## Yevamot Daf 89a

###### Yevamot 89a:1
[Yevamot 89a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/89a:1)

שֶׁנָּתַן לָהּ אַחֲרוֹן גֵּט — לֹא פְּסָלָהּ מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה, מִכְּלָל דְּלָא בָּעֲיָא גֵּט. דְּאִי בָּעֲיָא גֵּט, אַמַּאי לֹא פְּסָלָהּ מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה? אֶלָּא סֵיפָא, אָמְרִי: קִידּוּשֵׁי טָעוּת הֲווֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
the **last one gave her a bill of divorce, he has not disqualified her from** marrying into **the priesthood,** as she is not considered a divorcée at all, this proves **by inference that she does not require a bill of divorce** from him. The reason is **that if she requires a bill of divorce,** even if it is only due to uncertainty, **why** has he **not disqualified her from** marrying into **the priesthood?** A bill of divorce of any validity would bar her from marrying a priest. **Rather,** a bill of divorce given by a man to a woman who is not his wife is clearly of no account, and the reason for the ruling in **the latter clause,** with regard to betrothal, is that people will **say** there was no need for a bill of divorce because **it was a mistaken betrothal.**


###### Yevamot 89a:2
[Yevamot 89a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/89a:2)

רֵישָׁא נָמֵי, אָמְרִי: נִישּׂוּאֵי טָעוּת הֲווֹ? קַנְסוּהָ רַבָּנַן. סֵיפָא נָמֵי לִיקְנְסוּהָ! רֵישָׁא, דַּעֲבַדָא אִיסּוּרָא — קַנְסוּהָ. סֵיפָא, דְּלָא עֲבַדָא אִיסּוּרָא — לָא קַנְסוּהָ רַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If so, in **the first clause too,** they will **say it was a mistaken marriage.** The Gemara answers: **The Sages penalized her** by requiring her to receive a bill of divorce, lest people say she divorced this man and went back and married the first one. The Gemara counters: If so, in **the latter clause** of the mishna **let us also penalize her.** The Gemara responds: **The first clause** involves a situation **where she violated a prohibition** through her intercourse, and therefore the Sages **penalized her.** Conversely, in **the latter clause, when she did not violate a prohibition,** as she simply became betrothed, **the Sages did not penalize her.**


###### Yevamot 89a:3
[Yevamot 89a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/89a:3)

אֵין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. מַאי טַעְמָא תַּקִּינוּ לַהּ רַבָּנַן כְּתוּבָּה, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא קַלָּה בְּעֵינָיו לְהוֹצִיאָהּ — הָא תְּהֵא קַלָּה בְּעֵינָיו לְהוֹצִיאָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna taught that this woman **does not have,** i.e., she is not entitled to, the payment of her **marriage contract.** The Gemara explains: **What is the reason** that **the Sages instituted a marriage contract** in general, **for** an ordinary woman? **So that she will not be demeaned in his eyes such that** he will easily **divorce her.** The necessity to find money for her marriage contract will prevent a hasty decision to divorce her. However, in the case of **this** woman, on the contrary, the Sages actually prefer that **she will be demeaned in his eyes such that** he will easily **divorce her,** as the marriage was forbidden and she may not remain with him. Consequently, they eliminated her marriage contract to encourage him to divorce her.


###### Yevamot 89a:4
[Yevamot 89a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/89a:4)

אֵין לָהּ פֵּירוֹת וְלֹא מְזוֹנוֹת וְלֹא בְּלָאוֹת. תְּנַאי כְּתוּבָּה — כִּכְתוּבָּה דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna further states that **she does not have** claim to **profits, or sustenance, or worn clothes.** Why not? Because the **stipulations in the marriage contract,** i.e., all the rights of a wife stemming from the stipulations that are part of a marriage contract, **are considered like** the **marriage contract** itself. Since she has no marriage contract, she does not have the stipulations in a marriage contract either.


