Yevamot 89b — the Talmud in English

It may be challenged:

What is different from that which we learned

in Tractate Demai [5:10]:

One who separates

from

the produce growing in

a perforated flowerpot,

which draws nourishment from the ground through the perforation, and is obligated in teruma by Torah law,

for

produce growing in a flowerpot

that is not perforated,

which is obligated in teruma only by rabbinic law, since there is no obligation of teruma by Torah law except for something that draws nourishment from the ground—

his teruma is teruma

by rabbinic law, and it is therefore sacred with the sanctity of teruma, and the separation of the teruma was effective to rectify the remainder that grew in the unperforated flowerpot, which is obligated in teruma only by rabbinic law.

And

nevertheless,

it may not be eaten

by the koen himself—

until he places upon it

the Israelite

a teruma and tithe from another place,

in order to rectify the teruma itself.

For it turns out that he is separating “from that which is obligated for that which is exempt” by Torah law, and the teruma itself is not permitted through this separation; rather, it remains complete tevel.

And now it may be challenged: If so, also concerning one who separates from the impure for the pure, why do we give the teruma to the koen, and if the koen wishes, he immediately burns it [as is the law with impure teruma]?

For we should have judged it to be complete tevel, which is prohibited for burning, until he places upon it a teruma and tithe from another place!

And we answer:

Here it is different—

concerning one who separates from the impure for the pure—

for by Torah law it is superior teruma,

and it was effective to rectify both the remainder and itself, and

in accordance with Rabbi Ilai,

as he explains and proceeds.

Therefore, despite the fact that the Sages were stringent and ruled that his separation would not be effective to rectify the remainder until he again separates from the pure for the tevel, nevertheless, with regard to the teruma itself, they left it according to its law, so that it would be permitted to the koen for burning, as is the law with impure teruma.

For Rabbi Ilai said: From where do we know that one who separates from the inferior for the superior—

that his teruma is teruma?

As it is written [Numbers 18]:

“

And you shall bear no sin because of it when you offer up its best portion from it,”

[the choicest].

The verse teaches that if you do not offer up from the choicest—you will bear a sin because of it.

And if it is not sacred

when he separates it not from the choicest—

“Bearing a sin”—

why!?

For he has accomplished nothing by raising it!?

Rather,

from here

we learn

for

one who

separates from the inferior for the superior—

that his teruma is teruma.

concerning one who — .

And since his teruma has taken effect by Torah law, the koen may use it.

But when one separates from that which is obligated for that which is exempt, his teruma does not take effect at all by Torah law; rather, even the teruma remains tevel, and therefore the koen may not eat it until they separate teruma upon it from another place.

Rabba said to Rav Hisda: According to your view, as you say [according to your view, that you say that one who separates from the impure for the pure

accomplished nothing at all]—

for even that “griva,”

—

the produce that he separated as teruma, also

returns to its tevel [so that even the teruma that he separated returns to its tevel status].

What is the reason?—

A decree, lest he be negligent and not separate again,

and therefore the Sages removed the status of teruma from what he separated.

[so that even the teruma he separated reverts to being tevel].

And it may be challenged:

Is there such a thing,

is such a matter possible,

that by Torah law his teruma is

his

“teruma,” and because of

a

decree

lest he be negligent, the Sages removed it—

they removed his teruma, which is sacred by Torah law with the sanctity of teruma,

to non-sacred produce!?

Can a court stipulate to uproot a matter from the Torah!?

He said to him

Rav Hisda to Rabba:

And if you do not understand

that

a court can stipulate to uproot a matter from the Torah!?

For by Torah law a mamzer is prohibited to a legitimate woman, and a legitimate Israelite is prohibited to a mamzeret, but a mamzer is permitted to a mamzeret.

And did we not learn

in our Mishna: If a woman’s husband went overseas, and they came and said to her, “Your husband has died,” and she married, and afterward her husband came, she must leave this one and that one, and she requires a bill of divorce from this one and that one. And

the child is a mamzer from this one [from the first, if he took her back]

and from this one [from the second, whether he was born before the first divorced her or whether he was born after the first divorced her]—

And

granted

the child born

from the

second

husband, before the first husband divorced her, is a

complete mamzer

by Torah law, and he is permitted to a mamzeret, for he was born from the second husband at a time when the woman was the wife of the first.

