Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

March 1, 2015 | 讬壮 讘讗讚专 转砖注状讛

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah Shlema of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Ketubot 27

讛讜专讛谞讛 讗讬谉 谞讞讘砖讛 诇讗 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讞讘砖讛 讜诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛 讻讱 讛讬讛

If she was taken as security, in a case where her husband stipulated that if he fails to pay a debt the gentiles may take his wife and do with her as they please, yes, she requires witnesses to testify that she was not violated. However, if she was imprisoned by the authorities, no, she is deemed untainted even without witnesses. Apparently, the distinction is not based on the dominance of the Jewish people. Rather, it is based on the manner in which she was apprehended. The Gemara answers: The same is true that she is forbidden to her husband even if she was imprisoned, and the reason that the tanna鈥檌m testified about a case where she was taken as security is because the incident that transpired, transpired in that manner.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讛注讬讚 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讻讛谉 讜专讘讬 讝讻专讬讛 讘谉 讛拽爪讘 注诇 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 砖讛讜专讛谞讛 讘讗砖拽诇讜谉 讜专讬讞拽讜讛 讘谞讬 诪砖驻讞转讛 讜注讚讬讛 诪注讬讚讬诐 注诇讬讛 砖诇讗 谞住转专讛 讜砖诇讗 谞讟诪讗讛 讜讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗诐 讗转诐 诪讗诪讬谞讬诐 砖讛讜专讛谞讛 讛讗诪讬谞讜 砖诇讗 谞住转专讛 讜砖诇讗 谞讟诪讗讛 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 讗转诐 诪讗诪讬谞讬诐 砖诇讗 谞住转专讛 讜砖诇讗 谞讟诪讗讛 讗诇 转讗诪讬谞讜 砖讛讜专讛谞讛

Some say a different version of this tradition. Rava said that we too learn a proof from a mishna for the statement that Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k said that Rav said: Rabbi Yosei the priest and Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav testified about a Jewish woman about whom witnesses testified that she was taken as security for a debt in Ashkelon. And the members of her family, who suspected that she engaged in intercourse there, distanced themselves from her, and her witnesses testified about her that she neither entered into seclusion nor was violated. And the Sages said to the members of the family: If you believe the witnesses that she was taken as collateral, believe the witnesses who say that she neither entered into seclusion nor was violated. And if you do not believe the witnesses that she neither entered into seclusion nor was violated, do not believe the witnesses that she was taken as collateral at all.

讜讛讗 讗砖拽诇讜谉 讚注诇 讬讚讬 诪诪讜谉 讛讜讛 讜讟注诪讗 讚注讚讬诐 诪注讬讚讬谉 讗讜转讛 讛讗 讗讬谉 注讚讬诐 诪注讬讚讬谉 讗讜转讛 诇讗 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讗 砖谞讗 讛讜专讛谞讛 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 谞讞讘砖讛 诇讗 讛讜专讛谞讛 砖讗谞讬

Rava asks: But in the case in Ashkelon that was due to a monetary offense, the reason that she was permitted is that witnesses testified about her that she was untainted. However, if witnesses did not testify about her, no, she would not be permitted to her husband, although she was taken due to a monetary offense. What, is it not that it is no different if she was taken as collateral and it is no different if she was imprisoned? Apparently, if the authority of the gentiles is dominant, even if she was imprisoned for the sake of money there is concern that she was violated. The Gemara rejects the proof: No, the case where the woman is taken as collateral is different, and only in that case, where her husband stipulated that the gentiles could take her, would the gentiles allow themselves to violate her. However, in a case where she is imprisoned there is no concern of that sort.

