## Yevamot Daf 89b

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

מַאי שְׁנָא מֵהָא דִּתְנַן: מִן הַנָּקוּב עַל שֶׁאֵין נָקוּב — תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה, וְלֹא תֵּאָכֵל עַד שֶׁיּוֹצִיא עָלֶיהָ תְּרוּמָה וּמַעֲשֵׂר מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
in **what** way **is** this case **different from that which we learned** in a mishna (*Demai* 5:10): If one separates *teruma* **from** that which grew in **a perforated** pot **for that which is** from **a non-perforated** pot, **his *teruma* is *teruma*, but it may not be eaten until he removes** on behalf **of** that portion itself ***teruma* and tithe from another place?** In other words, the portion he separated as *teruma* is not entirely consecrated, as it too is considered untithed produce in the sense that *teruma* must be separated for it. In contrast, one who sets aside impure *teruma* does not have to separate *teruma* from that portion itself.


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

שָׁאנֵי הָכָא, דְּמִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא תְּרוּמָה מְעַלַּיְיתָא הִיא, כִּדְרַבִּי אִלְעַאי. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אִלְעַאי: מִנַּיִן לַתּוֹרֵם מִן הָרָעָה עַל הַיָּפָה שֶׁתְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה — דִּכְתִיב: ״וְלֹא תִשְׂאוּ עָלָיו חֵטְא בַּהֲרִימְכֶם אֶת חֶלְבּוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Here,** with regard to ritually impure *teruma*, **it is different, as by Torah** law **it is** in fact **full-fledged *teruma*,** but the Sages penalized him by making him separate *teruma* again. This is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Elai, as Rabbi Elai said: From where** is it derived **with regard to one who separates *teruma* from poor-**quality produce **for superior**-quality produce **that his *teruma* is *teruma*? As it is written** with regard to *teruma*: **“And you shall bear no sin by reason of it, seeing that you have set apart from it its best”** (Numbers 18:32). This verse states that if one separated *teruma* from inferior-quality produce he has committed a sin, which shows that his action is effective, as Rabbi Elai proceeds to explain.


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

וְאִם אֵין קָדוֹשׁ — נְשִׂיאוּת חֵטְא לָמָּה? מִיכָּן לַתּוֹרֵם מִן הָרָעָה עַל הַיָּפָה — שֶׁתְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Elai elaborates: **And if** this inferior portion is **not sanctified** as *teruma* at all, **why** is there **a bearing of sin?** If the produce does not have the status of *teruma* he has not done anything, which means that his action cannot be considered a transgression. **From here** we learn **with regard to one who separated from the bad for the good that his *teruma* is *teruma*** after the fact. Similarly, the *teruma* of one who separates ritually impure food for pure food is valid *teruma* by Torah law.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבָּה לְרַב חִסְדָּא: לְדִידָךְ דְּאָמְרַתְּ לֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְּלוּם כׇּל עִיקָּר, דַּאֲפִילּוּ הָהוּא גְּרִיוָא הָדַר לְטִיבְלֵיהּ, מַאי טַעְמָא — גְּזֵירָה דִּלְמָא פָּשַׁע וְלָא מַפְרֵישׁ, מִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דְּמִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא הָוֵי תְּרוּמָה, וּמִשּׁוּם דִּלְמָא פָּשַׁע אַפְּקוּהּ רַבָּנַן לְחוּלִּין? וְכִי בֵּית דִּין מַתְנִין לַעֲקוֹר דָּבָר מִן הַתּוֹרָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
After clarifying the opinions themselves, the Gemara analyzes the case in greater detail. **Rabba said to Rav Ḥisda: According to your** opinion, **that you said he has done nothing at all,** meaning **that even that *se’a*** he set aside **returns to** its former **untithed** state, **what is the reason** for this? It is a rabbinic **decree,** as **perhaps he will be negligent and will not separate** *teruma* a second time. However, **is there anything that by Torah** law **is *teruma*,** as stated by Rabbi Elai, **and** yet **due to** the concern: **Perhaps he will be negligent, the Sages removed** its status as sacred and gave **to** it the status of **non-sacred** food? **And can the court stipulate** and enact a decree **to uproot something** that applies **by Torah** law?


