Answer #2 (to Question 4:d, 88b): No Get is required in the Seifa because people will not think a married woman leaves without a Get. They will say that the Kidushin was a mistake, and they were never married.

Question: Also in the Reisha (our Mishnah) we should not require a Get, for people will say the marriage was a mistake!

Answer: In the Reisha we fined her that she needs a Get from the second man.

Question: We should also fine her in the Seifa!

Answer: In the Reisha she transgressed (by having Nisu'in), so we fined her. In the Seifa she did not transgress, so we did not fine her.

(Mishnah): She has no Kesuvah ...

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!

(Mishnah): She does not receive fruits, food or Bala'os...

Provisions of the Kesuvah are like the Kesuvah.

(Mishnah): If she received (any of these) from either man (she must return it).

Question: This is obvious!

Answer: One might have thought that once she seized it, we do not take from her. The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.

(Mishnah): The child is a Mamzer...

(Mishnah): We do not separate Terumah from Tamei produce on Tahor. If one did b'Shogeg, it is Terumah; if one did so intentionally, his separation has no effect.

Question: What does this mean?

Answer #1 (Rav Chisda): It has no effect at all. Even the (part he called) 'Terumah' reverts to be Tevel.

Answer #2 (R. Noson b'Rebbi Oshaya): It has no effect to permit the remainder, but what he separated becomes Terumah.

Rav Chisda disagrees, for if we say that it is Terumah, the person might neglect to separate more Terumah to fix the Tevel.

Question (against Rav Chisda - Mishnah): If one separated Terumah on gourds and it is found to be bitter, or on a watermelon and it was found to be spoiled, it is Terumah and he must take more Terumah.

Answer: There, he did not intend to take bad Terumah; he did not sin. Here, he intended to take bad Terumah!

Contradiction: Here, if he was Shogeg what he separated is Terumah. There it is Terumah, and he must take more Terumah!

Answer: There, even though he did not intend to take bad Terumah, he is somewhat negligent. He should have tasted it! (I.e. he should have separated a tiny amount and tithed it from itself, and then tasted it. If it is good, from what he did not yet separate he may take Terumah. One may not taste Tevel - Tosfos, according to Aruch l'Ner.)

Question (against Rav Chisda): Here, b'Mezid it has no effect. Elsewhere, it takes effect!

(Mishnah): (Produce that grew in a flowerpot is Tevel (must be tithed) mid'Oraisa if the pot has holes. If there are no holes, it is Tevel mid'Rabanan.) If one was Torem from (what grew in) a pot without holes on produce from a pot with holes, it is Terumah, and he must be Torem again.

Answer: When the Terumah and the remainder grew in different types of Kelim, he (understands that it is invalid and) will agree to be Torem again. Here, it all grew the same way (just some is Tamei), he will not agree (to be Torem again).

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 Mishnah?

(Mishnah): If one was Torem from a pot without holes on a pot with holes, it is Terumah, but he (the Kohen) may not eat (the Terumah) until he takes Terumah and Ma'aser on it from other produce.

Answer: Our case is different because mid'Oraisa it is Terumah, like R. Ilai taught:

(R. Ilai): "You will not bear sin if you take the best part" teaches that if one took bad Terumah on good fruit, it is Terumah. If it were not Terumah, he would bear no sin!

Question (Rabah to Rav Chisda): Why do you say that it had no effect at all?

Answer: This is a decree. If we say that it is Terumah, perhaps he will not separate more.

Question (Rabah): Do we ever find that mid'Oraisa something is Terumah, and Chachamim revert it to Chulin lest a person be negligent?!

Can Chachamim uproot something from the Torah?!

Answer (Rav Chisda): You must agree that they can!

(Mishnah): The child from either man is a Mamzer.

Granted, the child from the second man is a Mamzer mid'Oraisa; she is still married to the first man. However, the child from the first man is Kosher (mid'Oraisa), and we (call him a Mamzer mid'Rabanan and) permit him to a Mamzeres!

Rejection (Rabah citing Shmuel): The child is forbidden to a Mamzeres. (He has only the stringencies of a Mamzer, mid'Rabanan.)

(Ravin): He is forbidden to a Mamzeres. The Mishnah calls him a Mamzer to teach that he may not marry a Bas Yisrael.

Rav Chisda (to Rabah): You must agree that Chachamim can uproot a Torah law! (The following 10 questions all seek to prove this.)

Question #1 (Beraisa) Question: If a man was married (mid'Rabanan) to a minor, from what point does he inherit her (if she dies)?

Answer #1 (Beis Shamai): It is from when she becomes a Na'arah;

Answer #2 (Beis Hillel): It is after Chupah;

Answer #3 (R. Eliezer): It is after they have Bi'ah.

From this time he inherits her, becomes Tamei to engage in her burial, and she may eat Terumah (if he is a Kohen).

Question: Do Beis Shamai really mean from when she is a Na'arah, even if this is before Chupah?!

Answer: They mean, when she becomes a Na'arah and has Chupah.

Beis Hillel hold that Chupah always works. Beis Shamai holds that it works only after Na'arus.

Question: R. Eliezer says from when she has Bi'ah. Elsewhere he said that what a minor does has no effect!

Answer: He means, when she grows up and has Bi'ah.

(Summation of question): (According to Beis Hillel, if Chupah was before Na'arus) mid'Oraisa, her father inherits her, and mid'Rabanan, her husband inherits her!

Answer: Beis Din has power to make Hefker (declare money ownerless);

(R. Yitzchak): We learn from "Whoever will not come ... by the counsel of the officers and Chachamim, his property will be made Cherem".

(R. Elazar): We learn from "Asher Nichalu Elazar ha'Kohen vi'Hoshua bin Nun v'Roshei ha'Avos l'Matos Bnei Yisrael";

It mentions the leaders by the fathers to teach that just like fathers can bequeath like they wish to their children, also leaders can make the nation inherit like they wish.

Question #2: (A Kohen is permitted and commanded to become Tamei only for his seven close relatives.) The Beraisa says that her husband mid'Rabanan becomes Tamei to bury her. Mid'Oraisa, her father becomes Tamei for her!

Answer: She is like a Mes Mitzvah (any Kohen may bury an unattended corpse).

Objection: She is not a Mes Mitzvah!

(Beraisa): A Mes Mitzvah is one that has no one to bury it. If one (who finds a Mes) calls and others answer, this is not a Mes Mitzvah.

Answer: Here, since her relatives do not inherit her, if he calls, no one will answer (they will not want to bury her. Some say that the text should say "if he calls, no one will answer." Tosfos - because she resembles a Mes Mitzvah, it does not appear like Chachamim uproot the Torah. I heard in the name of Rav Moshe Shternbuch that surely Chachamim can uproot. The question is whether or not they ever did so.)