1) An uncircumcised or Tamai man can't eat Trumah. [Tosfos points out that this is even if he couldn't get a Bris since his brothers died. After all, although he can't have a Bris because of the danger, he's considered as somebody fit to have a Milah, and he's not similar to a child who's less than eight days, as we'll bring his Halacha later, who's not fit to have a Milah at all.] However, their wives and slaves eat.

2) An Onein is permitted to eat Trumah.

3) If someone is no longer religious, he can't eat from the Korban Pesach, but may eat Trumah and Maasar.

4) If someone vows from having pleasure from the “uncircumcised,” he's permitted to have pleasure from an uncircumcised Jew, and is forbidden with a circumcised Arab. If he vows from having pleasure from the “circumcised,” he's forbidden to have pleasure from an uncircumcised Jew, and is permitted with a circumcised Arab. After all, a non-Jew is always considered to be “uncircumcised” and a Jew is always considered “circumcised.”

5) There's an unresolved inquiry if you can rub Trumah oil on a child less than eight days old. Do we consider his foreskin to be an Arlah, or not since it's not time to cut it.

6) We have a Pasuk to forbid the Korban Pesach to someone who didn't have anyone to do Milah at the Shechita, but has at the time of eating. (You can't say the case is that a child is born between the Shechita and eating, even if we consider it an Arlah; since the Pasuk says “you need to do the Milah,” and you don't need to do Milah to this baby yet.) The cases that this might come out: the baby couldn't have a Milah in the proper time because it had a fever (or an eye ailment), and you can't do Milah until you have seven 24 hour periods (i.e., 168 hours) after the fever subsides, and that fell out after the Shechita, and before the eating. Alternatively, if the parents were in prison until then and couldn't do the Milah. Alternatively, a Tumtum, whose membranes rips after the Shechita [Tosfos: however, the parents don't need to rip the membrane in order to make a Milah.] Alternatively, the child stuck his head out of his mother, (which makes him considered as to be born), and then reenters his mother for eight days, and emerges right after the Shechita. The way the child can survive there for eight days (assuming that he was cut off from the food supply of his mother), that he was sustained by the heat of the mother's fever. (However, you can't say that he had fever, and that sustained him, since, then, you need to wait another eight days after the fever subsides for him to get a Milah.) Alternatively, he's still connected to the mother's food supply [Rashi: as long as it didn't cry; Tosfos: as long as the umbilical cord wasn't cut.]

7) An Aral can be sprinkled on with the Parah Adumah waters, as the Pasuk says that it happened by Yehoshua. [Tosfos asks: why do we need a Pasuk to say this? After all, the most we find is an opinion that holds that they're like Tamai, and you can sprinkle it over Tamai people.]

8) Hashem didn't command Avraham on Priah, only the Milah. [Tosfos says: of course he did Priah too, since he even kept all Mitzvos that he wasn't commanded, like Eiruv Tavshilin.]

9) You can't give Milah on a cloudy day, or on a day where the south wind blows, since it's dangerous. However, nowadays, when people do it anyways, we say that Hashem will guard the foolish.

10) If someone stretches his Milah to cover what was already exposed, he doesn't need another Milah from the Torah, but he needs it rabbinically. R' Huna says that he's rabbinically forbidden to eat Trumah. [We have two versions in Rashi if we disproved him from a Braisa that says that he could eat, or is a proof to him, that he can only eat from the Torah, but forbidden rabbinically.]

11) A Tumtum can't eat Trumah since he's an Aral, but his wife (lit. woman) and slaves may eat. The question is: how can he feed his wife Trumah if we're not sure he's a man to say the woman is married to him? Abaya answers: we refer to a case where his testicles is sticking out, so we know he's a male. [Tosfos says: we must say that he's considered fit for Chuppah, since he's able to rip the membrane, or else she wouldn't be a Nesuah and can't eat Trumah.] Rava says that the woman that he allows to eat is his mother (and we don't say that only a descendant that can have children allows his mother to eat Trumah.)

12) Milah on its proper time (i.e., on the eighth day) is only by day. After that, the Rabanan say that it's also only by day, and R' Elazar b. Shimon says that it's also by night.

13) [Tosfos says: this, that we need a Drasha in Kiddushin, that a mother is not obligated to give a Bris to her son, and we just don't say that, since it's only by day, it's a time-based Mitzvah that women are exempt from; we must need it only according to R' Elazar b. Shimon who says that, after the eighth day, you can do it at night. (It's not considered as time-based since you need to wait to the eighth day to do it, since it's constantly the Milah time after the eighth day.)]

14) The same is by burning Nossar, you can only burn it by day, even after its original day to burn it.

15) R' Elazar holds that an uncircumcised man can sprinkle to Parah Adumah waters from a Kal V'chomer from a T'vul Yom. After all, the T'vul Yom can sprinkle the water despite that he makes Trumah [and Kodshim] Pasul, of course the uncircumcised can sprinkle the water since he doesn't make Trumah [and Kodshim] Pasul. Even though that there is a Braisa that doesn't allow him to sprinkle, we must say that it was authored by R' Akiva who says that the uncircumcised is like a Tamai.

16) Rava was bewildered to say that R' Akiva considers the uncircumcised exactly like a Tamai, since we never find any Braisa that says that he makes items Tamai when he touches it that will be authored by R' Akiva. Although we learned that, regarding going to the Mikdash during the Regel, we say that the uncircumcised and Tamai are exempt; that's because he's considered disgusting before Hashem. [Tosfos says: the reason the Gemara in Chagiga needed a Pasuk to exclude a Tumtum from going up to the Mikdash even though, even if he's a male, he would be uncircumcised; we can say since he can't receive a Milah, he's not as disgusting. Alternatively, we only say that he's disgusting according to R' Akiva, so we'll compare him to a Tamai, but not according to the Rabanan.]