###### Yevamot 89a:5
[Yevamot 89a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/89a:5)

נָטְלָה מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה. פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: כֵּיוָן דְּתָפְשָׂה לָא מַפְּקִינַן מִינַּהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna also teaches that if **she took** any of the above **from this** man **or from that** one she must return anything she took. The Gemara comments: This **is obvious.** Since she is not entitled to these articles, of course she must give them back. The Gemara explains: It is necessary, **lest you say** that **since she has** already **taken hold** of them **we do not remove** them **from her** possession, as this is merely a penalty and she obtained nothing that did not legally belong to her. The *tanna* therefore **teaches us** that the court requires her to return even these items.


###### Yevamot 89a:6
[Yevamot 89a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/89a:6)

הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר. תְּנַן הָתָם: אֵין תּוֹרְמִין מִן הַטָּמֵא עַל הַטָּהוֹר, וְאִם תָּרַם, בְּשׁוֹגֵג — תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה, בְּמֵזִיד — לֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְּלוּם. מַאי לֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְּלוּם? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְּלוּם כׇּל עִיקָּר, דַּאֲפִילּוּ הָהֻיא גְּרִיוָא הָדַר לְטִיבְלֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna taught that **the child** of either of the men is **a *mamzer*.** To clarify this issue, the Gemara cites a different discussion. **We learned** in a mishna **elsewhere** (*Terumot* 2:2): **One may not separate** *teruma* **from ritually impure** produce in order **to** exempt **ritually pure** food, **and if he separated** *teruma* from impure food **unwittingly, his *teruma* is** considered ***teruma*.** If he acted **intentionally, he has done nothing,** that is, his action is of no effect. The Sages debated: **What** is the meaning of the expression: **He has done nothing? Rav Ḥisda said: He has done nothing at all,** meaning **that even that *griva*** of produce he set aside as *teruma* **returns to** its former **untithed** state, as his entire act is completely disregarded.


###### Yevamot 89a:7
[Yevamot 89a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/89a:7)

רַב נָתָן בְּרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא אָמַר: לֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְלוּם — לְתַקֵּן אֶת הַשִּׁירַיִם, אֲבָל תְּרוּמָה הָוֵי. רַב חִסְדָּא לָא אָמַר כְּרַב נָתָן בְּרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא, דְּאִי אָמְרַתְּ הָוֵי תְּרוּמָה, זִימְנִין דְּפָשַׁע וְלָא מַפְרֵישׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Natan, son of Rabbi Oshaya, said: He has done nothing** with regard to **preparing the remaining** produce from which he separated *teruma*, **but** the fruit he separated **is** itself ***teruma*.** Although the portion he set aside is sanctified as *teruma*, this does not exempt him from separating more *teruma* from ritually pure produce. The Gemara clarifies the two opinions: **Rav Ḥisda did not say** his opinion **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Natan, son of Rabbi Oshaya, as, if you say it is *teruma*, on occasion** he **will be negligent and not separate** anything more, assuming that if the portion he set aside has the status of *teruma* he must certainly have done everything required.


###### Yevamot 89a:8
[Yevamot 89a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/89a:8)

מַאי שְׁנָא מֵהָא דִּתְנַן: הַתּוֹרֵם קִישּׁוּת וְנִמְצֵאת מָרָה, אֲבַטִּיחַ וְנִמְצֵאת סָרוּחַ — תְּרוּמָה, וְיַחֲזוֹר וְיִתְרוֹם! שׁוֹגֵג אַמֵּזִיד קָרָמֵית? שׁוֹגֵג — לָא עֲבַד אִיסּוּרָא, מֵזִיד — קָעָבֵד אִיסּוּרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: In **what** way **is** this case **different from that which we learned** in a mishna (*Terumot* 3:1): With regard to **one who separates** *teruma* from **a serpent melon [*kishut*] and it was discovered** to be **bitter,** or from **a watermelon and it was discovered** to be **spoiled,** it is ***teruma*, and** yet he must **go back and separate** *teruma* from another serpent melon or watermelon. No concern is expressed in this mishna that one might neglect to set aside *teruma* a second time. The Gemara answers: **Are you raising a contradiction** between the case of **an unwitting** sinner and that **of an intentional** sinner? There is a difference between them, as one who was **unwitting did not commit a transgression** and consequently does not deserve to be penalized, whereas one who was **an intentional** sinner **did commit a transgression.**