讗讬讻讗 讚专诪讬 诇讛 诪讬专诪讗 转谞谉 注诇 讬讚讬 诪诪讜谉 诪讜转专转 诇讘注诇讛 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讛注讬讚 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讻讜壮 讜讛讗 讗砖拽诇讜谉 讚注诇 讬讚讬 诪诪讜谉 讜拽转谞讬 讟注诪讗 讚注讚讬诐 诪注讬讚讬诐 讗讜转讛 讛讗 讗讬谉 注讚讬诐 诪注讬讚讬谉 讗讜转讛 诇讗

Some raise it as a contradiction between the sources. We learned in the mishna: A woman who was taken hostage due to a monetary offense is permitted to her husband. And they raise a contradiction from the mishna in Eduyyot: Rabbi Yosei the priest and Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav testified about a Jewish woman about whom witnesses testified that she was taken as collateral for a debt in Ashkelon. But this is not the case in Ashkelon, which was due to a monetary offense, and it is taught that the reason that the woman was permitted is that witnesses testified about her that she was untainted. However, if witnesses did not testify about her, no, she would not be permitted, although she was taken for the sake of money.

讜诪砖谞讬 讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 砖讬讚 讬砖专讗诇 转拽讬驻讛 注诇 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 讻讗谉 砖讬讚 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 转拽讬驻讛 注诇 注爪诪谉

And he answers that Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k said: This is not difficult. Here, the mishna is referring to a period when the authority of the Jewish people is dominant over the nations of the world. Then, a woman taken hostage for the sake of money is permitted. There it is referring to a period when the authority of the nations of the world is dominant over themselves and over the Jewish people. Therefore, even a woman taken because of a monetary offense is forbidden unless witnesses testify that she is untainted.

注诇 讬讚讬 谞驻砖讜转 讗住讜专讛 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讻讙讜谉 谞砖讬 讙谞讘讬 讜诇讜讬 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 讗砖转讜 砖诇 讘谉 讚讜谞讗讬 讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 讜讛讜讗 砖谞讙诪专 讚讬谞谉 诇讛专讬讙讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专 讚讬谞谉 诇讛专讬讙讛

搂 We learned in the mishna: A woman who was imprisoned because of a capital offense is forbidden to her husband. Rav said: The mishna is referring to a case where the wives of thieves are involved, as when thieves were apprehended and hanged, their wives were abandoned and made available to all, and they were not protected from potential rapists. And Levi said: The mishna is referring to a case where the wife of ben Donai, a murderer, is involved, as in that case the government abandons his wife and makes her available to all, which is not the case when one is condemned for theft. 岣zkiyya said: And this abandonment is only in a case where the husbands were sentenced to death. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Although their husbands were not sentenced to death, if the imprisonment is because of a capital offense, the women are abandoned and available to all.

诪转谞讬壮 注讬专 砖讻讘砖讜讛 讻专讻讜诐 讻诇 讻讛谞讜转 砖谞诪爪讗讜 讘转讜讻讛 驻住讜诇讜转 讜讗诐 讬砖 诇讛谉 注讚讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 注讘讚 讗驻讬诇讜 砖驻讞讛 讛专讬 讗诇讜 谞讗诪谞讬谉 讜讗讬谉 谞讗诪谉 讗讚诐 注诇 讬讚讬 注爪诪讜

MISHNA: With regard to a city that was conquered by an army laying siege, all the women married to priests located in the city are unfit and forbidden to their husbands, due to the concern that they were raped. And if they have witnesses, even if the witness is a slave, even if the witness is a maidservant, both of whom are generally disqualified as witnesses, they are deemed credible. And a person is not deemed credible to establish his status by his own testimony. Therefore, a woman is not deemed credible to claim that she was not violated.

讙诪壮 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讘诇砖转 砖讘讗讛 诇注讬专 讘砖注转 砖诇讜诐 讞讘讬讜转 驻转讜讞讜转 讗住讜专讜转 住转讜诪讜转 诪讜转专讜转 讘砖注转 诪诇讞诪讛 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 诪讜转专讜转 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 驻谞讗讬 诇谞住讱

GEMARA: The Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Avoda Zara 70b): If there is a gentile military unit that entered a city, if it entered during peacetime, after the soldiers leave, the open barrels of wine are forbidden and the wine in them may not be drunk, due to suspicion that the gentile soldiers may have poured this wine as a libation for idolatry. The sealed barrels are permitted. However, if the unit entered in wartime, both these and those are permitted because in wartime there is no respite to pour wine for idolatry. One can be certain that the soldiers did not do so because the soldiers were preoccupied with preparations for a potential attack by the enemy. Why, then, is the mishna concerned that perhaps the soldiers laying siege to the city rape the women?

讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 诇讘注讜诇 讬砖 驻谞讗讬 诇谞住讱 讗讬谉 驻谞讗讬 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗诇注讝专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 讻讗谉 讘讻专讻讜诐 砖诇 讗讜转讛 诪诇讻讜转 讻讗谉 讘讻专讻讜诐 砖诇 诪诇讻讜转 讗讞专转

Rav Mari said: To engage in intercourse there is respite; to pour wine for idolatry there is no respite. Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Elazar said in the name of 岣zkiyya: There is a different distinction between the cases. There, the mishna is referring to the siege of a city under the rule of the same monarchy. In that case, the soldiers, acting as the enforcement body of the monarchy, seek to minimize unnecessary damage to the city and will refrain from ruining the wine and raping the women. Here, the mishna is referring to the siege of a city under the rule of a different monarchy. Therefore, there are no restraints with regard to ruining the wine or raping the women.

砖诇 讗讜转讛 诪诇讻讜转 谞诪讬 讗讬 讗驻砖专 讚诇讗 注专拽 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻砖诪砖诪专讜转 专讜讗讜转 讝讜 讗转 讝讜 讗讬 讗驻砖专 讚诇讗 谞讬讬诪讗 驻讜专转讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 诇讜讬 讻讙讜谉 讚诪讛讚专 诇讛 诇诪转讗 砖讜砖讬诇转讗 讜讻诇讘讗 讜讙讜讜讝讗 讜讗讜讜讝讗

The Gemara asks: Even in the siege of a city under the rule of the same monarchy, it is impossible that one of the soldiers did not wander off and rape a woman. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This is referring to a case where the sentries see each other and do not allow the soldiers to plunder the city. The Gemara asks: It is impossible that the sentries would not doze a bit, enabling some soldiers to enter and plunder the city. Rabbi Levi said: It is referring to a case where they surround the city with chains, and dogs, and branches [gavza], and geese, as obstacles preventing unauthorized entry.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讝讘讚讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖讬讗讛 讜专讘谞谉 讞讚 讗诪专 讻讗谉 讘讻专讻讜诐 砖诇 讗讜转讛 诪诇讻讜转 讻讗谉 讘讻专讻讜诐 砖诇 诪诇讻讜转 讗讞专转 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讜讞讚 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讻诇 讛谞讬 讜诪砖谞讬 讻讙讜谉 讚诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 诇诪转讗 砖讜砖讬诇转讗 讜讻诇讘讗 讜讙讜讜讝讗 讜讗讜讜讝讗

Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said: Rabbi Yehuda Nesia, grandson of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, redactor of the mishna, and the Rabbis dispute this matter. One said: There, the mishna is referring to the siege of a city under the rule of the same monarchy. Here, the mishna is referring to the siege of a city under the rule of a different monarchy, and it was not difficult for him at all, as in that case there is no concern that perhaps an individual soldier would enter the city. And for the other one, all these questions were difficult, and he answers: It is referring to a case where they surround the city with chains, and dogs, and branches, and geese.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗砖讬讗谉 讗诐 讬砖 砖诐 诪讞讘讜讗讛 讗讞转 诪爪诇转 注诇 讛讻讛谞讜转 讻讜诇谉