But,

the child born

from the

first husband, who took her back—

why is he a complete mamzer by Torah law, so that he should be permitted to a mamzeret!?

For by Torah law this woman

—

his wife

of the first

is.

And

the child born from him—

is a superior Israelite [completely legitimate]

he.

And

only because of the Sages’ decree, by which they prohibited her even to the first, the Sages made him like a mamzer.

And nevertheless

; .

we permit him to a mamzeret [we permit him to a mamzeret], for we learned in the Mishna “the child is a mamzer,” implying a complete mamzer, for all his laws, including that he is permitted to a mamzeret.

And it is proven from our Mishna as I said, that a court can stipulate to uproot a matter from the Torah; and it may be challenged to you, Rabba, who said that a court cannot stipulate to uproot a matter from the Torah!?

He said to him

Rabba to Rav Hisda:

Thus said Shmuel:

The child from the first is not a complete mamzer, but only a mamzer as a stringency; rather, he is

prohibited to a mamzeret,

and they do not uproot a matter of Torah.

And likewise, when Ravin came

from the Land of Israel to Babylonia,

he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yohanan, that the “mamzer” from the first is

prohibited to a mamzeret.

And why did it call him

in our Mishna

“mamzer”?—

as a stringency,

to prohibit him to an Israelite woman.

It is merely a penalty, to be stringent and make a safeguard for the Torah, and this is not uprooting; but to be lenient concerning words of Torah—that is uprooting.

Rav Hisda sent to Rabba,

who had challenged him, “Can a court stipulate to uproot a matter from the Torah?”—

by the hand of Rav Aḥa bar Rav Huna:

And

if

a court cannot stipulate to uproot a matter from the Torah, as you challenged me!?

And it was taught:

A. By Torah law, a minor is betrothed only through her father, but the Sages enacted marriage for a minor orphan through her brothers and mother, so that people would not treat her in a promiscuous manner.

B. A minor whom her brothers and mother married off may perform mi'un and leave her husband. Once she performs mi'un, her marriage is uprooted retroactively.

C. A man does not inherit his wife—even an adult woman—from the time he betroths her, but only after she marries him.

From when does a man inherit his minor wife,

whom her brothers and mother married off—

Beit Shammai say: From when she stands at her full stature.

,

Once she reaches maturity [after her marriage], through maturity in years and the growth of pubic hair.

But before she grows up, he does not inherit her, because her marriage has the status of a marriage of doubt alone, since perhaps she was destined to perform mi'un and uproot the marriage retroactively.

,

And Beit Hillel say: From when she enters the wedding canopy,

he inherits her, like other women whom the husband inherits from the moment they enter the wedding canopy.

:

And even though she has not yet grown up, and could have performed mi'un, we do not regard her as one who was destined to perform mi'un and uproot the marriage retroactively.

Rabbi Eliezer says: From when he has intercourse with her.

His words are explained later in the sugya.

And he inherits her, and becomes impure for her

her husband, if he is a koen,

and she eats

his minor wife by virtue of him her husband

. From when she reaches maturity [after her marriage], through the maturity of age and the appearance of pubic hair. .

the teruma,

if he is a koen.

Rav Hisda explains the beraita in order to challenge Rabba from it:

We learned in the beraita:

Beit Shammai say: From when she stands at her full stature,

and Beit Hillel say: From when she enters the wedding canopy.

And it implies that just as according to Beit Hillel she need not stand at her full stature, so according to Beit Shammai she need not enter the wedding canopy.

.

And there is cause for astonishment: According to Beit Shammai, does a man inherit his minor wife from when she stands at her full stature,

even though she has not entered the wedding canopy!?

For he does not even inherit his adult wife until after she has entered the wedding canopy!?

Rather, necessarily,

say:

Beit Shammai say:

From when she stands at her full stature, and she enters the wedding canopy.

,

And this is what they said to them [this is what they said to them]

Beit Shammai to Beit Hillel —

You say [this is what you say]

“From when she enters the wedding canopy”—

he inherits her; this is not so, that entry into the wedding canopy alone is sufficient, but

if she stood at her full stature, the wedding canopy is effective for her,

so that her husband will inherit her,

but if not

she stood at her full stature,

the wedding canopy is not effective for her

with regard to her husband inheriting her.

We further learned in this beraita:

Rabbi Eliezer says: From when he has intercourse with her.

