as the Kohein Gadol).