搂 With regard to the ruling in the mishna, Rav Idi bar Avin said that Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Ashyan said: If there is a single hideaway there in the city, where the women could hide from the soldiers, it saves all the women married to priests. Due to the uncertainty, the presumption is that each of the women found the hideaway, and therefore they are not forbidden to their husbands.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗讬谞讛 诪讞讝拽转 讗诇讗 讗讞转 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻诇 讞讚讗 讜讞讚讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If the hideaway holds only one woman, what is the ruling? Do we say that with regard to each woman who appears before us, this is the one who hid there, and each is permitted to her husband? Or, perhaps we do not say that.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪砖谞讬 砖讘讬诇讬谉 讗讞讚 讟诪讗 讜讗讞讚 讟讛讜专 讜讛诇讱 讘讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讜注砖讛 讟讛专讜转 讜讘讗 讞讘讬专讜 讜讛诇讱 讘砖谞讬 讜注砖讛 讟讛专讜转

The Gemara asks: And in what way is this different from the case of two paths? As we learned in a mishna: There were two paths, one that was ritually impure due to a corpse buried there and one that was ritually pure. And one walked on one of them, but he does not remember which, and afterward engaged in handling items of ritual purity, e.g., teruma or consecrated items. And another person came and walked on the second path, and he too does not remember which path it was, and he also engaged in handling items of ritual purity.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 谞砖讗诇 讝讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讜讝讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讟讛讜专讜转 砖谞讬讛诐 讻讗讞转 讟诪讗讜转 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 讟诪讗讬谉

Rabbi Yehuda says: If this one asked a Sage in and of himself, and that one asked a Sage in and of himself, they are both pure. When considered separately, each person retains his presumptive status of ritual purity. However, if they both came to ask at the same time, they are both ritually impure. Since one of the two certainly passed on the impure path, although it is uncertain which, both are deemed impure due to that uncertainty. Rabbi Yosei says: One way or another they are both ritually impure.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讘转 讗讞转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讟诪讗讬谉 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讟讛讜专讬诐 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 讘讘讗 诇讬砖讗诇 注诇讬讜 讜注诇 讞讘讬专讜 诪专 诪讚诪讬 诇讬讛 诇讘讘转 讗讞转 讜诪专 诪讚诪讬 诇讬讛 诇讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讜讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚砖专讬 诇讛讜 诇讻讜诇讛讜 讻讘转 讗讞转 讚诪讬

And Rava said, and some say it was Rabbi Yo岣nan who elaborates: If they came at the same time, everyone agrees that they are ritually impure, as even Rabbi Yehuda concedes that this is the halakha. If they came independently, this one after that one, everyone agrees that they are ritually pure. They disagree only with regard to a case where one comes to ask about himself and about the other. One Sage, Rabbi Yosei, likens it to a case where they come to ask at the same time, and Rabbi Yehuda likens it to a case where this one comes after that one. The Gemara concludes the analogy: And here too, where there was room in the hideout for only one woman, although they came and asked individually, since they seek to render all the women married to priests permitted to their husbands based on that hideout, it is tantamount to asking about them all at the same time, and they should be deemed forbidden to their husbands.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讜讚讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讻讗 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讚讗讬讟诪讬

The Gemara asks: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of the two paths, there is certainly ritual impurity in one of the paths, and therefore there is certainly one man who is impure. Here, who says any of the women was violated? Since there is uncertainty whether any woman was violated at all, one is more likely to rule that each woman was the one who hid than it is to rule that each of the men walked on the ritually pure path.

讘注讬 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专讛 诇讗 谞讞讘讗转讬 讜诇讗 谞讟诪讗转讬 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉

Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: If there was a hideaway in the city and a woman married to a priest says: Neither did I hide nor was I violated, what is the ruling? Do we say the principle:

诪讛 诇讬 诇砖拽专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

Why would I lie in so ineffectual a manner, and deem her credible? Had she wanted to lie, she could have claimed that she hid, which is a more effective claim. Or perhaps we do not say that principle.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛讛讜讗 诪注砖讛 讚讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗讙专 诇讬讛 讞诪专讗 诇讞讘专讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 转讬讝讬诇 讘讗讜专讞讗 讚谞讛专 驻拽讜讚 讚讗讬讻讗 诪讬讗 讝讬诇 讘讗讜专讞讗 讚谞专砖 讚诇讬讻讗 诪讬讗 讜讗讝诇 讗讬讛讜 讘讗讜专讞讗 讚谞讛专 驻拽讜讚 讜诪讬转 讞诪专讗

The Gemara asks: And in what way is this different from that incident where a certain man who rented a donkey to his colleague said to the renter: Do not go on the path of the Pekod River, where there is water, and the donkey is likely to drown. Go on the path of Neresh, where there is no water. And he went on the path along the Pekod River and the donkey died.

讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讘讗讜专讞讗 讚谞讛专 驻拽讜讚 讗讝诇讬 诪讬讛讜 诇讗 讛讜讜 诪讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讛 诇讬 诇砖拽专 讗讬 讘注讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讗讜专讞讗 讚谞专砖 讗讝诇讬 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讛 诇讬 诇砖拽专 讘诪拽讜诐 注讚讬诐 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

The renter came before Rava and said to him: Yes, I went on the path along the Pekod River; however, there was no water there. The donkey鈥檚 death was caused by other factors. Rava said: His claim is accepted based on the principle: Why would I lie. If he wanted to lie, he could have said to him, I went on the path of Neresh. And Abaye said to Rava: We do not say the principle: Why would I lie, in a situation where there are witnesses. This principle, which is a form of miggo, is effective only when his claim does not contradict established facts. In this case, since it is known to all that there is water on the path along the Pekod River, his claim is not accepted. Similarly, as it is an established fact that the women taken captive were certainly raped, her claim is not accepted even though it is based on a miggo.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讜讚讗讬 讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讚讗讬讻讗 诪讬讗 讛讻讗 讜讚讗讬 讗讬讟诪讬 讞砖砖讗 讛讜讗 讜讘诪拽讜诐 讞砖砖讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

The Gemara asks: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of the donkey, there are certainly witnesses capable of confirming that there is water along that path. Here, in the case of the women, is it clearly established that she was definitely defiled? It is merely a concern, and in a situation where there is merely a concern and not an established fact we say the principle: Why would I lie, and her claim is accepted.

讗诐 讬砖 注讚讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 注讘讚 讜讗驻讬诇讜 砖驻讞讛 谞讗诪谞讬谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 砖驻讞讛 讚讬讚讛 诪讛讬诪谞讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 诇讗 转转讬讬讞讚 注诪讜 讗诇讗 注诇 驻讬 注讚讬诐

搂 We learned in the mishna: If they have witnesses, even if the witness is a slave and even if the witness is a maidservant, they are deemed credible. The Gemara asks: And is even her personal maidservant deemed credible? The Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Gittin 73a): With regard to one who divorced his wife conditionally, and the condition was not yet fulfilled, the woman may enter into seclusion with him only on the basis of the presence of witnesses, due to the concern that they will engage in intercourse. If between the drafting of a bill of divorce and its taking effect the husband and wife enter into seclusion together, the bill of divorce must be discarded and a new document drafted in its place.

讜讗驻讬诇讜 注诇 驻讬 注讘讚 讜注诇 驻讬 砖驻讞讛 讞讜抓 诪砖驻讞转讛 诪驻谞讬 砖诇讘讛 讙住 讘砖驻讞转讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讬 讘砖讘讜讬讛 讛拽讬诇讜

And she may enter into seclusion even on the basis of the presence of a slave and on the basis of the presence of a maidservant, except for her personal maidservant, due to the fact that she is accustomed to her maidservant, and her presence will not serve as an impediment that would prevent her from engaging in intercourse. Therefore, with regard to the woman taken captive as well, the testimony of the maidservant is not accepted to establish that she was not defiled. Rav Pappi resolved the contradiction and said: With regard to a captive woman, the Sages ruled leniently. Because the prohibition against intercourse with a captive woman is based on the concern that she was violated, the Sages relied on the testimony of her personal maidservant.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讛讗 讘砖驻讞讛 讚讬讚讛 讛讗 讘砖驻讞讛 讚讬讚讬讛

Rav Pappa resolved the contradiction and said: This halakha in the case of conditional divorce is stated with regard to her maidservant, who is not deemed credible even in the case of a captive woman. That halakha in the case of the captive woman, where they said even the testimony of the maidservant is accepted, is stated with regard to his maidservant to whom the woman is not so accustomed, and therefore her presence serves as an impediment.

