Yevamot

, why is this case different from [the following] where we learned [that if a man has set apart as terumah the produce] of a perforated plant-pot  for that of an unperforated one,  the terumah is valid, but  may not be eaten  before terumah and tithe from other produce  has been set aside for it!  — Here  it is different, since Pentateuchally the terumah is valid, in accordance with the view of R. Elai; for R. Elai stated: Whence is it inferred that if one separates terumah from an inferior quality for a superior quality, his terumah is valid? It is written, And ye shall bear no sin by reason of it, seeing that ye have set apart from it the best thereof.  [Now, this implies that if you do not set apart from the best but of the worst you shall bear sin]; if, [however, the inferior quality] does not become consecrated, why [should there be any] bearing of sin?  Hence it may be inferred  that if one sets apart terumah from an inferior quality for a superior quality, his terumah is valid. Said Rabbah to R. Hisda: According to you who maintain that 'the act is absolutely null and void' so that 'even that griva [which has been designated as terumah] returns to its former state of tebel', the reason being  that this is a preventive measure against the possibility 'that one might wilfully neglect to set apart [the terumah from the remainder]'; is there anywhere [I may ask] a law that terumah which is Pentateuchally valid should, owing to the possibility that one might wilfully neglect his duty, be turned into  unconsecrated produce?  Could, then, a Beth din lay down a condition that would cause a law of the Torah to be uprooted! — The other replied: And do you not yourself agree with such a ruling? Have we not learned, THE CHILD BY THE ONE HUSBAND OR THE OTHER IS A BASTARD. Now, it is reasonable [that the child] by the second [should be deemed] a bastard,  but why [should the child] by the first [be a bastard]? She is, surely, his wife  and [the child is consequently] a proper Israelite whom [by regarding him as a bastard] we permit to marry a bastard!  The first retorted: Thus said Samuel, 'He is forbidden to marry a bastard'. And so said Rabin, when he came,  in the name of R. Johanan. 'He is forbidden to marry a bastard'. Why, then,  is he called a bastard? — In respect of forbidding him to marry the daughter of an Israelite. R. Hisda sent to Rabbah through R. Aha son of R. Huna [the following enquiry]: Cannot the Beth din lay down a condition which would cause the abrogation of a law of the Torah? Surely it was taught: 'At what period of her age  is a husband entitled to be the heir of his wife [if she dies while still] a minor?  Beth Shammai stated: When she attains to womanhood;  and Beth Hillel said: When she enters into the bridal chamber.  R. Eliezer said: When connubial intercourse has taken place. Then he is entitled to be her heir, he may defile himself for her,  and she may eat terumah by virtue of his rights'. (Beth Shammai said, 'When she attains to womanhood',  even though she has not entered the bridal chamber!  — Read, 'When she attains to womanhood and enters the bridal chamber', and it is this that Beth Shammai said to Beth Hillel: In respect of your statement, 'When she enters the bridal chamber', it is only when she has attained womanhood that the bridal chamber is effective, but otherwise the bridal chamber alone is of no avail. 'R. Eliezer said: When connubial intercourse has taken place'. But, surely, R. Eliezer said that the act of a minor has no legal force!  — Read, 'After she has grown up and connubial intercourse has taken place'.) At all events it was here stated, 'He  is entitled to be her heir'; but, surely, by Pentateuchal law it is her father  who should here be her legal heir, and yet it is the husband who is heir in accordance with a Rabbinical ordinance!  — Hefker  by Beth din is legal hefker.  for R. Isaac stated: Whence is it deduced that hefker by Beth din is legal hefker? It is said, Whosoever came not within three days, according to the counsel of the princes and the elders, all his substance should be forfeited, and himself separated from the congregation of the captivity.  R. Eleazar stated [that the deduction  is made] from here: These are the inheritances, which Eleazar the priest. and Joshua the son of Nun, and the heads of the fathers' houses of the tribes of the children of Israel, distributed for inheritance.  Now, what relation is there between Heads and Fathers? But [this has the purpose] of telling you that as fathers may distribute as an inheritance to their children whatever they wish, so may the heads distribute as an inheritance to the people whatever they wish. 'He may defile himself for her'. But, surely, by Pentateuchal law it is her father who may here defile himself for her, and yet it is the husband who by a Rabbinical law was allowed to defile himself for her!  — [This was allowed] because she is a meth mizwah.  Is she, however, a meth mizwah?  Surely, it was taught. 'Who may he regarded as a meth mizwah? He who has no [relatives] to bury him'. [If, however, he has relatives upon whom] he [could] call and they  would answer him, he is not regarded as a meth mizwah!  — Here also, since they are not her heirs, they would not answer even if she were to call upon them.