17) The Tanna Kama permits a woman to gather the ash of the Parah and to place it in the water, but R' Yehudah forbids. However, he permits a minor to gather the ash, but not to place it into the water.

18) The following applies to Trumah and Bikurim, but not by Maasar Sheini. Someone is Chayiv a Heavenly death penalty for eating them when Tamai. Also, a non-Kohein needs to pay an extra fifth when he eats them. They’re forbidden to non-Kohanim [Tosfos in the name of the Aruch: although this is included in the last idea, but the Chiddush is, according to those who hold that half of a Shiur is not forbidden from the Torah, that it's forbidden to a non-Kohein with a half of Shiur.] They're the Koheins property [Tosfos: that he can sell it, and he can use the proceeds to buy land, slaves, and unclean animals. This is forbidden by Maasar Sheini. However, we find implications that you may use its proceeds to buy clothing, as long as it's not for land, slaves, and unclean animals. Although we have other implications that it's forbidden; that's according to R' Meir who holds that Maasar Sheini belongs to Hashem, but it's permitted to R' Yehuda who holds it belongs to us mortals. Alternatively, even R' Yehuda holds that you can only buy clothing from the Torah, but the Rabanan forbid it.] They're also, if mixed into Chulin, are only Batul one in a hundred (and then you need to remove one of them to be in its place). [Tosfos explains: this is only rabbinical, since, from the Torah, it's Batul in a majority. This is why it doesn't apply to Maasar Sheini, although it has a Hekish to Bikkurim.] You need to wash your hands by them [Tosfos: when touching them, since Maasar Sheini needs washing when you eat it. Even a dough of Maasar Sheini is exempt from Challah as long as you don't redeem it.]

19) The following applies to Maasar Sheini and Bikurim, but not by Trumah. You need to bring it to a special place. You need to say Vidoy over them. [Tosfos says: even though we say that, during Vidoy Maasar, when you say “I gave it to the Levi,” it refers to Trumah, (so we say Vidoy on Trumah); we must say that it doesn't have its own Vidoy, but you only mention it once you need to say Vidoy on Maasar. Therefore, if you lose your Maasar, and don't say Vidoy on it, you don't say the Vidoy because of the Trumah.] They're both forbidden to be eaten by an Onnein. Both needs Biur (removing). [Rashi: since we learn Bikkurim from Maasar with a Hekish. Rivan says that Bikkurim has Biur by Sukkos. Tosfos disagrees since it's only if it was separated beforehand, but wasn't brought until afterwards does it get pushed off since, it was fit to read the Parsha beforehand, and now it can't. However, if it was given to the Kohein before Sukkos, or it was separated afterwards, you can still keep the Bikkurim around. Rather, Bikkurim needs Biur every three years like Maasar. Granted that Trumah needs Biur then too, but that's only that it must be distributed to a Kohein, but Maasar and Bikurim need to be destroyed before the fourth year.]

20) R' Shimon exempts Bikkurim from Biur and it's permitted to an Onnein since he doesn't agree that there's a Hekish between Maasar and Bikkurim. [Tosfos: since Bikkurim is called Trumah, we should compare it to Trumah in all aspects.]

21) You get Malkos for eating Maasar and Bikkurim that are Tamai, but not for Tamai Trumah since it's only forbidden through an Asei.

22) You can only have pleasure when you burn Trumah Tamai, but not Bikkurim and Maasar Tamai.

23) There's an inquiry whether an uncircumcised man can eat Maasar Sheini. The Gemara wants to prove it from a Braisa that forbids him, but they rejected this proof by saying the author is R' Akiva who says the uncircumcised is like a Tamai, but it's no proof to the Rabanan who argue with him. We have another Braisa that R' Yosef the Babylonian permitted [Rashi's text: permitted someone who's missing bringing a Korban for his Tumah, and we can assume the same by the uncircumcised. Tosfos disagrees because how can you assume that comparison. So, we must say the text is that he also permitted by the uncircumcised.] However, the Tanna Kama forbids him. [Tosfos: however, the text in Zevachim seems like Rashi that R' Yosef permitted a Mechusar Kapara.]

24) It's permitted to smear Maasar Sheini oil on the living, but not on a corpse.

25) A T'vul Yom is permitted with Maasar Sheini, but prohibited with Trumah. After nightfall, he's permitted with Trumah, but he can't eat Kodshim if he's missing bringing Korbanos for the Tumah.

26) A Kohein with damaged reproducing organs are permitted to eat Trumah, but their wives can't eat since they're Pasul from Kehuna, since their relations are forbidden. However, if, when they were married, he was not known to have damaged organs, (and they're not Pasul unless they had relations knowing of his defect), they may eat Trumah. Although now they're designated for a forbidden relations (since they're still married after their conditions became known); R' Elazar (the Amorah) says that it's authored by R' Shimon and R' Elazar who permits a woman who's designated for a relations that will Pasul them. R' Yochanan says: it can be even authored by R' Meir who regularly forbids, but here is different since these women already ate Trumah when it was sanctioned, we don't make them stop. (This is not similar to what we forbid a Yisrael's daughter to eat Trumah when her husband dies, and we don't allow her just because she already was sanctioned to eat; since the death uproots the whole marriage, and she no longer is the money acquisition of a Kohein.)

27) A Petzua Daka is anyone who's testicles are slashed, punctured, dissolved. He's forbidden even if it happened to only one of his two testicles.

28) R' Yishmael the son of R' Yochanan b. Broka permitted a person who only has one testicle. [Tosfos says: even if it was removed by a man (and he was not naturally born that way), he can still have children. Although a hole in one forbids him, a hole is stricter than missing it completely. As we see a similar thing by the Treifos of a spleen. The animal is Kosher if its spleen is completely gone, but is Treif if it gets a hole in the spleen's thick side. The Yerushalmi also infers that he's permitted even if it was cause by a human. However, it infers that he can't have children. Also, according to one text there, it's only permitted when he's missing his left one, and not his right one.]

