Yerushalmi: If the woman declares that she is forbidden to her husband; It is neither comparable to a Chatas whose owner died (where the money goes to the Yam he'Melech), nor to an Asham Taluy (because then the Minchah ought to be redeemable even after it became sanctified in a K'li Shareis)?

Yerushalmi (cont.): Rebbi compares to an Asham Talay that has been Shechted, and we learned there in a Mishnah 'If he got to know about it after the Shechitah, the blood must be poured out and the flesh taken out to the Beis ha'Sereifah.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that it refers both to a Minchas Sotah and to a Minchas Nedavah.

Question: What sort of portion does the husband have in her Minchas Nedavah? Why, even Rebbi Yehudah, who says in Perek Ein bein ha'Mudar (Nedarim, Daf 35b) that a man brings on behalf of his wife any Korban that she is Chayav ...

Question (cont.): That is specifically Korbanos that she is Chayav to bring, as is explained in the Sifri - such as if she is a Nazir or if she transgressed Shabbos, similar to a Minchas Sotah, which she is obligated to bring.

Source: And it learns it there from the Pasuk "And he shall bring her Korban on her behalf (alehah)" - 'any Korban that she is obligated to bring'.

Question (concl.): But as far as a Minchas Nedavah is concerned, Rebbi Yehudah agrees that he does not bring?

Answer: The reason that he has a portion in it is because of the ruling 'Mah she'Kansah Ishah Kanah Ba'alah (that whatever a woman acquires, belongs to her husband).

Source: As we learned in the Mishnah in the fourth Perek of Nazir (Daf 24a) 'If the animal was hers, the Chatas must die'.

Source (cont.): And, based on the principle 'Mah she'Kansah Ishah ... ') the Gemara asks there 'From where dos she possess an animal?'

Conclusion: That explains why he has a portion in it, even according to the Rabbanan who argue with Rebbi Yehudah, who say that it is only a Korban that permits her to him that he brings on her behalf. And this is on account of the principle 'Mah she'Kansah Ishah ... '.

Explanation #2: The Yerushalmi in Perek Hayah Meivi however, explains it with regard to Minchas Sotah exclusively. And so it says there: "Her Minchah": 'This teaches us that she declared it Hekdesh in her name, and just as she declared it Hekdesh it in her name, so too, did she declare it Hekdesh in his name'.

Explanation #2: And Rebbi Chiya asks there that on the one hand, one cannot burn it entirely, on account of her portion, whilst on the other, one cannot eat it, on account of her husband's portion?

Question: We must therefore say that the Kometz is brought separately and so are the Shirayim. So how can you call it 'her Minchah?'

Answer: Only the Mishnah calls it 'her Korban' because the Pasuk calls it her Korban'.

Yerushalmi: Furthermore the Yerushalmi says there "And he shall bring Korban on her behalf". Is her husband permitted to designate the Korban on her behalf without her knowledge?

Yerushalmi (cont.): And it answers that since he is a partner in it, he can designate it for her without her knowledge.

Question: Since he has a portion in it, it is a shared Minchah, and the Gemara says in the first Perek of Zevachim (Daf 5b) that 'If a man left a Minchah to his two sons, and died, it is brought and there is no problem with partnership.

Question: So we see that if there would be, it could not be brought ...

Reason: Because the Torah writes in connection with the Minchah "Nefesh", and this is what the Sifri specifically says?

Answer: Since the main Kaparah comes on account of her, we can justifiably call it "Nefesh".

Proof: Because in the case where he left his Minchah to his two sons, the Gemara concludes there (Daf 6a) that they acquire it, only because they are not atoned for in a fixed way, it is still called "Nefesh".

Question: Why do we not ascribe the entire Minchah to her, in which case one will be permitted to eat the Shirayim?

Precedent: As the Gemara says in Perek Ein bein ha'Mudar Nedarim, Daf 36b), and it is also cited in Zevachim (Daf 6a) and in the first Perek of Temurah (2b) 'The One who is being atoned for (the Miskaper) makes a Temurah' ...

Conclusion: And here she is the Miskaper with this Minchah?

Answer: In the case there, the Miskaper owns the entire Korban and the Makdish has no portion in it, whereas here the husband has a portion in the Minchah.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that he must stipulate - 'If they are fit to burn and were not fit to take a Kemitzah from ... '.

Question: How is it possible to stipulate, seeing as it definitely as if it is mixed with the Shirayim? And it is like the limbs of an Olah and those of a Chatas are mixed up, over which Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan in Zevachim (Daf 77a) argue ...