###### Yevamot 89a:9
[Yevamot 89a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/89a:9)

וּרְמִי שׁוֹגֵג אַשּׁוֹגֵג — הָכָא קָתָנֵי: בְּשׁוֹגֵג תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה, הָתָם קָתָנֵי: תְּרוּמָה, וְיַחְזוֹר וְיִתְרוֹם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction** between this ruling involving **an unwitting** sinner and another *halakha* **of an unwitting** sinner: **Here, it is taught** that if the one who separated ritually impure produce instead of ritually pure produce was **unwitting, his *teruma* is *teruma*,** which indicates that he does not have to separate *teruma* again. However, **there,** with regard to rotten fruit, **it is taught** that it is ***teruma* and** yet he must **separate** *teruma* **again.**


###### Yevamot 89a:10
[Yevamot 89a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/89a:10)

הָתָם — שׁוֹגֵג קָרוֹב לְמֵזִיד, דְּאִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמִיטְעֲמֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **There,** his was **an unwitting** act that is **close to an intentional** one, **as he should have tasted it** first to ensure that he was separating quality fruit. His failure to do so renders him virtually a willful sinner, and therefore the Sages penalized him by obligating him to set aside *teruma* again. In the case of impure *teruma*, in contrast, he may not have been able to investigate the matter when he separated the portion.


###### Yevamot 89a:11
[Yevamot 89a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/89a:11)

וּרְמִי מֵזִיד אַמֵּזִיד — הָכָא קָתָנֵי: בְּמֵזִיד לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם, הָתָם תְּנַן: הַתּוֹרֵם מִשֶּׁאֵין נָקוּב עַל נָקוּב — תְּרוּמָה, וְיַחְזוֹר וְיִתְרוֹם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the Gemara also **raises a contradiction** between one case involving **an intentional** sinner and another case **of an intentional** sinner. **Here, it** is **taught** that in the case of **an intentional** sinner who separates *teruma*, **he has done nothing. There, we learned** in a mishna (*Demai* 5:10), that with regard to **one who separates** *teruma* **from** produce growing in a vessel **that is not perforated, for** produce that grew in **a perforated** vessel, which is considered connected to the ground, it is ***teruma*, but he must go back and separate** *teruma* a second time. This ruling is based on the principle that anything that grew in a pot without a hole does not require separation of *teruma* by Torah law. In this case, the fact that he must again set aside *teruma* does not mean that the portion he separated is not consecrated at all.


###### Yevamot 89a:12
[Yevamot 89a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/89a:12)

בִּתְרֵי מָאנֵי — צָיֵית, בְּחַד מָנָא — לָא צָיֵית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **In** a case involving **two vessels he will listen.** Since the difference between the two vessels is clear to the eye, if the owner is told he must separate *teruma* again, it can be assumed that he will comply. In contrast, **in** the case of **one vessel he will not listen,** as ritually impure and pure produce look the same to him. Consequently, if he is informed that he must set aside *teruma* a second time despite the fact that the produce he already set aside has the status of *teruma*, he will take no notice.


###### Yevamot 89a:13
[Yevamot 89a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/89a:13)

וּלְרַב נָתָן בְּרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא, דְּאָמַר: לֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְלוּם — לְתַקֵּן שִׁירַיִם, אֲבָל תְּרוּמָה הָוֵי,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks another question: **And according to** the opinion of **Rav Natan, son of Rabbi Oshaya, who said** that **he has done nothing** with regard to **preparing the remaining** produce **but it is** nevertheless ***teruma*,**