יש מותרות. כהן הדיוט שנשא אלמנה – and the same law applies for a virgin, for when he (i.e., her husband) dies, she becomes a widow. But it (i.e., the Mishnah) took [the term] "אלמנה" /widow – because it needed to teach the concluding clause [of the Mishnah] regarding a High Priest who married a widow.

כהן גדול שקידש את האלמנה – but if he married [a widow], she is profaned/desecrated through his coition and she is forbidden to the husband and to the levir.

שניה לבעל ולא שניה ליבם – if the husband’s mother and not of the levir, such as for example, brothers from the father bu not from the mother.

אין לה כתובה – a Maneh (i.e., 100 Dinar or 25 shekels) and Two-Hundred, which are the essence of the Ketubah and she does not have [anything] from the secondary relationship (which are prohibited as incestuous by rabbinic decree), but she does have the supplement.

ולא פירות – he doesn’t pay her the usufruct of the wife’s estate of which the husband has the fruition without responsibility for loss or deterioration that he consumed which are hers, [and even though] that the usufruct, the Rabbis instituted (see Talmud Ketubot 47b) [the duty of support as an equivalent for her handiwork], and that of redemption as an equivalent for the privilege of usufruct [of her property], but he is not liable to redeem her, for we do not call her ואותבינך לי לאינתו /and I will make you to be my wife, and therefore, it was appropriate that he would pay her what he had consumed from the usufruct of her estate, even so, the Rabbis fined her that she should not collect from him the usufruct that he consumed as conditions of the Ketubah. For just as they fined her that she should not collect from him the essence of the Ketubah, for the conditions of the Ketubah are like the Ketubah itself.

ולא מזונות – it is not necessary to state that he is not obligated to support her while she is still under him, for but surely, it is his duty to divorce her (literally: “he stands under the charge to get up and make her go out” – how, then, could he be expected to maintain her? ). But rather, even if he went abroad and he and he lent her and consumed from her [property], he does not pay, for if we were dealing with a fit woman, if he borrowed from her and consumed from her [property], the husband would be obligated to pay [her back]. For the loan claims her what he lent to her and she makes a claim to her husband. And especially for someone who supported her not through the matter of a loan, we state in Ketubot (see Tractate Ketubot, Chapter 13, Mishnah 2) that the Halakha is like Hanan, as he stated: He who went overseas and someone went and supported his wife, he left his money on the horn of a deer for since it was for her support from her husband, and he did not lend her anything – whom can he make a claim? She did not borrow and he husband did not request from him that he should support her, therefore, it was Mitzvah that he did, but if he lent her, the husband is liable to pay if she is fit, and if she is from one of the relationships of the second degree (i.e., of the second generation), he is not liable to pay.

ולא בלאות – if the husband used her usufruct until they wore out, he is not liable to pay for you might think I would say, for since she lacks a Ketubah, but the husband ate from her usufruct, he is liable to pay what was lost and worn out, it comes to tell us that the Rabbis fined her so that the husband would not pay for worn clothes (i.e.., and indemnity for clothes which have completely worn out), but what he finds from them existing, she takes them.

אלמנה לכהן גדול וכו' – they have a Ketubah and usufruct and the husband pays them (i.e., his wives) for the usufruct that he ate from his wive’s estates of which the husband has fruition without responsibility for loss or deterioration and food that they have as they are supported from his property [and especially after] [his] death. But during his lifetime, we don’t force him to support/feed them for we uphold regarding him that it is his duty to divorce her (i.e., literally, he stands under (the charge) to get up and make her go out) and if one of them borrowed her support during the life of her husband, the husband is not liable to pay the lender. And worn out clothing also, there are those who state that he is liable to restore what was worn out and lost from their usufruct, and these words, are when he recognized them, but if he did not recognize them, they have neither a Ketubah, nor usufruct, nor support, nor worn-out clothing, but they do have the supplement and the worn-out clothing that they have in their sight. But second-degree relations do not have a Ketubah, nor usufruct, nor support nor worn-out clothing and a widow [married to] a High Priest, a divorcee and/or a woman who had Halitzah performed to a standard Kohen, ,etc., they have a Ketubah, and usufruct and support and worn out clothing, because these things are from the words of the Scribes and require strengthening. And in the [third chapter of Tractate Makkot}: “Who are they who are flogged?” it is proven that the prohibition of a woman who had undergone Halitzah [is prohibited] to a [High] Priest from the Torah, and even though that [the prohibition] of a woman who had undergone Halitzah [who is married] to a regular Kohen is from the worlds of the Scribes, they made it of Torah law for this law.

לא תאכל בתרומה – as it is taught in the Mishnah of the Chapter “A Widow [Married to] a High Priest” [Tractate Yevamot, Chapter 7, Mishnah 4], the fetus, and the levir and betrothal invalidate [a woman from eating heave offering] but do not validate [her to do so].

לא תאכל במעשר – all of this Mishnah is Rabbi Meir who stated that First Tithe is prohibited to foreigners (i.e., non-Levites) but it is not the Halakha.

לא בתרומה ולא במעשר – this is what he said: We don’t distribute Terumah/priest’s due and First Tithe in the granary house neither to the daughter of a Kohen nor to the daughter of a Levite, as a decree because of the case of a divorced woman, the daughter of an Israelite who is prohibited to eat [First] Tithe and if they would distribute [First] Tithe to the wife in the house of the granary, they will come to distribute it to the daughter of an Israelite after she had been divorced from a Levite, for not everyone knows that for her husband, they would distribute it to her. Therefore, Rabbi Meir decreed that you should not distribute in the house of the granary to a woman even if she is the daughter of a Kohen or the daughter of a Levite. But surely, as it is taught in the Mishnah, the daughter of a Levite who is betrothed to a Kohen, etc., they should not consume neither Terumah or [First] Tithe, and the same law applies even if she is married, because the first clause [of the Mishnah] that teaches that the daughter of an Israelite who is betrothed to a Kohen, that there, especially when she is betrothed, for if she was married [to a Kohen], she could consume [Terumah], it is taught also in the concluding clause [of the Mishnah] regarding the daughter of a Levite who is betrothed.

מת ולה ממנו בן תאכל בתרומה – as it is written (Leviticus 22:11): “and those that are born into his household may eat of his food,” they call him, ‘they shall feed him,” and all the time that her son exists/lives, he provides her with Terumah.

נשאת ללוי – after she gave birth from a Kohen,

אוכלת במעשר – she consumes [First] Tithe and not Terumah, and even though she has a son from a Kohen that was adornment, it would for her a foreigner.

מת ולה ממנו בן אוכלת במעשר – for her son from a Levite, but not Terumah for her son who is from a Kohen, for she has issue from a foreigner (non-Kohen, non-Levite).