Yevamos - Daf 89
- Why the woman does not receive her kesubah payment from either husband
The Mishnah on Daf 87b had stated that if a woman got remarried based on the testimony of a single witness that her original husband had died, and then the original husband appears, אין לה כתובה – she has no right to the kesubah payment from either husband. The Gemara explains that the Rabbanon enacted a Kesubah for a wife כדי שלא תהא קלה בעיניו להוציאה – in order that she not be easy in his eyes to divorce. But this woman, who has committed adultery and become prohibited to her husband, let her be easy in his eyes to divorce. The Gemara continues and explains that she has no rights to other items mentioned in the Mishnah, such as פירות, מזונות ובלאות – produce, sustenance and worn-out clothing because תנאי כתובה ככתובה דמי – a tannai in the kesubah is treated like the kesubah itself.
- אין תורמין מן הטמא על הטהור
A Mishnah in Terumos stated: אין תורמין מן הטמא על הטהור – One may not separate terumah from produce which is tamei for produce that is tahor. Rashi explains that this causes a loss to the Kohen, since tamei terumah may only be used as fuel, and is therefore less valuable. If one did, if he did it beshogegg, his terumah is considered terumah, במזיד לא עשה ולא כלום – if he did it b’meizid he has done nothing. The Gemara brings a machlokes Amoraim regarding what the statement לא עשה ולא כלום means. Rav Chisda said it means: לא עשה ולא כלום כל עיקר – he has not done anything at all, דאפילו ההיא גריוא הדר לטיבליה – for even the measure of tamei produce that he designated as terumah reverts back to being tevel. Rav Nassan b’Rebbe Oshaya said it means לא עשה ולא כלום לתקן את השירים אבל תרומה הוי – he has done nothing to fix the remainder, to make it permissible to eat, but what he separated as terumah is terumah. The Gemara explains that Rav Chisda does not hold like Rav Nassan, because if you say what he designated is terumah, זימנין דפשע ולא מפריש – there may be times when he will be rebellious and not separate a second terumah from tahor produce.
- וכי בית דין מתנין לעקור דבר מן התורה
Rabbah asked Rav Chisda how he can hold that the tamei terumah he separated can revert back to tevel. Can there be something that mid’Oraysa is terumah, and yet out of concern that the person who separated it might be rebellious, the Rabbanon removed it from its terumah state and returned it to chullin? וכי בית דין מתנין לעקור דבר מן התורה – Can Beis Din stipulate to uproot something from the Torah? Mid’Oraysa, this tamei terumah is even prohibited to a Kohen to eat, and by declaring it tevel, it might now be eaten by anyone if the person ends up separating other produce as terumah!? Rav Chisda responded that we can learn from our Mishnah that when the woman married a man based on the testimony of a single witness, and her original husband reappeared, that the Rabbanon declared sons from both husbands’ mamzerim. The son from the first husband is mid’Oraysa legitimate and prohibited to a mamzeress. Yet, by declaring him a mamzer, the Rabbanon are permitting him to a mamzeress, which on a d’Oraysa level is prohibited. We see from here that the Rabbanon can uproot a d’Oraysa to uphold their decree. Rabbah responded that Shmuel explained concerning this law: אסור בממזרת – that the child from the first husband is forbidden to a mamzeress. And Ravin said in the name of Rebbe Yochanan that the Mishnah refers to him as a mamzer to prohibit him to a bas Yisroel with good yichus. Rashi explains that this causes one to act more carefully to protect the Torah’s laws but does not constitute a suspension of Torah law. Rav Chisda attempts two other proofs which are refuted by Rabbah.