29) He's permitted if his damaged testicles was produced by Heaven. [Rashi: either he was born that way, or it happened as a strain from being frightened by thunder or by a hailstorm.]

30) He's forbidden whether there was an action of slashing, cutting or grinding, whether it happens to the testicles, or by its connecting veins, or on the member. [Tosfos says: this is only if both testicles were cut out, but not one, as I already said.]

31) When the member is cut, he's permitted as long as there's the slightest remainder from the corona.

32) However, if there is a hole that goes from above the corona to below the corona; he's forbidden since you need the corona to be intact.

33) You need the corona's circumference to be mostly intact, and it must be attached to the rest of the member facing the body, and not just intact on the tip of the member.

34) R' Pappa Paskins that if the member is cut like a pen, he's Kosher. Although the member won't be warmed on top from touching the sides of the woman's womb (during intercourse) and won't 'ripen' the semen (to make them fit to impregnate); since it will warm it lower down on the member where it's still thick. Also, if it's cut like a pipe (i.e., hollowed out the inside until the hole is wide); even though air can enter there and cool him of; he's still Kosher. This is even if it's cut below the corona, because it's anyhow permitted if it's completely cut up above the corona. (However, there are other Amoraim who argue with this.)

35) If the canal that the semen exits is closed off, and the semen goes through the urine tract; he's forbidden. After all, the semen only 'ripens' when leaving through the semen tract, and not through the urine tract.

36) If the member is punctured, and is closed up; he's Kosher if semen won't push against it to puncture it again. (We must say that it punctured at the corona. After all, the pressure of the semen below that is minimal and won't repuncture it, and holes above the corona are Kosher even if they're punctured.) You test it by placing a warm piece of bread in his anus to make him release semen.

37) If the puncture is truly closed up, he's Kosher, and it's a type of P'sul that can return to being Kosher. This is not like the Treifos of a hole in the lung, that even if it closes up (with a Sircha), it remains Treif.

38) The Halacha is not like Rabbah b. R' Huna who says that a man who has two holes to release urine is Pasul. Also, the Halacha is not like R' Huna who says that women who lay together is Pasul to Kehuna. [Tosfos says: even to a regular Kohein since they're Zonos. Not like Rashi says in Shabbos that she's no longer a virgin and can't marry a Kohein Gadol.] This is even true according to R' Elazar who says that any out of wedlock relations makes her a Zonah, but that's only with a man, but not with a woman, since it's not a relations, but only promiscuous activity.

39) Those with damaged reproducing organs are permitted to converts and freed slaves. Even if they're Kohanim, they permitted since they don't have their Kedusha. This is the same way that a Yisrael with damaged reproducing organs is permitted to a Nesina, even though they're usually forbidden from the Torah to marry that nation. As the Pasuk says “you can't marry them” (i.e., those from the seven nations). It can't refer to when they're still non-Jews, since marrying is not applicable to non-Jews. So it must only refer to after they converted.

40) Egyptian converts in the days of Chazal were forbidden to marry regular Jews, and we don't say that the original nation was uprooted from Egypt, and were supplanted with others. [Tosfos says: although Sancherev and Nevuchadnetzar mixed up all nations, but since the Pasuk establishes a time of forty years for their return, you can assume that they returned.]

41) Amoni and Moavi are forbidden always for all generations, but their daughters are permitted.

42) If a Chachum says something before an incident [Tosfos: in a case where the Chachum would benefit by being right], he's believed. However, if he only said it after the incident, he's not believed, unless the one who he's quoting is still alive and you can verify his statement.

43) R' Yochanan holds that if an Amoni transgresses and marries a Yisraelis, their daughter is Kosher for Kehuna. As the Pasuk says “a virgin from your nation” even if she's only partially from your nation, can marry a Kohein. This is to tell us not to forbid her because of the common denominator between a Chalala and a widow who married a Kohein Gadol. After all, they're both not similar to most of the nation, and there's a sin here, and they're Pasul to a Kohein, so too this daughter of an Amoni should be forbidden to a Kohein. So, the Drasha tells us not like that. However, Reish Lakish says that we don't learn that Drasha, so that daughter is forbidden to a Kohein because of the above common denominator.

44) R' Yochanan will hold that, if a second generation Egyptian transgresses and marries a Yisraelis, their daughter is Kosher for Kehuna, and we don't forbid her from the above common denominator; since the daughter of the Amoni disproves it, since she also has those attributes and she's permitted to a Kohein.

45) Egyptians and Edomites are forbidden until the third generation. The Tanna Kama says that this includes males and females. R' Shimon says that it only applies to males from a Kal V'chomer from Amoni and Moavi. After all, since they're always forbidden, yet, their females are permitted, so, of course Egyptians and Edomites that are only forbidden for two generations, only forbid their females. However, the Chachumim say that we should compare them to Arayos that are only forbidden for two generations (like your wife's daughter and granddaughter), and they're forbidden by all genders. You can't reject this logic since Arayos have a Kareis, since we can add onto it is a Chalal from an Asei prohibition (i.e., a non-virgin to a Kohein Gadol, and according to R' Elazar b. Yaakov who says Asei prohibitions make a Chalal) and it applies to females too. [Tosfos says: although you could say that it still has a Lav since anything that make a Challel is included in “don't make your children Chalalim;” we must say that it's only a Lav for making him into a Challal through a Lav prohibition and not through an Asei.] However, R' Shimon doesn't hold like R' Elazar b. Yaakov (and Chalal from Lavim are no proof to Egyptians and Edomites since they're only Asies).

