Resources for Yevamos daf 91

1.     The גמרא says that a lady לויה who marries someone else when her husband is still alive cannot eat תרומה as a קנס. תוספות in ד"ה אמר רב says that even according to  ר׳ מאיר who says that a זר can’t eat מעשר, a זונה can eat מעשר. Therefore, if our משנה is going like ר׳ מאיר, the way the קנס works is to say she is like a זר. The רמב"ם  inהלכות מעשר פּרק א׳ הל׳ ב seem to disagree. He paskens like the חכמים that מעשר is חולין and permitted to a זר. Therefore, if a לויה is מזנה she is allowed to eat מעשר. It sounds like according to ר׳ מאיר who says מעשר isn’t permitted to זרים that a woman who is מזנה cannot eat מעשר. The משנה למלך there asks that the גמרא in בכורות דף מ"ז says that if a כהנת is מזנה she loses her קדושה and her child needs a פּדיון הבן like a regular ישראל. However, if a לויה is מזנה her child does not need a פּדיון הבן. You see from there that there is no such thing as a פּסול זונה by a לויה. The אבי עזרי answers that all you see from the גמרא in בכורות is that when a כהנת is מזנה she becomes a זרה which is why her child needs a פּדיון הבן and that a לויה who is מזנה stays does not become a זרה. However, that is not the only reason a lady can’t eat תרומה. There is an independent  פּסול זונה that prevents this lady from eating תרומה and that פּסול זונה would apply to a לויה as well regarding מעשר according to ר׳ מאיר. תוספות disagrees and holds that being מזנה  just makes her a זונה  and that is not a פּסול  for a לויה.

2.     The גמרא seems to come out למסקנא that even if there are two עדים that say a woman’s husband is dead, if she gets married based on that testimony and her husband ends up coming back alive she must get divorced from the first and second husband. The תשובות הרשב"א in חלק א סימן אלפּ קפּ"ט says that a woman who was told by ב"ד that her קידושין was not valid and married someone else and subsequently found out that the קידושין was actually valid is allowed to go back to her first husband. His proof is מיכל בת שאול who was married to דוד and was told by the ב"ד of שאול that her קידושין to דוד was invalid and was then given as a wife to פּלטי בן ליש. Once דוד came for her and it was known the קידושין was valid, she was still permissible to דוד even though she had married someone else in the interim based on ב"ד. The רשב"א is brought להלכה by the רמ"א at the end of סימן י"ז. The ט"ז and ב"ש there both ask that this should be against our גמרא. The ט"ז says one should not rely on this רשב"א. However, the נודע ביהודה in תנינא סימן קל"א says that our גמרא was talking about a case of a mistaken מציאות. In that case we say תצא מזה ומזה because she still could have done more research. However, when the issue is halachic like it was by דוד,  there is no reason to אסור her on the first husband since there is nothing more she could have done. In תשובות רע"א סימן ר"ו he suggests that the רמ"א was just saying she has a right to return to her previous husband, but he would not allow her to marry the second husband (if the first husband gave her a divorce). The reason is that since it is a מחלוקת (the מהרי"ק seems to argue with the רשב"א), we can’t be מוציא her from her first husband since that is like בדיעבד, but we can say that we aren’t going to לכתחילה allow her to marry a new husband. The מהרי"ק that argues with the רשב"א seems to be coming from his famous שיטה in סימן קס"ז which also explains our גמרא. The מהרי"ק that the פּסוק says "למעול מעל באישה" and doesn’t say "למעול מעל בה׳". That means it doesn’t matter if she is an אונס and פּטורה. It’s still a מעילה in her husband.

Rabbi Millman's Marei Mekomos Halacha

New Daf Hashavua newsletter - Shavua Matters

Rabbi Yechiel Grunhaus - Points to Ponder

Rabbi Azriel Katz - Meforshim Overview