Yevamos - Daf 58

• "אמן" שלא שטיתי ארוסה

Rav Sheishess said: יש חופה לפסולות – that there is halachic significance to the chuppah of disqualified women, and there is a Mishnah in Sotah that taught likewise. For the Mishnah taught: "אמן" שלא שטיתי ארוסה ונשואה שומרת יבם וכנוסה – The repetition of the word Amen in the curse she recites, teaches that a sotah must swear that “I have not strayed from my husband while an arusah, or a nesuah, while awaiting yibum or having been married in yibum. Rav Sheishess brings his proof from the case of the arusah. It cannot be that she was warned and was in seclusion while an arusah, because in that case she does not drink the bitter waters. And it cannot be a case where the husband warned her as an arusah, and she secluded herself with the man while an arusah, but he made her drink after she was a nisuah, for it was taught in a Baraisa: "ונקה האיש מעון" – and the man will be free of sin, which teaches that the bitter waters work if the husband is free of sin, and if the husband had relations with her after she was in seclusion, he is not free of sin, and the waters will not work. Rather, it must be that he warned her while she was an arusah, and she was in seclusion while an arusah, and then she entered into chuppah, but he did not have relations with her. We see from here, יש חופה לפסולות.

• "מבלעדי אישך" מי שקדמה שכיבת בעל לבועל

Rava rejects Rav Sheishess’ proof from the Mishnah, questioning whether the wording of the Mishnah can be correct, for when Rebbe Acha bar Chanina came from the South he brought the following Baraisa with him: The passuk in the parshah of sotah states: "מבעלדי אישך" – And a man other than your husband has lain with you, which teaches, מי שקדמה שכיבת בעל לבועל – that the sotah waters are only effective where the husband has had relations with her before the adulterer had relations with her, and not where the adulterer had relations with her before her husband. Therefore, the Mishnah cannot be correct, for how could an arusah be subject to the bitter waters if the husband never had relations with her? Rami bar Chama answered that you can find a case where the husband had relations with her as an arusah prior to the adulterer, כגון שבא עליה ארוסה בבית אביה – in a case where he had relations with her while she was still in her father’s home. Since the husband acted promiscuously and not for the sake of nisuin, she is not a nesuah. And since it happened before his seclusion, he is free of sin. Therefore, יש חופה לפסולות, since it is his bringing her into the chuppah that causes her to drink.  

• Can a bas Kohen still eat terumah if she was given a get by her yavam who is a Kohen?

Rebbe Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree in a case where a brother of a deceased Kohen gave the yevamah, who was a בת כהן, a get. Rebbe Yochanan holds that she can eat terumah in her father’s house, whereas Reish Lakish says she may not. Rebbe Yochanan says she may continue to eat it, even according to Rebbe Meir, who says a woman may not eat terumah if she is awaiting forbidden relations, for that is only in a case of משתמרת לביאה פסולה דאורייתא – she is awaiting d’Oraysa forbidden relations, but where she is only awaiting d’Rabbanon forbidden relations, such as in the case of a yevamah who received a get, she may continue to eat terumah. But Reish Lakish says she may not continue to eat, even according to Rebbe Elazar and Rebbe Shimon, who say she may eat terumah while awaiting forbidden relations, הני מילי דיש לו להאכיל במקום אחר – this is only where he has the capacity to entitle a wife to eat terumah in a different circumstance, but here, where he gave her a get, he does not have the capacity to entitle another one to eat terumah through this relationship, referring to divorce.