46) R' Shimon also Darshens 'sons,' implying, but not daughters. R' Yehuda (who argues) Darshens “which gave birth,” that it depends on giving birth, which includes daughters.

47) You count the convert himself as the first generation. If a pregnant Egyptian converts, the child's considered as a second generation since the Torah makes it depend on the birth. [Tosfos says: this must be like R' Shimon, since R' Yehuda needs the Pasuk to include females in the prohibition. Although R' Shimon permits the mother altogether, and we shouldn't need a Pasuk to say that the child is not a first generation because he's part of the mother, because if he's part of the mother, he would be permitted. However, even if we consider the child as it's own entity, but since he was conceived when they were non-Jews, I would say that it's a first generation Egyptian without the Pasuk.]

48) Rabbah b. b. Chana quotes R' Yochanan: the child of Egyptians follow the status of the father, so if a second generation male married a first generation female, the child is considered a third generation and is permitted. Although we say that a child of a slave follows the mother; that's because the Gezeiras Hakasuv of “the slave and her son belongs to the master.”

49) However, R' Dimi quotes R' Yochanan: the child of such a union is a second generation Egyptian. [Rashi in Kiddushin sets it up: although we don't follow the P'sul of either parent but by a forbidden relations, like a Yisrael who marries an Egyptian, but not by two Egyptians who are permitted with each other], but he holds that, since the fetus is part of the mother, like her thigh, he follows the mother.

50) Regularly, R' Yochanan doesn't hold that a fetus is considered the thigh of his mother. As we see that if you separate a pregnant cow for a Chatos, it's like you separated two cows for a Chatos, so one should be a stand in just in case something happens to the first one, which one is brought as a Chatos, and the other grazes until it gets a blemish. (There, the only time that a Chatos's child needs to die is if it gets pregnant while she's a Chatos.) However, here by an Egyptian, where the Torah makes his status depend on his birth, he follows his mother who gave birth to him.

51) However, it's difficult to R' Yochanan, since Rava holds that a pregnant woman who converts, the child doesn't need Teveila when he's born (since his mother's Teveila helps for his conversion) so it seems that he's the mother's thigh. [Tosfos points out: although we see that Rava personally holds that a fetus is the thigh of the mother, but we still want R' Yochanan to fit into his Halacha.] We can't say that the reason the Teveila helps for the child from the Torah since the mother's not a Chatzitza, since, even if there's a Chatzitza on most of the body, as long as one doesn't care to get it off, it's not a Chatzitza. [Tosfos points out: we see from this that this rule applies even to the body, and not like some want to say that it applies only to the hair.] After all, it's only not a Chatzitza if it covers most of one's body, but not if it covers all of his body. Rather, we must say that it's not a Chatzitza since this is the way he grows.

52) By the non-Jews, we follow the status of the father. Therefore, if a man from Chutz L'aretz marries a Kanani woman, the child may be bought as a slave since it follows the father and is not part of what the Torah says on the seven nations “you should not let anyone live.” However, if a Kanani man marries a woman from Chutz L'aretz, the child may not be bought as a slave since it follows the father and is part of what the Torah says on the seven nations “you should not let anyone live.”

53) However, when the non-Jews convert, the child follows the more Pasul of the nations. Therefore, if a Amoni marries an Egyptian; if the child's a male, he has the status of an Amoni (who's males are always forbidden), and if the child's a female, she has the status of an Egyptian, since Amoni females are permitted.

54) Mamzers and Nisinim are forbidden for all generations, both males and females. However, this is only according to the opinion that, whenever you have a Gezeira Shava, we say it teaches what it teaches, but we plug it in to fit with the other rules of the topic. Therefore, when they learn a Gezeira Shava “Asiri Asiri” from Amoni, that the tenth generation is not the end, but it goes on indefinite, we plug it back into the rules of Mamzer that forbid females, and we don't say to compare to Amoni where the females are permitted. However, Reish Lakish says to learn from Amoni completely, and female Mamzeirim are permitted after the tenth generation.

55) If an Mamzer is unknown, he won't live long in order that he shouldn't mix into the general Jewish nation. If it's only somewhat known, they won't last past three generations since they'll be forgotten by then. If they know about his Mamzeirus, he will live.

56) Moshe decreed on the Nisinim for his generation. Yehoshua decreed on them for as long as the Mikdash stood. Dovid decreed on them forever. [Rashi explains: they decreed not to have them marry into the Jews. Tosfos adds: as they decreed for them to work for us, so they're like slaves, so it will prevent people wanting to marry into them. However, they're not really slaves, or else a freed slave wouldn't be able to marry into them. However, R' Tam disagrees since there's a Torah prohibition to marry them since they were from the seven nations. Like we said earlier that the Lav of not marrying them is only applicable when they converted. Rather, they only decreed for them to work for us, since they didn't deserve being free people. We forbid the Nesina to a slave, although he's permitted to others who are not allowed to marry into the Jewish nation, that's because Kiddushin doesn't take effect by the slave. Although a Mamzer is permitted with a slave, that's because he came from a marriage that Kiddushin doesn't take effect.]

57) They wanted to permit the Nessinim in the days of Rebbi [Rashi: to marry, and Tosfos: not to need to work for us.] However, they concluded that they can't, since they can't permit the portion that belongs to the Mizbeach [Tosfos: and we shouldn't permit our portion so we shouldn't forget the portion of the Mizbeach.] This argues with R' Yochanan who says that the Mizbeach only had a portion as long as the Beis Hamikdash stood.

58) It's better to uproot a word in the Torah in order that there shouldn't be a Chilul Hashem.

