ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Yevamos 89
YEVAMOS 86-90 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
(a) The woman whose husband returns does not receive her Kesubah - because
the very reason that Chazal instituted a Kesubah in the first place, was in
order to make it more difficult for a man to divorce his wife (seeing as min
ha'Torah, a man may divorce his wife for no particular reason). And here we
actually want him to divorce her.
(b) Neither does she receive Peiros, Mezonos and B'la'os - because 'T'nai
Kesubah ki'Kesubah Dami'.
(c) An Almanah le'Kohen Gadol or a Gerushah le'Kohen Hedyot may reclaim the
Peiros that her husband ate, even though she does not receive her Kesubah
(which explains why the Tana needs to mention that, in our case, she may
(d) And the Tana finds it necessary to inform us that if she did receive any
of these from either man, she must return them - because we may have thought
that (seeing as originally, she *was* entitled to a Kesubah), having claimed
it, she may keep it (because the decree is only Lechatchilah, but not
(a) The Mishnah in Terumos states 'Ein Tormin min ha'Tahor al ha'Tamei;
ve'Im Taram ... be'Meizid Lo Asah ve'Lo K'lum' - (mi'de'Rabbanan) because it
causes the Kohen a loss (since he can only burn it [as fuel], but not eat
(b) According to Rav Chisda, the Seifa of the Mishnah must be taken
literally; according to Rav Nasan bar Oshaya - it means that he has not
rectified the remainder of the crops, but what he gave is nevertheless
(c) Rav Chisda does not want to learn like Rav Nasan bar Oshaya - because of
the fear that, if it would be Terumah, then the owner might not bother to
fulfill his obligation of taking Terumah again.
(a) We reconcile the other Mishnah in Terumos 'ha'Torem Kishos ve'Nimtza
Marah ... Terumah ve'Yachzor ve'Yitrom' ...
1. ... with the previous Halachah - by pointing out that (based on the fact
that the word 've'Nimtza'as' implies Shogeg) the Tana there is speaking
about Shogeg, whereas the previous Halachah is Meizid - so there is nothing
(b) And in the previous Halachah, the Tana ruled 'be'Meizid Lo Asah ve'Lo
K'lum' (literally, according to Rav Chisda) - because, had Chazal said
'Terumah, ve'Yachzor ve'Yitrom' (which, Rav Chisda agrees, is what they
really ought to have said), the owner would *not have taken their ruling
seriously* (and would not bother to take again), seeing as all the crops
were in *one* receptacle; whereas in the Mishnah in D'mai 'ha'Torem
me'she'Ein Nakuv al Nakuv Terumah, ve'Yachzor ve'Yitrom', where the crops in
question were from two receptacles, he *does*.
2. ... with the Reisha of this Mishnah 've'Im Taram be'Shogeg, Terumaso
Terumah' (seeing as both are be'Shogeg) - by explaining that whereas the
Shogeg of this Mishnah is absolute, the Shogeg in the other Mishnah is close
to Meizid (because he should have tasted some of the cucumbers (or the
watermelon) before designating Terumah from the batch (so we penalize him by
making him give again).
(a) According to Rav Nasan bar Oshaya, the reason that the Tana rules 'Lo
Asah ve'Lo K'lum', le'Saken ha'Shirayim, Aval Terumah Havi', is - because
min ha'Torah, the Terumah *is valid*, as we shall soon see; whereas in the
case of the Mishnah in D'mai 'min ha'Nakuv al she'Ein Nakuv, Terumaso
Terumah, ve'Lo Sei'achel ad she'Yotzi Alei Terumah mi'Makom Acher', it is
(b) Despite the fact that, min ha'Torah, what he gave is not Terumah at all,
the Mishnah nevertheless says 'min she'Ein Nakuv al ha'Nakuv, Terumah ...
' - because what harm is there if the Kohen eats crops from an Atzitz
she'Ein Nakuv as Terumah (seeing as min ha'Torah, it is neither Tevel nor
(c) Rebbi Ilai learns from the Pasuk in Korach "ve'Lo Sis'u Alav Chet
ba'Harimchem es Chelbo Mimenu" - that if someone separates from inferior
produce (incorporating from Tamei on to Tahor), the Terumah is valid (min
ha'Torah), because, if it were not, what sin would he have transgressed
(since he will simply be obligated to give again).