讜砖驻讞讛 讚讬讚讛 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讗 讛讗 拽转谞讬 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪注讬讚 注诇 注爪诪讜 讛讗 砖驻讞讛 讚讬讚讛 诪讛讬诪谞讗 砖驻讞转讛 谞诪讬 讻注爪诪讛 讚诪讬

The Gemara asks: And is her maidservant not deemed credible? But isn鈥檛 it taught in the mishna: A person is not deemed credible to establish his status by his own testimony? From that statement it may be inferred that the woman is not deemed credible to testify about herself, but her maidservant is deemed credible. The Gemara answers: The legal status of her maidservant is like her own status. Neither is deemed credible.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讛讗 讜讛讗 讘砖驻讞讛 讚讬讚讛 讜砖驻讞讛 诪讬讞讝讗 讞讝讬讗 讜砖转拽讛 讛转诐 讚砖转讬拽转讛 诪转讬专转讛 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讗 讛讻讗 讚砖转讬拽转讛 讗讜住专转讛 诪讛讬诪谞讗

Rav Ashi resolved the contradiction and said: Both halakhot are stated with regard to her maidservant, but there is a distinction between the cases. A maidservant sees what transpires and is silent, but does not testify falsely. Therefore, there, in the case of conditional divorce, where the maidservant鈥檚 silence with regard to whether her mistress engaged in intercourse renders the woman permitted, as it is sufficient for the maidservant to say merely: I was there, she is not deemed credible due to the concern lest she witnessed them engaging in intercourse and remained silent. However, here, in the case of the captive woman, where the maidservant鈥檚 silence would render her mistress forbidden, as a captive woman is presumed to have been violated and the only way to render her permitted is by saying: She was not defiled, she is deemed credible.

讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讗转讬讗 讜诪砖拽专讗 转专转讬 诇讗 注讘讚讛

The Gemara asks: Here too there should be concern that she will come and lie for the benefit of her mistress. The Gemara answers: She would not perform two acts of dishonesty. Although there is suspicion that she will refrain from telling the truth, there is no suspicion that she will lie as well. Therefore, if she relates that her mistress was not defiled, she is deemed credible.

讻讬 讛讗 讚诪专讬 讘专 讗讬住拽 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讞谞讗 讘专 讗讬住拽 讗转讗 诇讬讛 讗讞讗 诪讘讬 讞讜讝讗讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻诇讜讙 诇讬 讘谞讻住讬 讚讗讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 诇讱 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专 诇讱 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讻专 讬讜住祝 讗转 讗讞讬讜 讜讛诐 诇讗 讛讻讬专讛讜 诪诇诪讚 砖讬爪讗 讘诇讗 讞转讬诪转 讝拽谉 讜讘讗 讘讞转讬诪转 讝拽谉

Proof that one is not suspected of both concealing the truth and lying is cited, as in that case of Mari bar Isak, and some say it was 岣na bar Isak, where someone claiming to be his brother came to him from Bei 岣za鈥檃, a district located far from the Jewish population centers in Babylonia. This brother said to him: Apportion me a share in my father鈥檚 property. Mari said to him: I do not know you. The brother came before Rav 岣sda seeking a legal remedy. Rav 岣sda said to him: Your brother is speaking well and his response is well founded, as it is written: 鈥淎nd Joseph recognized his brothers but they recognized him not鈥 (Genesis 42:8). This teaches that Joseph left the land of Canaan without the trace of a beard and came to meet his brothers with the trace of a beard.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讗讬讬转讬 住讛讚讬 讚讗讞讜讛 讗转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬转 诇讬 住讛讚讬 讜诪住转驻讬谞讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讚讙讘专讗 讗诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讝讬诇 讗讬讬转讬谞讛讜 讗转 讚诇讗讜 讗讞讜讱 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讬谞讗 讛讻讬 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪讞讘讬专讜 注诇讬讜 讛专讗讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讚讗讬谞谞讗 诇讱 讜诇讻讜诇讛讜 讗诇诪讬 讞讘专讱 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讗转讜 讜诪砖拽专讬 转专转讬 诇讗 注讘讚讬