59) R' Yehoshua has a tradition that there is a Saris (a man that can't have children) that can do Chalitza, and another type of Saris that can't. R' Akiva says: it makes sense to say that if he was rendered this way by man, he can do Chalitza, and even Yibum, since there was a time that he could had have children. However, someone who's born as a Saris (and can't urinate in a half circle) can't do Yibum since he never could have children. Although there's a Lav to marry a mutilated Saris, and R' Akiva holds that a Chayiv Lav is like a Chayiv Kreises that he's not someone who can have Yibum; we can say the case is that the brother married a convert, and he holds that a convert is not part of the Kahal and are permitted to marry someone who has damaged reproduction organs. Although we have a Braisa that says that, if he does Yibum, he needs to divorce her; we need to say that the Braisa refers to a regular Jewess, and it holds that R' Akiva only holds that only a Lav of relatives is like Kreises, but not other Lavs like the Lav to marry someone with damaged reproduction organs.

60) Even though a Saris is not someone who can “have a child for his brother,” so he shouldn't be able to do Yibum in all cases; even so, if we would say that a Saris is not someone who can do Yibum, then there is no woman able to receive Yibum since her husband would be classified as a Saris right before his death (since he can't have relations at that moment, so he can't have children).

61) R' Eliezer held the opposite; a born Saris can do Chalitza since he can be healed, but one caused by a man can't do Chalitza since he has no way to be healed. He didn't hold of the above proof that, if we would say that a Saris caused by man is not someone who can give Yibum, then there is no woman able to receive Yibum since her husband would classify as a Saris right before his death; since that's not a true Saris, but he's just too weak to have relations.

62) According to R' Akiva, you don't have to worry that the born Saris became healed some time ago, and he became a Saris a second time through a man. After all, we don't suspect that he'll become healed in some sickness that affects the whole body. We only suspect a healing by a blemished Bechor that has white dots in its eye; they you need to expect it at the beginning, in the middle, and the end of an eighty day period to make sure that the blemish is permanent, since it might have healed in the middle since it's a sickness that only affects one limb.

63) The Gemara asks: we see from the following that R' Eliezer holds that a born Saris can't do Chalitza. As we see that Beis Hillel says that the age that we can assume that he's a Saris and can't do Chalitza if he doesn't receive his pubic hairs yet is twenty years old; whether the person is male or female. Beis Shammai says the age is eighteen. R' Eliezer says that it's twenty for a male, and eighteen for a female, since their signs of maturity come faster. Shmuel answers: originally, he held that they can't do Chalitza, by he reversed his opinion. R' Elazar says that he never reversed his decision, but he was just arguing about the age since it has another practical difference; that they're considered as adults at that point so Beis Din can punish them for any sins.

64) [Tosfos: a girl according to R' Eliezer], if she ate forbidden fats sometime between the time she's twelve until the time she's eighteen, and she got the pubic hairs after eighteen; Rav says that she's Chayiv since she retroactively becomes a Saris. [Tosfos explains: she can get Malkos for it and it's not considered as if she received a Safeik warning since the witnesses didn't know at the time that she was an adult. We only consider it a Safeik warning when warning someone who has a Safeik if his father was his mother's first husband through a nine month gestation, or her second husband through a seven month gestation not to hit both his fathers, and he hits both of them, since, even now, they don't know which one is his real father.] Shmuel says that she was still a minor at this point, so she's exempt. [Tosfos says: everybody holds that the pubic hairs arriving after she's eighteen is meaningless. Rav held that she's an adult from when she's twelve, which was the beginning of the Safeik, and Shmuel holds she's not an adult until she's eighteen.]

65) [Tosfos says: even according to Rav who says she's an adult from when she's twelve] if someone raped or seduced her, she never receives a fine for it (according to R' Meir that minors are not eligible for fines). After all, by an Iylanus, she becomes a Bogeres right away and she's never a Naarah. [Tosfos says: however, according to Shmuel, we would never have a thought that she would become a Naarah at eighteen.] Also, a Saris can never be a Ben Sorer U'moreh, since it's only until his pubic hairs fill in, which doesn't apply to the Saris.

66) R' Avahu Paskins not to allow a possible Yevama to remarry with a child that it's a Safeik if it only had an eight month gestation, even if it seemed to be fully developed, until he lives twenty years. However, a definite eight month gestation child is considered definitely nonviable and dead. Therefore, he can't be moved on Shabbos like a rock, but his mother can bend down to nurse it in order not to endanger them both. [Tosfos quotes Ri: the Tosefta implies that even a Safeik eighth month baby can't be moved on Shabbos. The reason is: since it's not usual for it to live twenty years.]

67) This was based on the Rabanan's opinion; but Rebbi held that, if his nails and hair seemed fully developed, we can assume that it's from a seven month gestation and it just stayed longer in the womb. This is similar to what R' Shimon b. Gamliel holds, that any child who lives thirty days is a viable child. [Tosfos says: he argues with the Rabanan in two aspects. One, if it seems to be a nine month gestation; the Rabanan hold it to be viable even within thirty days, and R' Shimon b. Gamliel held that you can't consider it as definitely viable until after thirty days. However, afterwards, R' Shimon b. Gamliel holds that it's a proof that it's viable even to a Safeik eighth month gestation, and the Rabanan hold that it's still a Safeik.] Once we assume that the child could stay in the mother's womb for longer than gestation; Rava Tosefta said: a child is Kosher (and not a Mamzer) if it was born more than nine months after the husband left for overseas, for up to twelve months. Since we assume it's a nine month gestation and the baby stayed inside for extra time.

68) Someone is a [Tosfos: definite] born Saris if he didn't have pubic hairs until after he was twenty years old and he has some signs of Saris, like he's not forming a beard, his hair is damaged; his body is smooth (without hair). R' Yehuda b. Yair says: anyone who's urine doesn't foam. Others say: if he can't urinate in a half circle. Others say: anyone whose semen is clear. Others say: anyone whose urine doesn't ferment. Others say: anyone who washes during the winter and his body doesn't release heat. R' Shimon b. Elazar says: anyone whose voice is strange and you can't tell if it's male or female.