Question (cont.): Where stipulation is not applicable, seeing as there is no Safek.

Explanation #2: But rather part of it is fit to be burned on the Mizbe'ach and part of it is fit to be eaten.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And the part that is not fit to be burned he offers in the form of wood, wherever it might be, so that stipulation does not come into the picture.

Rashi's Source: Apparently Rashi mentions 'stipulation' having in mind the Mishnah in Perek Nos'in al ha'Anusah (Yevamos, Daf 100a) rules that if the baby of a Kohenes got mixed up with the baby of her Shifchah, one places upon her the stringencies of a Yisrael and the stringencies of a Kohen ...

Rashi's Source (cont.): And the Gemara there explains that the Menachos that they bring require Kemitzah like the Minchah of a Yisrael, but that it cannot be eaten, like the Minchah of a Kohen, and the Sugya follows the same pattern as our Sugya here.

Rashi's Source (cont.): Now there, it is certainly necessary to stipulate, since when one of them brings her Korban, we do not know whether it is the Minchah of a Kohen or of a Yisrael. Consequently, she needs to stipulate in the way that Rashi explains here.

Implied Question: And when the Mishnah says in ha'Kometz Rabah (Menachos, Daf 23a) that 'If her Kometz got mixed up with her Shirayim or with those of her friend, it should not be burned?

Answer: We can explain that this goes according to the Rabbanan who argue with Rebbi Eliezer.

She'eilah: The Yerushalmi asks about the status of these Shirayim, according to Rebbi Shimon; whether they come in the form of a Kometz or in the form of Shirayim?

She'eilah (cont.): If it is the former, then they cannot be brought at night-time, neither can they be brought after the owner's death, nor are they subject to Pigul. Whereas if it is considered Shirayim, he may bring it at night-time and after the owner's death, but are they subject to Pigul?

Resolution #1: And it resolves the She'eilah from Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, who says that one scatters it on the lower Beis-ha'Deshen, as the Gemara explains in Perek ve'Eilu hein Menachos. Hence one must say that one may place it at nighttime, after the owner's death and it is subject to Pigul.

Resolution #2: According to Rebbi Yossi bar Bun it is not subject to Pigul, seeing as it is not fit either for a person to eat or for the Mizbe'ach.

Question: The Yerushalmi cites Rebbi Avahu, who asked Resh Lakish from the Pasuk in Emor "ve'Kohen ki Yikneh Nefesh Kinyan Kaspo" - whether we will say there too, "Kohen" 've'Lo Kohenes'?

Answer: And he answered with the Pasuk in Tzav "ve'ha'Kohen ha'Mashi'ach Tachtav mi'Banav" - implying one whose son stands in his place, precluding a woman, whose son does not stand in her place (but not from the word "Kohen" alone).

Refuted Question: Likewise in Perek ha'Zero'a ve'ha'Lechayayim (Chulin, Daf 132a) the Gemara could have answered like this - that when the Torah writes "ve'Nasan ha'Zero'a ... " we do not Darshen "la'Kohen" - 've'Lo la'Kohenes', but rather 'Afilu la'Kohenes'.

Refuted Question (cont.): Since the reason here is because the Torah writes "ve'ha'Kohen ha'Mashi'ach Tachtav mi'Banav ...

Refutation #1: Only there the Gemara refutes it because the Torah writes "Aharon u'Banav" in the Parshah of the Minchah.

Refutation #2: Or because there it is a 'Miy'ut after a Miy'ut' (which comes to include).

Additional Cases: The Tosefta (in Perek 2) adds - A man is subject to Mitzvos Asei that are time-bound, which a woman is not ...

Additional Cases (cont.): A man transgresses if he cuts his Peyos, destroys his beard and a Kohen who renders himself Tamei for a dead person, which a woman is not ...

Additional Cases (cont.): A 'man' is subject to the Din of a ben Sorer u'Moreh, and a Metzora who wears his clothes over his eyes and who shaves, which a woman is not ...

Additional Cases (cont.): A man can be sold twice, which a woman cannot ...

Additional Cases (cont.): And a male servant can have his ear pierced and a man can acquire an Eved Ivri, which a woman cannot.

Implied Question: It does not however, insert all the cases mentioned here in our Mishnah, except for the rights that a man has over daughter, which a woman does not, as it mentions there 'concerning (acquiring her) with money, a Sh'tar and Bi'ah.

Question #1: Why does it not mention 'S'michos, Tenufos, Hagashos and Kemitzos, which Kohanim can perform but not Kohanos, and all the cases that are listed in the Mishnah in Kidushin (Daf 36a)?

