POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Yevamos 89
YEVAMOS 86-90 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
1) THE FINES FOR MARRYING IF HER HUSBAND RETURNS
2) ONE WHO TAKES BAD TERUMAH
(b) (Mishnah): She has no Kesuvah ...
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!
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
ii. If a Get would be required - it should
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
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
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
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
(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
(i) Answer: There, although he did not intentionally take bad
Terumah, he is somewhat negligent - he should have tasted
(j) Question: There is a contradiction from cases where he
1. Here, it says it has no effect; but a Mishnah
(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).
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.
(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
3) CAN CHACHAMIM UPROOT A TORAH MITZVAH?
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
(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
(e) (Summation of question): In any case, mid'Oraisa, her
father inherits her, and mid'Rabanan, her husband
i. He inherits her, becomes Tamei to engage in
her burial, and she may eat Terumah (if he is a
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
i. Beis Hillel hold that Chupah always works -
Beis Shamai says, it only works if she is an
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
(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
(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!
2. (R. Elazar): "The inheritances ... and the heads of
the fathers..." - why does it mention the heads by
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.
(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.