69) The signs of Iylanus: anyone that doesn't have breasts, and having relations are painful to her. R' Shimon b. Gamliel says: if there's no bump above her area. R' Shimon b. Elazar says: if her voice is deep and you can't tell if the voice is male or female.

70) R' Huna says: they needs all the signs to be a Saris/Iylanus. R' Yochanan says: even with one of them, unless he gets two beard hairs. Only then is he only a Saris with all the other signs. [Tosfos says: we don't consider him getting the two facial hairs as getting two pubic hairs, or else he wouldn't be considered as a Saris. After all, if he brings two pubic hairs before he's twenty years old, even if he has signs of Saris, he's not a definite Saris. We must say that, the sign of Saris is not having a beard, it means a full beard. After all, if it means two facial hairs, then he's missing one of the signs of Saris.]

71) Therefore, if there is only one brother, and he's a Saris, his Chalitza doesn't Pasul his sister-in-law to marry a Kohein. Since she doesn't need Chalitza from the Saris, she didn't receive a valid Chalitza. However, if he tries Yibum, she can't marry a Kohein since she had relations with her husband's brother when she didn't fall to him for Yibum. According to R' Hamnunah, who holds that a Yevama who has relations before Chalitza becomes a Zonah similar to a married lady who had relations from another man; then she's a Zonah no matter who had relations with her before Chalitza and she can't marry a Kohein.

72) The same if a brother has relations with a Yevama Iylanus, since there is no Yibum with her, she's a Zonah and can't marry a Kohein. This comes to exclude the opinion of R' Yehuda who holds that an Iylanus by definition, since she can't have children, is considered a Zonah.

73) If a born Saris Kohein marries a Yisrael's daughter, she may eat Trumah, and we don't say, since the Torah says she can eat in that Parsha of having children, that only someone who can have children may feed his wife Trumah.

74) R' Yossi and R' Shimon say that an Adrogenus Kohein who marries a Yisrael's daughter may feed her Trumah. R' Yochanan says that we consider him a definite male, and can feed her from the breast and leg of a Korban, i.e., the Kohein's portion. Reish Lakish holds that it's not a definite male, so we only allow Trumah nowadays that's only rabbinically obligated. However, in the days of the Mikdash, he would forbid to give her even rabbinical Trumah since you might come to feed her even Torah Trumah. [Tosfos says: and he doesn't hold like the Sugya in Kesuvos that, people who didn't have their Sefer Yuchsin, may eat rabbinical Trumah, but not Torah Trumah, and they didn't forbid the rabbinical Trumah since they might come to eat the Torah Trumah.] However, R' Yochanan holds that Trumah these days are from the Torah [Tosfos: at least, according to R' Yossi.]

75) Reish Lakish brings a proof from [Tosfos: what R' Yossi holds] that you remove a fig cake from a mixture of Trumah fig cakes among many others, even though it's sometimes sold by count, that R' Meir holds is not Batul. The only reason it could be Batul now is because it's only a rabbinical prohibition. [Tosfos says: you can't say that he holds like the Rabanan that nothings too Chashuv not to be Batul except the six items that they mention; for, if that was true, they should have said a bigger Chidush of an item that's always sold by the count. However, we see that R' Meir forbids a bundle of fenugreek of Klai Kerem that's mixed in a thousand other bundles, although the Kedusha of Eretz Yisrael these days are rabbinic. We need to either say that R' Meir only permits when there is two rabbinical decrees to forbid, like Trumah on figs, that's even rabbinic during the days that Trumah in general is from the Torah. Alternatively, he only permits rabbinical prohibitions when they're sometimes counted, but not when they're always counted.] R' Yochanan pushes off the proof. As R' Meir only says that items that are always sold by the count never gets Batul, and not by fig cakes that are only sometimes sold by the count.

76) As we see that R' Meir forbids a bundle of fenugreek of Klai Kerem that's mixed in a thousand other bundles, and even if they get mixed into others, they're also forbidden, and you need to burn them all. [Tosfos says: however, if only one of the original mixture gets mixed into the second mixture, it's permitted because of a Sfeik Sfeika. It's only forbidden when all of the first mixture falls into the second mixture, which remains as one Safeik, even though it may appear to be a case of “two majorities.” (As we permit a woman to a Kohein who was raped by an unknown person if there are “two majorities,” that the majority of the town are Kosher, and also the majority of the people of the caravans that came to town are Kosher.)]

77) [Tosfos says: we don't just allow the bundles to scatter so that each one would be separated from the group, which we give it a status of the majority; since we're afraid that many people will go to it and take it simultaneously. It also doesn't help to throw the worth of the bundle that's forbidden to the dead sea, like R' Eliezer says regarding bread that was baked with wood used for idols. After all, even though Rashbam says that it applies to all prohibitions, we can say it only applies to an idol prohibition since the money paid for idols takes on the prohibition, so it looks as if you threw out the idol. Alternatively, perhaps we only allow it by wood that gets burned and the prohibition is no longer in existence.]

78) [Tosfos says: you can't sell the whole lot to a non-Jew except for the worth of the one that's prohibited, since he might sell it to an unsuspecting Jew. We only say that you can sell wine this way to a non-Jew since a Jew won't buy wine from a non-Jew. However, this won't even help to sell bread that has one that's forbidden to have pleasure from mixed into it, although Jews can't eat non-Jew's bread; but they might buy it off a non-Jew to feed to their non-Jewish workers since, in general, you may have pleasure from a non-Jew's bread.]