Question #2: Neither does the Tosefta mention that an Eved Ivri goes out with (six) years, with Yovel and with the death of his master, which an Amah ha'Ivriyah does not (Ibid, Daf 30a) ...

Question #3: Or that a Zav is Mitamei with sightings but not a Zavah (Sanhedrin 45a), that a Metzora is forbidden to be intimate (with his wife), but not a Metzora'as, as the Gemara explains at the beginning of Perek Mechusrei Kaparah (Kerisus, Daf 8b) from the Pasuk "mi'Chutz le'Ohalo" - 'Lo mi'Chutz le'Ohalah'?

Clarification: In the fourth Perek of Nazir (Daf 30a) and in the last Perek of Kerisus (Daf 27b) it restricts this ruling to unspecified money, but to money that has been specified.

Clarification: The Gemara learns it from the beginning of the Pasuk "And the father of the girl shall say to the elders", which implies that it does not apply to the girl's mother, who doe not have the authority to give her daughter (to a husband).

Source: In Perek Nigmar ha'Din (Sanhedrin, Daf 46a) the Gemara learns this from the Pasuk "ve'chi Yih'yeh be'Ish" - but not the woman.

Question: Seeing as if she stole, she is not sold for the theft, Beis-Din are not permitted to sell her ...

Question (cont.): Since Beis-Din may sell her for her theft ...

Question (cont.): Now in the first Perek of Kidushin (Daf 14b), based on the Pasuk "ve'Ratza es Ozno", the Rabbanan Darshen "Ozno" ('ve'Lo Ozen shel Mocher Atzmo'), the Rabbanan preclude a Mocher Atzmo from the Din of 'Retzi'ah'.

Question (concl.): By the same token, since Beis-Din cannot sell a woman, we know that she cannot have her ear pierced, so why do the Rabbanan need to learn it from "ha'Eved" ('ve'Lo Amah ha'Ivriyah')?

Answer: We need the Pasuk, because otherwise, seeing as she can (only) be sold by her father, we would have thought that the sale by her father stands in the place of the sale by Beis-Din and that she can therefore have her ear pierced.

Yerushalmi: The Yerushalmi explains that the woman knows that a betrothed woman does not drink, so why does she let herself in for this cumbersome Safek (See M'lo ha'Ro'im) which only causes her to lose her Kesubah (See Rebbi Yitzchak Aizek Chaver)?

Rabeinu Chananel: The Rach explains that even though a betrothed girl is not entitled to a Kesubah, she does however receive one Manah (an Almanah) or two Manah (a Besulah), and it is to that one or two Manah to which the Tana is referring here when he says that she does not take her Kesubah.

Rashi: Rashi explains that one cannot prove from our Mishnah Rav Hamnuna's Din that 'A Shomeres Yavam who committed adultery is forbidden to the Yevamah ...

Rashi (cont.): Because even if we do not concur with Rav Hamnuna, should the Yavam not want to marry a Zonah, she will not receive a Kesubah.

Question #1: The question arises however, if we do not hold like Rav Hamnuna, why do we need a Pasuk to preclude her ...

Question #1 (cont.): Seeing as we learned in Perek Hayah Meivi (earlier, Daf 18b) that 'Any case where if she is intimate and does not become forbidden to him, he cannot make a Kinuy?

Question #2: Furthermore, what is the significance of a Kinuy, if she does become forbidden to him?

Conclusion: Consequently, since it is necessary to preclude her, she must be forbidden?

Refuted Proof: One cannot however, extrapolate it from here, since the Gemara (on Daf 24b) establishes the case where 'the Yavam was intimate with her in his brother's house',

Refutation: In which case he acquires her with regard to sending her away with a Get without Chalitzah, even according to Shmuel.

Answer (concl.): And by the same token, she is also considered his wife to become forbidden to him should she commit adultery, according to everybody.

Implied Question: Why does the Mishnah not list them all together 'The following do not drink and do not receive a Kesubah - Arusah, Shomeres Yavam, Almanah le'Kohen Gadol ... Me'uberes Chavero u'Meinekes Chavero ve'Aylanis u'Zekeinah'?

Answer: The Tana separates them because their reasons differ.

Question: What is difficult however, is why he does not list 'Me'uberes' together with 'Almanah le'Kohen Gadol', seeing as the reason in both cases is identical?

Question (cont.): So it should have begun the Perek with 'The following do not drink', and then continued with all the cases that are similar

Question (concl.): And he should rather have first learned all these cases than to learn some of those that do not drink and then insert them?