Explanation (Rashi): We should not say that just like regarding Terumah, she (a Bas Kohen widowed from a Yisrael, without children) returns to her initial status, also regarding Nedarim (her father can annul her vows).

Consequence: Based on this, it seems that we ask about every Nesu'ah, even if she entered Chupah and had Bi'ah. If she was widowed, she should return to her initial status;

We need to learn this from Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael. It connotes that it is clear to him without any Drashah that she left the Reshus of her father and husband, and does not return.

He needs the verse only for when the father give her over to the husband's Sheluchim. One might have thought that she returns, for she still did not have Nisu'in.

Question: We need this for the Drashah in Nedarim 88b! (If she vowed when she was a widow or divorcee, and married, her husband cannot annul it. Aruch l'Ner (Sof 68b) answers that R. Yishmael expounds one law from Almanah, and one from Gerushah.)

Explanation: We need the verse for when she was widowed or divorced (after being given to her husband's Sheluchim). Her father cannot annul;

One might have thought here returning helps, since she did not totally leave.

However, as long as she was not widowed [or divorced], obviously he cannot annul, once he gave her to the husband's Sheluchim, without the verse (Almanah u'Gerushah).

We learn from "Liznos Beis Aviha" in Kesuvos (48b), like we expound there to exclude once he gave her to the husband's Sheluchim. (After that, she is not stoned for Zenus like an Arusah. Rather, she is choked, like a Nesu'ah.)

We learn also vows from there.

Question (Ri): Granted, for all the Amora'im who expound from other verses in which it says "her father", this is fine, for the exclusion is written specifically regarding her father;

However, according to Ravina bar Shila, who expounds from "Hi bi'Serumas ha'Kodoshim", how does it connote that it discusses returning to her father's house?

Answer: Since the Reisha of the verse wrote "u'Vas Ish Kohen", it seems that it discusses returning to her father's Reshus.

Question: According to the opinion that expounds '"mi'Lechem", but not from meat', also regarding [a Bas Yisrael who eats due to] her son [from a Kohen], it says "vi'Ylid Beiso Hem Yochlu b'Lachmo", and we expound that one who was born feeds (his mother);

Note: This Drashah is in Nidah 44a, and above (67b) alludes to it.

We should say that [he feeds her] bread, but not meat!

Note: Tosfos ha'Rosh answers that since the simple meaning of the verse discusses a Kohen's sons, and they eat also meat, we expound similarly about their mother.

Explanation: Since above we discussed in [Perek] Yesh Mutaros the Pesul to Terumah and Ma'aser, also our Perek was taught afterwards, which also discusses this;

It says that if she was a Bas Levi, she is disqualified from Ma'aser. If she was a Bas Kohen, she is disqualified from Terumah.

Explanation (Ri): Even after the first gave a Get, the child from the second is a Mamzer, just like the first [husband];

Her child from him [her first husband, after he returned] is a Mamzer [mid'Rabanan].

Implied question: According to the Hava Amina, that one witness is believed mid'Oraisa, why is this called "with permission of Beis Din"?

Answer: There are matters for which one witness is not believed. She must ask Beis Din to permit her to marry based on the witness;

However, when there are two, it is known that she is permitted.

Implied question: Now we are thinking that the Torah believes him (one witness) like two!

Answer: In any case, she may not return to him, for when there is [only] one witness she should have checked [that he surely died], even though the Torah believed him.

Explanation: We take a security from him if he says that he will not bring the Korban;

He is unlike others who must bring a Chatas. They are pleased to get Kaparah, so we need not take a security from them. (However, this man claims that he did not sin!)