79) However, the Rabanan say that all foods are Batul besides the Perech nut, the Badon pomegranate, sealed barrels, the Calfei of beets, the stalk of the cabbage, and the Greek gourd. R' Akiva adds: even laymen's loaves of bread.

80) R' Yochanan brings a proof that R' Meir only says an item is only not Batul when it's exclusively sold by the count. If you have a piece of Chatos Tamai mixed with pieces of Chatos Tahor, which pieces are sometimes sold by the count; the Chachumim say that it's Batul and you remove one of them, and R' Yehuda says it's not Batul. [Rashi says: this is R' Yehuda being consistent to his view that an item is not Batul when mixed in to its own type. Tosfos disagrees since R' Yehuda only held that way when it's a “liquid mixture” where the Heter absorbs the prohibition, and not by a “dry mixture” that doesn't absorb. Tosfos has two sides whether a mixture of flour is considered a “liquid mixture” since you can't tell the individual pieces of flour from each other, and they blend in, or it's a “dry mixture” since it doesn't absorb any taste. Rather, the reason for R' Yehuda is that he personally holds that anything that is sometimes counted is not Batul.]

81) However, if a piece of Chatos gets mixed in Chulin, we don't say it's Batul and you need to sell the lot to a Kohein to eat. [Rashi explains: since it's only a small loss, they were stringent. Tosfos explains: since they're pieces that are fit to honor a guest, they're not Batul. It's only when it's mixed with other Chatos we don't say that it's fit to honor Kohanim to eat it in the Mikdash in the way you need to eat Chatos.] Anyhow, we see that, if it's only sold sometimes by the count, it's Batul.

82) Reish Lakish pushes the proof off; it's Batul since we refer to a case where the pieces dissolve, and it's not sold by the count anymore. R' Yehuda holds they're not Batul because they're the same type of item [Tosfos: since it's now considered a “liquid mixture.”]

83) The reason we forbid in this case where a piece of Chatos dissolves in Chulin, since the piece is forbidden from the Torah to be eaten by non-Kohanim. Therefore, we need to say that, when the Rabanan permit by Tumah, it's only with rabbinical Tumah. [Tosfos explains: the Rabanan agree to R' Yehuda that Torah prohibitions can't be Batul if it's mixed in the same type of item.]

84) However, the Gemara says, you can't differentiate that the Rabanan are more lenient by a Tamai piece of Chatos that is only a regular Lav for a Kohein to eat, and more stringent by Chatos to a non-Kohein that is a Karies prohibition. After all, Rabbah holds that, once they're both forbidden from the Torah, we don't differentiate to be more lenient just because the punishment is more lenient.

85) We can't say the reason the Chatos is not Batul in the Chulin since there is a way to make it Heter (by having a Kohein eat it) and things that will eventually be permitted is not Batul. After all, it's not something that will become permitted, since it will never be permitted to a non-Kohein, and it was never prohibited to a Kohein.

86) However, R' Yochanan only held that R' Yossi held that Trumah these days is from the Torah, as there is a Braisa in Seder Olam (which is authored by R' Yossi) that says that the second time they made Eretz Yisrael Kodesh, they made it Kodesh indefinitely. [Tosfos says: however, Reish Lakish will hold that R' Yossi only authored it according to another Tanna, but he personally didn't hold that way as proved through other Braisos brought later that he holds that an Androgenus is a Safeik male.] However, we see that the Rabanan hold that Trumah these days is only rabbinic. As we see: if you have two baskets, one was Trumah and the other Chulin. A Saah of Trumah fell into one, and a Saah of Chulin fell in the other one, [Tosfos: and you can't say to leave the baskets on their Chazaka, since we know something fell into it that doesn't have a Chazaka of being Chulin]; we can assume that the Trumah fell into the Trumah and the Chulin fell into the Chulin. Reish Lakish says that it only applies if the Chulin in the basket has more volume than what fell into it, and R' Yochanan holds that even if it doesn't have more volume, since it's permitted since it's a Safeik. Thus, we must say that the reason a Safeik is permitted is because Trumah these days is only rabbinically forbidden. [Tosfos says: even if R' Yochanan needed to have more in the basket, it would be a proof that it's rabbinical. After all, the Gemara in Pesachim holds that it's not Batul if there's a Kazayis of prohibition mixed into a Pras of Heter.]

87) The Gemara asks: we see that R' Yochanan needs a majority even by rabbinical prohibitions. As we see that he holds by a Mikvah where they added one Saah of fruit juice, and removed one Saah of water, and this was repeated many times; the Mikvah is still Kosher until it goes down to half water and half fruit juice. [Tosfos says: even though fruit juice Pasuls a Mikvah from the Torah; but we refer to a case where you're Toiveling small utensils like needles that doesn't need forty Saah from the Torah, so a Mikvah of twenty Saah water, and twenty Saah fruit juice is not from the Torah (as long as it's not mostly fruit juice that will make the water Batul). Alternatively, from the Torah, we would say that every Saah of fruit juice that's put in at a time is Batul. Alternatively, the wine we refer to is to wine-sediment soaked water that is only rabbinically considered completely wine, but, from the Torah, it's considered as mostly water and combines with the other water to be most of the Mikvah.] The Gemara answers: we must say that the right text is that "as long as most of the water haven't been taken," and not that only "half was taken." [Tosfos asks on this: in Mikvos, the Mishna says that half and half is Pasul.] Alternatively, Trumah is different, since you can assume that the Issur fell in the Issur, and the Heter in the Heter.