And there is cause for astonishment:

But Rabbi Eliezer said: “A minor’s act is nothing

except that she is like one seduced”; she has no marriage unless it is through her father, and if so, what does her intercourse accomplish while she is still a minor, so that he should inherit her? For he is not her husband at all!?

Rather,

say—

from when she grows up and he has intercourse with her.

For according to his view, the marriage that occurred while she was a minor does not take effect, and she becomes married only when he has intercourse with her after she grows up. At that point, the wedding canopy that was performed while she was a minor is effective in making her married from then onward.

а если она не

And now, after the beraita has been explained, Rav Hisda proves from it that a court can stipulate to uproot a matter from the Torah:

In any event, it teaches

in the beraita, which deals with a minor woman who is married only by rabbinic law—

“he inherits her.”

But here, by Torah law, her father inherits her,

for according to Torah law, since she is not married to a man, her father’s family

is the one that inherits her.

и она подобна соблазненной женщине»? Ведь малолетняя не может вступить в брак иначе как через отца. Если так, какую пользу приносит ее близость в малолетнем возрасте для того, чтобы муж мог ее наследовать? Ведь он вообще не является ее мужем!?

And nevertheless,

by rabbinic law—

the husband inherits her [her husband is the one who inherits her]!

And it is proven that the Sages have the power to uproot a matter from the Torah.

Rabba rejected Rav Hisda’s proof: There is no proof from inheritance, which is a monetary matter, that a court can uproot a matter from the Torah. For the Sages have the power to enact ordinances concerning monetary matters by virtue of “the abandonment by a court is abandonment,”

and this law is from the Torah; therefore, every enactment of the Sages concerning monetary matters is not considered an uprooting from the Torah.

—

For Rabbi Yitzhak said: From where do we know that the abandonment by a court is abandonment?

As it is stated

in the Book of Ezra [chapter 10]: “They proclaimed throughout Judah and Jerusalem to all the children of the exile to gather in Jerusalem. And whoever would not come within three days [at the end of three days] by the counsel of the officers and elders—

all his property shall be destroyed, and he shall be separated from the assembly of the exile”

[they will not include him in the assembly of the exile in any matter].

—

Rabbi Elazar said: From here

we can learn that the abandonment by a court is abandonment: for it is written in the Book of Joshua [chapter 19]:

“These are the inheritances that Elazar the koen and Joshua son of Nun, and the heads of the fathers of the tribes of the children of Israel, apportioned.”

And what connection is there between “heads” and “fathers”?

For this is how it should have been written: Joshua son of Nun “and the heads of the tribes” of Israel!?

Rather,

the verse comes to say to you: Just as “fathers apportion an inheritance

to

their children whatever they wish—

А всякий, кто не придет в течение трех дней

so too “heads”

of the people

apportion to the people—

whatever they wish.

And Rav Hisda further challenged Rabba, who holds that a court cannot stipulate to uproot a matter from the Torah, from the continuation of the beraita, in which we learned:

“And becomes impure for her” [the koen husband becomes impure for his minor wife when she dies]:

But here, by Torah law,

only

her father,

the koen,

becomes impure for her,

and not her koen husband, whose marriage to her is only by rabbinic law.

And nevertheless,

by rabbinic law—

the husband becomes impure for her

when he is a koen!

It follows that the Sages uprooted a matter from the Torah!?

Rabba rejected this: The reason he becomes impure for her is

because she is

in the category of

“a neglected corpse,”

for whom the koen becomes impure.

We object:

And is she

in the category of

“a neglected corpse”!?

And it was taught: Which is a neglected corpse

for whom the koen is permitted to become impure?—

Anyone who has no buriers.

But if he

calls and others answer him—

this is not a neglected corpse!?

муж становится нечистым ради нее,

!

, — ! !? Thus, the Sages have uprooted a matter from the Torah!?

Раба отверг это возражение: причина, по которой он становится нечистым ради нее, состоит

в том, что она становится для него

этой малолетней девушкой в статусе

”,

Rabba rejected this: The reason he becomes impure for her is

, . :

разве она становится

этой малолетней девушкой в статусе

”!?

:

!?

?—

.

?— .

—

—

And we answer:

here,

with his minor wife,

likewise, since they do not

inherit her

[since there are no heirs who inherit her] her relatives —

“she called out and they did not answer her”"

she.