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְאַתְּ לָא תִּסְבְּרַאּ? וְהָתְנַן: הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה. בִּשְׁלָמָא מִשֵּׁנִי מַמְזֵר — אֶלָּא מֵרִאשׁוֹן אַמַּאי? אִשְׁתּוֹ הִיא, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל מְעַלְּיָא הוּא, וְקָא שָׁרֵינַן לֵיהּ בְּמַמְזֶרֶת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ḥisda **said to** Rabba: **And you, do you not hold** that the Sages have the power to do so? **But didn’t we learn** in the mishna that **the child is a *mamzer* from this one and from that one? Granted,** the child **from the second** man is **a *mamzer*,** as he was born to a married woman from a man who was not her husband. **However,** with regard to the child **from the first** husband, **why** is he a *mamzer*? After all, **she is his wife, and** by Torah law their son **is a full-fledged Jew. And** the Sages’ declaration that he is a *mamzer* cannot be seen as a mere stringency, as **they** thereby **permit him to a *mamzeret*.** This shows that a rabbinical decree can uproot a Torah prohibition.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ, הָכִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אָסוּר בְּמַמְזֶרֶת. וְכֵן כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אָסוּר בְּמַמְזֶרֶת. וְאַמַּאי קָרֵי לֵיהּ ״מַמְזֵר״ — לְאוֹסְרוֹ בְּבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabba **said to** Rav Ḥisda that **Shmuel said as follows:** It is **forbidden** for the child of the first husband **to** marry **a *mamzeret*. And similarly, when Ravin came** from Eretz Yisrael, **he** said that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said** that the child is **forbidden to a *mamzeret*. And** if so, **why does** the mishna **call him a *mamzer*?** This is **to** teach us that the Sages are stringent and render it **prohibited** for **him to** marry a regular **Jewish woman.** With regard to the issue at hand, as he may not marry a *mamzeret*, the Sages did not in fact uproot a mitzva that applies by Torah law.


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

שְׁלַח לֵיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא לְרַבָּה בְּיַד רַב אַחָא בַּר רַב הוּנָא: וְאֵין בֵּית דִּין מַתְנִין לַעֲקוֹר דָּבָר מִן הַתּוֹרָה? וְהָתַנְיָא: מֵאֵימָתַי אָדָם יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ קְטַנָּה? בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: מִשֶּׁתַּעֲמוֹד בְּקוֹמָתָהּ, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: מִשֶּׁתִּכָּנֵס לַחוּפָּה, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: מִשֶּׁתִּבָּעֵל. וְיוֹרְשָׁהּ, וּמִיטַּמֵּא לָהּ, וְאוֹכֶלֶת בְּגִינוֹ תְּרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥisda sent** a proof **to Rabba, in the hand** of **Rav Aḥa bar Rav Huna: And can the court not stipulate to uproot something prohibited by Torah** law? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **From when does a man inherit** from **his minor wife,** who was married off by her mother or brother, as enacted by the Sages, a marriage that is not valid by Torah law? **Beit Shammai say: From when she stands at her** fully developed **height,** i.e., when she grows up and reaches the age of maturity. **And Beit Hillel say: From when she enters the wedding canopy. Rabbi Eliezer says: From when she has sexual relations.** As soon as she is considered his wife, all the *halakhot* of a wife apply to her. **And he inherits** from **her and becomes impure for her** if she dies, even if he is a priest, **and she eats *teruma* on his account** if he is a priest.


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

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: מִשֶּׁתַּעֲמוֹד בְּקוֹמָתָהּ. אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֹא נִכְנְסָה לַחוּפָּה? אֵימָא: מִשֶּׁתַּעֲמוֹד בְּקוֹמָתָהּ וְתִכָּנֵס לַחוּפָּה. וְהָכִי קָאָמְרוּ לֵיהּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לְבֵית הִלֵּל: דְּקָאָמְרִיתוּ מִשֶּׁתִּכָּנֵס לַחוּפָּה, אִי עָמְדָה בְּקוֹמָתָהּ — מַהְנְיָא לַהּ חוּפָּה, וְאִי לָא — לָא מַהְנְיָא לַהּ חוּפָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara first clarifies various details of this *baraita*. **Beit Shammai say: From when she stands at her height.** The Gemara expresses surprise at this statement: Is this the case **even though she has not** yet **entered the wedding canopy?** Betrothal alone, without the marriage canopy, is not enough to enable a man to inherit from an adult woman, let alone a minor. The Gemara answers: You must **say** that Beit Shammai meant **from when she stands at her** fully developed **height and enters the wedding canopy. And Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel as follows: That which you said,** that he inherits her **from when she enters the wedding canopy,** is not enough. Rather, **if she stands at her** fully developed **height,** the **wedding canopy is effective for** bringing about **her** marriage, **and if not,** the **wedding canopy is not effective for** bringing about **her** marriage.