88) [Tosfos says: from here it implies that we don't say that every original Saah is not completely Batul, but they all eventually combine. However, by Yayin Nesech, we say that every drop that falls into Kosher wine (as long as it's not a large stream) is Batul and doesn't add up at the end. Tosfos reconciles: by Yayin Nesech, as long as it doesn't add up to a sixtieth, which is Batul from the Torah, we say that the first drips are Batul (and we don't say that it combines to make it like a larger stream) as long as the Issur falls in the Heter, (but it's forbidden if the Heter falls into the Issur, even if the Issur ends up being less than a sixtieth of the Heter.) However, if it would add up to more than a sixtieth, then they all combine to give taste, since we hold that Issur taste is like actual Issur.]

89) The Gemara asks on Reish Lakish how can he argue that an Androgenus is not a definite male if the Mishna says [Tosfos: from R' Yossi] that he can marry a woman. [Tosfos says: although Reish Lakish would hold that he can marry a lady since you don't need to forbid a Safeik woman laying together with another woman; but the connotations imply that it's a complete Kiddushin. Alternatively, the implications is that he needs to marry since he's obligated in Pru U'rivu.] However, he can't marry a man since that would be homosexual activity.

90) Although R' Elazar at the end argues and says that he gets stoned with a man because he transgresses the prohibition of homosexual activity, which implies that R' Yossi exempts because it's only a Safeik; but in truth he agrees that there is stoning. Rather, R' Elazar only argues that he's only Chayiv if they had relations with the regular orifice of homosexuality, but not in its female organ. However, R' Yossi holds he's Chayiv for having relations in the female organ itself. They argue about how to explain different P'sukim.

91) R' Yossi in a Braisa says that an Androgenus is its own type of creation [Tosfos: this is not exact that it's neither gender, but he means it to be a Safeik], and the rabbis couldn't conclude if its male or female.

92) Rav says that we disregard the Mishna because of this Braisa since we see that he abandoned his partner (R' Shimon) in the Braisa, so he must have reversed his decision. [Tosfos asks: how do we know this? Perhaps he reversed his decision in the Braisa to hold like R' Shimon.]

93) Shmuel says that we disregard the Braisa because of the Mishna. Even though we see that Shmuel is concerned about a single opinion; that's only if it doesn't come to argue with a Mishna.

94) Rav and Shmuel Paskin like R' Yossi that and Androgenus is considered as a definite male. They also Paskin like him regarding planting, running or grafting something. As the Tanna Kama held you need to give it thirty days to know that it took root before Shvious. R' Yehuda says it takes three days, and R' Yossi and R' Shimon says it takes two weeks.

95) Rabbah b. Avuha says that, according to all the opinions, you need an extra thirty days to this time to make sure it takes root. [Rashi says: because that's the time you need to add onto Shvious. However, R' Tam says that there's no addition to Shvious regarding trees. Rather, we refer to having an extra thirty days before the fifteenth of Shvat to consider it a year regarding Arlah (according to the opinion that only thirty days in a year is considered a year.)]

96) Shmuel Paskins like R' Yossi regarding the amount of time that we consider blood that comes from a difficult labor is not considered as blood from a Zavah. As R' Meir says that it's forty and fifty days before birth. R' Yehuda says that it must be within the ninth month. R' Yossi and R' Shimon says it's only for two weeks before the birth. We don't know how Rav Paskins in this case.

97) Shmuel also Paskins like R' Yossi regarding making Klai Kerem forbidden. As R' Meir holds that, if someone takes his friend's vines and train them to go over his grain, they become forbidden and he needs to pay to replace them [Tosfos: since he says that you require payments for Garmi, causing damage. We Paskin like R' Meir regarding Garmi in general]. R' Yossi and R' Shimon says that it's not forbidden since someone can't forbid other people's property. [Tosfos says: although someone can forbid his friend's pot by throwing a piece of forbidden fat into it; but we're referring to a case where it needs intent to forbid. As by Klayim, if you see it in your field and you intend to uproot it, it does not forbid even if it grows a two hundredth more before you had a chance to remove it. So Klayim's forbidding depends on intent. Therefore, you can't forbid your friend's vineyard, even if you plant grain right next to it. Therefore, since the grain doesn't forbid the vineyard, the grain doesn't become forbidden either.] However, Rav Paskins like R' Meir.

98) R' Yehuda says that a Tumtum whose membrane rips and we find him to be a male, he shouldn't do Chalitza since he's a Saris. R' Yossi b. Yehuda says that a Tumtum whose membrane didn't rip shouldn't do Chalitza since it might be a female, and even if he's a male, perhaps he's a born Saris. The practical difference between them is that R' Yehuda holds him to be a definite Saris, and his son R' Yossi considers him a Safeik. Therefore, only R' Yossi holds that, if he did Chalitza, his brothers can't do Yibum anymore. Also, if he's the only brother, he needs to do Chalitza. However, R' Yehuda holds that his Chalitza is nothing.

99) R' Elazar doesn't consider an Androgenus a male regarding everything. As he holds that a Korban from an animal needs to be “male or female” i.e., a definite male or female, and not an Androgenus. However, by a bird Korban, where it doesn't say “male or female,” R' Elazar allows an Androgenus or Tumtum. Therefore, its Melika is not a Neveila [Tosfos: and is L'chatchila permitted to bring. Alternatively, it may be rabbinically Pasul.] However, the Tanna Kama holds it to be a different creature that's not male or female, and is Pasul for a Korban, and the Melika is a Neveila that makes you Tamai when swallowed.

100) However, by an animal, R' Elazar agrees that you can't even make them Kodesh just like you can't make Klayim, Treifa and one born from a cesarean Kodesh. [Tosfos says: however, if someone transgress bestiality with it, designated for idol worship, or gave as a wage for Z'nus, although they're Pasul, the Hekdesh takes effect.] Also, if these animals were already Kodesh, (like by a Treifa that can be made Kodesh before it became Treif, and cesarean that can become Kodesh before it came out of its mother,) it can't make a Temurah.