(Mishnah): A fetus, a Yavam, Kidushin, a Cheresh (deaf-mute), and a nine-year old disqualify, but do not permit to eat. (This will be explained);

[In the following cases she does Chalitzah but not Yibum -] we are in doubt whether or not a boy is above nine years old, or whether or not a boy brought two hairs, or if a house fell on a man and his brother's daughter and we do not know who died first - the Tzarah does Chalitzah but not Yibum.

(Gemara - Tosefta - R. Shimon): This is improper! If [a fetus] is esteemed to disqualify, it should be esteemed to feed [Terumah]. If it is not esteemed to feed, it should not be esteemed to disqualify!

Note: OHR HA'YASHAR asks, we should say that a fetus is a Safek Nefel, therefore it disqualifies, but does not feed! Do not say that we follow the majority, which are not Nefalim. Our Mishnah is R. Meir, who is concerned for the minority! (Perhaps R. Shimon knew that Rabanan learn from Hem Ya'achilu (below) that a fetus does not feed. It is not merely due to Safek. He asked that if so, they should say that also, it does not disqualify, like the Gemara asks below - PF.)

Question: R. Shimon said properly! What is Rabanan's reason?

"[Vi'Ylid Beiso] Hem Yochlu [b'Lachmo" - we read this] Hem Ya'achilu. One who is proper to eat, he permits others to eat. One who is not proper to eat, he does not feed others.

Question: A Mamzer is not proper to eat, yet he feeds [his mother, i.e. a Bas Yisrael widowed from a Kohen, and he is their only living descendant]!

Answer: [A Mamzer] is different. It says "vi'Ylid Beiso" (to include that he feeds, even though he is not proper to eat - PNEI MOSHE).

Question: [We should say like R. Shimon, that only one who is proper to eat can disqualify, so] one who was born should disqualify, and one who was not born [yet, e.g. a fetus] should not disqualify!

Answer: Here is different, for it says "v'Shavah El Beis Aviha", to exclude a Shomeres Yavam; "ki'N'ureha" excludes if she is pregnant (i.e. a fetus disqualifies).

Inference (R. Yosi): They made a fetus as if he was tangible (born) to disqualify, but they did not make a fetus as if he was tangible to feed.

The words of [the following] Rabanan disagree;

(R. Ze'ira): A Beraisa teaches that an Arusah, Shomeres Yavam or pregnant woman pays principal, but not Chomesh (the added quarter of the principal for a Zar who ate Terumah b'Shogeg).

Question: What is the case?

If a Bas Kohen married a Yisrael, even if she bore children from him, she is not a Zar for [Terumah, to pay Chomesh]!

Answer: Rather, it discusses a Bas Yisrael married to a Kohen;

If you will say that they made a fetus as if he was tangible to disqualify, but they did not make a fetus as if he was tangible to feed, why do [pregnant women] pay [only] principal, but not Chomesh? They should pay principal and Chomesh [like a total Zar! OHR SOMAYACH (Hilchos Terumos 8:3) - an Arusah or Shomeres Yavam is tied to the Kohen, and is destined for Nisu'in or Yibum, so she is not a full Zar. R. Yosi holds that a fetus is Batel to the mother; he is a Zar until he is born, so she has no tie to a Kohen, so she pays Chomesh. R. Zeira holds that the fetus is a Kohen. He should feed his mother, but a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv forbids until he is born, lest he is a Nefel. She is not a full Zar to pay Chomesh.]

(Mishnah): A Cheresh disqualifies.

Remark: R. Chiyah taught differently, that the wife (a Bas Kohen) of a [Yisrael] Cheresh or lunatic, she immerses from the lap of (intimacy with) her husband, and [after nightfall] eats Terumah.

(R. Aba Mari or R. Masniyah): [Our Mishnah said that a boy above nine disqualifies. It discusses] a Pasul (e.g. a Mamzer. Amoni, Chalal... Even though he has no Kidushin, he disqualifies through Bi'ah.)

Note: OHR SOMAYACH (Hilchos Gerushin 11:15) and HA'GAON RAV C. KANIEVSKY, SHLITA question our text (Cheresh), for the coming Mishnah says that a lunatic does not disqualify, i.e. in the same case that a Cheresh disqualifies! According to SEFER NIR, Kidushin of a Cheresh disqualifies mid'Rabanan; a lunatic has no Kidushin even mid'Rabanan.

Answer #2 (the other of R. Aba Mari and R. Masniyah): [It discusses] a Yavam.

If it is a Safek whether a boy is nine years and a day, or perhaps he is not, it is as if he is nine years and a day to disqualify. If it is a Safek whether he brought two hairs, or perhaps did not bring two hairs, it is as if he did not bring in order to feed. (We explained this like SEFER NIR.)

(Mishnah): If a house fell on a man and his brother's daughter, and we do not know who died first, her Tzarah does Chalitzah and not Yibum.

Question: Did the Tana come to teach Tzaros?! (Our Perek discusses Terumah!)

Answer: Since our Mishnah taught Sefekos, it taught Safek Tzaros. (We explained this like PNEI MOSHE.)