Rav 岣sda said to him: Go bring witnesses that you are his brother. He said to Rav 岣sda: I have witnesses, but they are afraid of Mari, who is a violent man, and will not testify. Rav 岣sda said to Mari: Go bring witnesses that he is not your brother. Mari said to him: Is that the halakha? Isn鈥檛 the guiding principle in cases of this sort: The burden of proof rests upon the claimant? Let the man claiming part of my inheritance bring proof supporting his claim. Rav 岣sda said to him: This is how I render judgment for you and for all your fellow violent men; I place the burden of proof upon them. The Gemara asks: Now too, witnesses will come and lie in fear of Mari, and what is accomplished by requiring Mari to bring the witnesses? Apparently, one is not suspected of performing two acts of dishonesty, to both conceal the truth and to lie.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讝讜 注讚讜转 讗讬砖 讜讗砖讛 转讬谞讜拽 讜转讬谞讜拽转 讗讘讬讛 讜讗诪讛 讜讗讞讬讛 讜讗讞讜转讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘谞讛 讜讘转讛 诇讗 注讘讚讛 讜砖驻讞转讛 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讛讻诇 谞讗诪谞讬谉 诇讛注讬讚 讞讜抓 诪讛讬诪谞讛 讜讘注诇讛

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the opinions of the amora鈥檌m with regard to the testimony of her maidservant are subject to this dispute between tanna鈥檌m. It is taught in one baraita: This testimony that a captive woman was not defiled with regard to which a man and a woman, a male child or a female child, the woman鈥檚 father, and her mother, and her brother, and her sister are deemed credible, but not her son and her daughter, and not her slave or maidservant. And it is taught in another baraita: All are deemed credible to testify with regard a captive woman, except for her and her husband.

讚专讘 驻驻讬 讜讚专讘 讗砖讬 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚专讘 驻驻讗 [诪讬] 诇讬诪讗 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗

The Gemara notes: The opinion of Rav Pappi and the opinion of Rav Ashi are certainly subject to the dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as they hold that her maidservant is deemed credible contrary to the first baraita cited. However, with regard to the opinion of Rav Pappa, who distinguishes between her maidservant, who is not deemed credible, and his maidservant, who is, do we say that it is subject to the dispute between tanna鈥檌m? Perhaps the tanna in each baraita holds that her maidservant is not deemed credible, and the baraita that deems everyone credible except for the woman and her husband could be explained in another manner, e.g., the legal status of her maidservant is like her own status.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 驻驻讗 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 讘诪住讬讞讛 诇驻讬 转讜诪讛

The Gemara says: There is no proof that Rav Pappa鈥檚 opinion is contingent upon the tannaitic dispute, as Rav Pappa could have said to you: When that baraita that deems everyone credible except for the woman and her husband is taught, it is taught in a case where she is making an unconsidered, incidental remark in the context of a conversation about an unrelated matter. However, direct testimony of her maidservant is not accepted.

