Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THE FINES FOR MARRYING IF HER HUSBAND RETURNS

i. Question: The end of the Mishnah teaches, even if the 2nd man gives her a Get, it does not disqualify her from Kehunah - this implies, a Get is not required!
ii. If a Get would be required - it should disqualify her!

2. Answer #2 (To 4:a:4, 88B): In the end of the Mishnah, a Get is not required - people will not think a married woman is leaving without a Get - they will say, it was a mistake, they were never married.
3. Question: Also in the beginning of the Mishnah, we should not require a Get, people will say the marriage was a mistake!
4. Answer: There, we fined her, that she must get a Get from the 2nd man.
5. Question: We should also fine her in the end of the Mishnah!
6. Answer: In the beginning of the Mishnah, she transgressed, so we fined her; in the end of the Mishnah, she did not transgress, so we did not fine her.

(b) (Mishnah): She has no Kesuvah ...

1. Kesuvah was enacted so that it should not be light in a man's eyes to divorce his wife - here, we want him to divorce her!

(c) (Mishnah): She does not receive fruits, food or remnants ...

1. Provisions of the Kesuvah are as the Kesuvah.

(d) (Mishnah): If she received from either man ...
(e) Question: This is obvious!
(f) Answer: One might have thought, once she seized it, we do not take from her - we hear, this is not so.

(a) (Mishnah): The child is a Mamzer...
(b) (Mishnah): We do not separate Terumah from Tamei produce on Tahor; if one did accidentally, it is Terumah; if one did so intentionally, his separation has no effect.
(c) Question: What does it mean, 'it has no effect'?
(d) Answer #1 (Rav Chisda): It has no effect at all - even the separated produce returns to be Tevel.
(e) Answer #2 (R. Noson b'Rebbi Oshiya): It has no effect to permit the produce on which it was separated, but the separated produce does become Terumah.

1. Rav Chisda did not learn as R. Noson - if you will say it is Terumah, the person may neglect to separate more Terumah to fix the Tevel.

(f) Question: Why is this different than the following Mishnah?

1. (Mishnah): One who takes Terumah on gourds, and it is found to be bitter, a watermelon and it is found to be spoiled - it is Terumah, and he must take more Terumah.

(g) Answer: There, he did not intend to take bad Terumah, he did not sin - here, he intended to take bad Terumah!
(h) Question: There is a contradiction from cases where he did not intend!

1. Here, if he didn't intend, what he separated is Terumah - there, it is Terumah, and he must take more Terumah!

(i) Answer: There, although he did not intentionally take bad Terumah, he is somewhat negligent - he should have tasted it!
(j) Question: There is a contradiction from cases where he intended!

1. Here, it says it has no effect; but a Mishnah teaches otherwise!

i. (Mishnah): One who takes Terumah from a flowerpot without holes (Terumah on such produce is mid'Rabanan) on what grew in a pot with holes (which is mid'Oraisa) - it is Terumah, and he must take more Terumah.

(k) Answer: When he separated from a vessel on a different type of vessel, he (understands that it is invalid and) consents to take more Terumah; here, it is all from the same batch, he will not obey (if told that it is Terumah and he must take more Terumah).
(l) Question: According to R. Noson, that it has no effect to permit the produce on which it was separated, but it does become Terumah - why is this different than the following Mishnah?

1. (Mishnah): One who takes Terumah from a flowerpot with on what grew in a pot with holes - it is Terumah, but he may not eat (the Terumah) until he takes Terumah and Ma'aser on it from other produce.

(m) Answer: Our case is different, since mid'Oraisa it is Terumah, as R. Ilai.

1. (R. Ilai): "You will not bear sin if you take the best part" - this teaches that one who takes bad Terumah on good fruit, it is Terumah.

i. If it was not Terumah, he would bear no sin!

(a) Question (Rabah to Rav Chisda): Why do you say that it had no effect at all - it is a decree, lest he will not separate more - do we ever find, mid'Oraisa it is Terumah, and because a person might be negligent, Chachamim revert it to Chulin?!

1. Can Chachamim uproot something from the Torah?!

(b) Counter-question (Rav Chisda): You think not?! Our Mishnah says, the child from either man is a Mamzer!

1. We understand, from the 2nd man, it is a Mamzer; but the 1st man is her husband, the child is a regular Yisrael, and we permit him to a Mamzeres!

(c) Answer (Rabah): Shmuel said, the child is forbidden to a Mamzeres (he is really Kosher; mid'Rabanan, he has the stringencies of a Mamzer).

1. (Ravin): The child is forbidden to a Mamzeres - he is called a Mamzer to teach that he may not marry a Bas Yisrael.

(d) Question (Rav Chisda to Rabah): Do you hold, Chachamim cannot uproot a Torah law?

1. (Beraisa): A man that is married (mid'Rabanan) to a minor - from when does he inherit her? Beis Shamai says, when she becomes a Na'arah; Beis Hillel says, after Chupah; R. Eliezer says, after they have relations.

i. He inherits her, becomes Tamei to engage in her burial, and she may eat Terumah (if he is a Kohen).

2. Question: Beis Shamai says, when she becomes a Na'arah - even before Chupah?!
3. Answer: They mean, when she becomes a Na'arah and has Chupah.

i. Beis Hillel hold that Chupah always works - Beis Shamai says, it only works if she is an adult.

4. Question: R. Eliezer says, when she has relations - but he said, what a minor does has no effect!
5. Answer: He means, when she grows up and has relations.

(e) (Summation of question): In any case, mid'Oraisa, her father inherits her, and mid'Rabanan, her husband inherits her!
(f) Answer: Beis Din has power to declare money ownerless.

1. (R. Yitzchak): "... His property will be made Cherem" - this teaches, Beis Din may make things ownerless.
2. (R. Elazar): "The inheritances ... and the heads of the fathers..." - why does it mention the heads by the fathers?

i. This teaches, just as fathers can bequeath as they wish to their children, also the heads can make the nation inherit as they wish.

(g) Question: The Beraisa says, he becomes Tamei to bury her - mid'Oraisa, her father becomes Tamei for her, and mid'Rabanan, her husband does!
(h) Answer: Because she is an unattended corpse (which a Kohen may become Tamei for).
(i) Objection: This is not true!

1. (Beraisa): An unattended corpse is one that has no one to bury it; if they call, and others answer, this is not an unattended corpse.

(j) Answer: Here, since her relatives do not inherit her, if he calls, no one will answer.