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

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: מִשֶּׁתִּבָּעֵל. וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: אֵין מַעֲשֵׂה קְטַנָּה כְּלוּם! אֵימָא: מִשֶּׁתַּגְדִּיל וְתִבָּעֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues its analysis of the *baraita*. **Rabbi Eliezer says: From when she has sexual relations.** The Gemara again expresses surprise: **But didn’t Rabbi Eliezer say** that **the actions of a minor girl are nothing,** which indicates that marriage and intercourse with her are not considered an act of acquisition. Rather, we must **say** that he meant **from when she matures and has sexual relations.**


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

קָתָנֵי מִיהַת יוֹרְשָׁהּ — וְהָא הָכָא, דְּמִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא אֲבוּהָ יָרֵית לַהּ, וּמִדְּרַבָּנַן יָרֵית לַהּ בַּעַל?! הֶפְקֵר בֵּית דִּין הֶפְקֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara returns to the issue at hand, whether the court can stipulate to uproot something prohibited by Torah law. **In any event** the *baraita* **is teaching** that **he inherits** from **her. But here** is a case **where by Torah** law **her father,** i.e., his relatives, as he is dead, **inherits** from **her,** as a minor orphan cannot marry by Torah law, **and** yet **by rabbinic** law the **husband inherits** from **her.** This shows that the Sages can uproot a Torah mitzva. The Gemara answers: This is no proof, as in monetary matters **property declared ownerless by the court is ownerless,** and therefore the court can allocate her inheritance as they see fit.


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

דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מִנַּיִן שֶׁהֶפְקֵר בֵּית דִּין הֶפְקֵר — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כֹּל אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָבֹא לִשְׁלֹשֶׁת הַיָּמִים בַּעֲצַת הַשָּׂרִים וְהַזְּקֵנִים יׇחֳרַם כׇּל רְכוּשׁוֹ וְהוּא יִבָּדֵל מִקְּהַל הַגּוֹלָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As Rabbi Yitzḥak said: From where** is it derived **that property declared ownerless by the court is ownerless? As it is stated: “And whoever does not come within three days, according to the council of the princes and the Elders, all his property should be forfeited, and himself separated from the congregation of the captivity”** (Ezra 10:8). This verse indicates that the court can confiscate anyone’s possessions.


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

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר, מֵהָכָא: ״אֵלֶּה הַנְּחָלוֹת אֲשֶׁר נִחֲלוּ אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן וְרָאשֵׁי הָאָבוֹת לְמַטּוֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״, וְכִי מָה עִנְיַן רָאשִׁים אֵצֶל אָבוֹת? אֶלָּא לוֹמַר לָךְ: מָה אָבוֹת מַנְחִילִין בְּנֵיהֶם כׇּל מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצוּ — אַף רָאשִׁים מַנְחִילִין אֶת הָעָם כׇּל מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Elazar says** that the proof that the court can declare property ownerless is **from here: “These are the inheritances that Elazar the priest, and Joshua, son of Nun, and the heads of the fathers’ houses of the tribes of the children of Israel distributed for inheritance”** (Joshua 19:51). **What do heads have to do with fathers?** The expression “the heads of the fathers’ houses of the tribes” is unusual and vague. **Rather,** this comes **to tell you: Just as fathers bequeath to their sons anything they want** to, **so too,** the **heads,** i.e., the leaders and judges of the people, **bequeath to the people anything they want** to. This shows that the leaders can take property from one individual and give it to another.


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

וּמִיטַּמֵּא לָהּ. וְהָא הָכָא, דְּמִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא אָבִיהָ מִיטַּמֵּא לָהּ, וּמִדְּרַבָּנַן מִיטַּמֵּא לָהּ בַּעַל! מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוְיָא לַהּ מֵת מִצְוָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It was stated that the husband of a minor **becomes impure for her,** even if he is a priest. The Gemara asks: **But here** is a case **where by Torah** law **her father,** not the man she married, is obligated to **become impure for her,** as the latter is not his wife by Torah law, **and** yet **by rabbinic** law her **husband defiles himself for her.** The Gemara answers: This is **because she is** considered like **a corpse with no one to bury it [*met mitzva*],** for which even a priest must become impure. Once she is married, her relatives from her father’s family no longer care for her welfare, which means her husband is the only one who is entrusted with her burial.


###### Yevamot 89b:14
[Yevamot 89b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/89b:14)

וּמִי הָוְיָ[א] מֵת מִצְוָה? וְהָתַנְיָא: אֵי זֶהוּ מֵת מִצְוָה — כֹּל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ קוֹבְרִין. קוֹרֵא וַאֲחֵרִים עוֹנִין אוֹתוֹ — אֵין זֶה מֵת מִצְוָה! הָכָא נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא יָרְתִי לַהּ — קָרְיָא וְלָא עָנוּ לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And is she** in fact **a *met mitzva*? But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **Which** corpse **is a *met mitzva*? Any** corpse **that does not have** anyone **to bury it.** If it was in a place where if **one calls and others** would **answer him, this is not a *met mitzva*.** In contrast, this girl does have relatives who can bury her, if necessary. The Gemara answers: **Here too, since** the members of her father’s family **do not inherit** from **her,** she would **call and they** would **not answer her,** as they have no desire to go to any trouble for her. Since her husband inherits from her, it is his duty to tend to her burial, and he must therefore become impure for her, as she has the status of a *met mitzva*.