A woman who was told by one witness that her husband died and she remarried and later found out that her first husband was still alive, needs a get from each of them. The get from the second is not really needed but the rabbis were concerned people would see and think that one can get out of marriage without a get. If so, then if she was engaged only to the second husband, one would need a get as well. Therefore, they suggest that even though the Mishna didn’t say so, it must be a get is needed. In the end, though, the Gemara rejects this and explains why a get would be needed only if she was married, but not if she was only betrothed to the second husband. Why doesn’t the woman have rights to the ketuba of the first husband or produce from her property she brought into the marriage or food or shreds of clothes of hers that she brought into the marriage? The Gemara brings a Mishna in Trumot 2:2 that explains what happens in a case where someone took truma from impure produce on behalf of fruits that were pure. Rav Chisda and Rabbi Oshaya differ in their understanding of what happens if it was done on purpose. The braita says “He did not do anything.” Does this mean that it is not truma (Rav Chisda) or it is considered truma but he needs to take truma again on the pure produce? Rav Chisda explains his opinion that the rabbis decided it wouldn’t be truma as they were concerned that if they declared it truma (as it is actually by Torah law), the person would likely not take truma from the pure produce as well. Several sources are brought to question both Rav Chisda and Rav Oshaya’s positions and they are answered by distinguishing between the different cases. Raba questions Rav Chisda by raising a very basic question – how can the rabbis override Torah law and basically allow a non-kohen to eat truma (as they declared something that is actually truma by Torah law not to be considered truma). Rav Chisda is not bothered by the questions and begins to bring sources where we see the rabbis can overturn Torah law. The first source is from our Mishna as they state the children from her first and second husband are all mamzerim even though by Torah law she is married to the first husband. By issuing this penalty they are permitting someone who is a regular Israelite by Torah law (the child) to marry a mamzer! Raba rejects this by quoting those who say he cannot marry a mamzeret. The second source regards a minor who is betrothed only by rabbinic law and yet she is considered married for certain basic laws. Raba rejects each part for different reasons.