(a) When Rabah asked Rav Chisda how he could possibly declare the first
Terumah not valid, seeing as min ha'Torah, it is (as we just saw from Rebbi
Ilai) - he replied in surprise, 'Why not'? Did we not learn in our Mishnah
that Beis-Din declared any child that she subsequently bears from her
husband a Mamzer, permitting him to marry a Mamzeres (when, according to
Torah law, he is certainly not a Mamzer, and therefore forbidden to do so)?
(b) Rabah refutes Rav Chisda's reply by quoting Shmuel and Ravin Amar Rebbi
Yochanan - who say that the child is only a Mamzer inasmuch as he is
forbidden to marry a bas Yisrael, but not to permit him to marry a Mamzeres.
(a) The Tana'im argue over the time from when a man 1. inherits his wife
who is a Ketanah (if she dies); 2. is permitted to bury her and 3. feeds
her Terumah (whilst she is alive). We are talking about a Ketanah whose
mother or brother married her off, and whose marriage is therefore only
(b) Chazal instituted this type of marriage, even though min ha'Torah, only
a father may marry off his daughter - in order to protect her, to prevent
her from becoming abused by undesirable elements.
(c) Beis Shamai say 'mi'she'Ta'amod be'Komasah' - meaning from when she
becomes a Gedolah (in age and with the appropriate signs).
(d) According to Beis Hillel, he inherits her from the moment that she
enters the Chupah. Rebbi Eliezer says - from the time that her husband is
(a) The problem with Beis Shamai in the previous question (who say
'mi'she'Ta'amod be'Komasah') - is that this implies even before they are
married. But how can that be, when even a *Gedolah* who is betrothed but not
married, does not receive a Kesubah (as we learned above on 29b.)?
(b) So we establish Beis Shamai when she came of age, but also entered the
Chupah (whereas according to Beis Hillel, she receives her Kesubah from the
time she enters the Chupah, even if she is still a Ketanah).
(c) And we resolve Rebbi Eliezer, who says that after Bi'ah, her husband
inherits her, with his own statement in Perek Beis Shamai 'Ein Ma'aseh
Ketanah K'lum' - by adding to his words '*after she comes of age* and makes
Bi'ah with her'.
(a) Normally - it is *the father* who inherits a Ketanah when she dies.
(b) When Rav Chisda asked Rabah from this Mishnah, where according to Beis
Hillel, it is *her husband* who inherits her - he replied with the principle
'Hefker Beis-Din Hefker'.
(c) Rav Yitzchak learns from the Pasuk "Kol Asher Lo Yavo li'Sh'loshes
ha'Yamim ba'Atzas ha'Sarim ve'ha'Zekeinim Yocharam Kol Rechusho ... " - the
principle of 'Hefker Beis-Din Hefker', which only applies to monetary
(d) Rebbi Elazar learns 'Hefker Beis-Din Hefker' from the Pasuk in Yehoshua
"Eileh ha'Nachalos Asher Nachalu *Elazar ha'Kohen vi'Yehoshua ben Nun
ve'Rashei ha'Avos* le'Matos B'nei Yisrael" - by making use of the Torah's
comparison of the leaders of the community to the fathers, to teach us that
just as fathers are empowered to inherit to their children whatever they
wish, so too, are the heads.
(a) Rabah explains that, in spite of the fact that min ha'Torah, it is her
father who is obligated to bury her, in this case, the Ketanah's husband
does so (even if he is a Kohen) - because of the Beraisa, which explains
that whenever there is nobody on hand to bury a dead person, he has the Din
of a Meis Mitzvah. And here too, seeing as her father does not inherit her,
he will not take the trouble of burying her either.
(b) And since even a Gedolah is not permitted to eat Terumah d'Oraysa after
becoming betrothed to a Kohen (as we learned above in Arba'ah Achin) - he
establishes the Beraisa, which permits this Ketanah to eat Terumah, by