讻讬 讛讗 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谉 拽专讟讬讙谞讗讛 诪砖转注讬 诪注砖讛 讘讗 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪讬砖转注讬 诪注砖讛 讘讗 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讘讗讚诐 讗讞讚 砖讛讬讛 诪住讬讞 诇驻讬 转讜诪讜 讜讗诪专 讗谞讬 讜讗诪讬 谞砖讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谉 讛讙讜讬诐 讬爪讗转讬 诇砖讗讜讘 诪讬诐 讚注转讬 注诇 讗诪讬 诇诇拽讟 注爪讬诐 讚注转讬 注诇 讗诪讬 讜讛砖讬讗讛 专讘讬 诇讻讛讜谞讛 注诇 驻讬讜

As in that case when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia; he said that Rav 岣nan of Carthage relates: An incident came before Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi for judgment; and some say that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi relates: An incident came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, with regard to a person who was making an unconsidered, incidental remark, and said: My mother and I were taken captive among the gentiles. When I went out to draw water, my thoughts were about my mother; to gather wood, my thoughts were about my mother. We were never separated. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deemed her fit to marry into the priesthood on the basis of those remarks, even though with regard to testimony about his mother, a son is disqualified as a witness. The same is true of the woman鈥檚 maidservant.

诪转谞讬壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讻专讬讛 讘谉 讛拽爪讘 讛诪注讜谉 讛讝讛 诇讗 讝讝讛 讬讚讛 诪转讜讱 讬讚讬 诪砖注讛 砖谞讻谞住讜 讙讜讬诐 诇讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜注讚 砖讬爪讗讜 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪注讬讚 注诇 注爪诪讜

MISHNA: Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav said: I swear by this abode of the Divine Presence that my wife鈥檚 hand did not move from my hand from the time that the gentiles entered Jerusalem until they left, and I know for a fact that she was not defiled. The Sages said to him: A person cannot testify about himself. The legal status of one鈥檚 wife is like his own status in this regard. Therefore, your testimony is not accepted, and your wife is forbidden to you.

讙诪壮 转谞讗 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 讻谉 讬讬讞讚 诇讛 讘讬转 讘讞爪专讜 讜讻砖讛讬讗 讬讜爪讗讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讘专讗砖 讘谞讬讛 讜讻砖讛讬讗 谞讻谞住转 谞讻谞住转 讘住讜祝 讘谞讬讛

GEMARA: The tanna taught in the Tosefta: And even so, despite the fact that the Sages ruled his wife forbidden to him because he was a priest, he did not divorce her. He designated a house in his courtyard for her, but did not enter into seclusion with her, and when she would go out of the courtyard she would go out before her sons so that she would not be alone in the courtyard with her husband, and when she would enter the house, she would enter after her sons, for the same reason.

讘注讬 讗讘讬讬 诪讛讜 诇注砖讜转 讘讙专讜砖讛 讻谉 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讘砖讘讜讬讛 讛拽讬诇讜 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诇讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗

Abaye raises a dilemma: What is the halakha regarding whether we have to do likewise with a divorc茅e? Can a priest who divorces his wife designate a house for her in the courtyard and rely on the children to ensure that the couple will not enter into seclusion? Is it specifically there, in the case of Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav because with regard to a captive woman the Sages ruled leniently, since the prohibition is based on suspicion and not certainty; however here, in the case of a divorc茅e, where there is a certain Torah prohibition, no, he may not designate a residence for her in the courtyard? Or perhaps, the case of a divorc茅e is no different.

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 讛诪讙专砖 讗转 讗砖转讜 诇讗 转谞砖讗 讘砖讻讜谞转讜

The Gemara cites proof to resolve the dilemma: Come and hear proof as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who divorces his wife, she may not marry and live in his immediate vicinity, i.e., his courtyard, due to the concern that because of the intimacy they once shared, her living there will lead to transgression.

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah Shlema of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

talking talmud_square

Ketubot 27: Holding Hands: To No Avail

A mishnah: A city that was conquered - the women who were married to kohanim are now forbidden to their...
ashkelon nike atlas abraham

Sin City

"Rabbi Yosei the priest and Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav testified about a Jewish woman about whom witnesses testified that she...

Ketubot 27

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 27

讛讜专讛谞讛 讗讬谉 谞讞讘砖讛 诇讗 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讞讘砖讛 讜诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛 讻讱 讛讬讛

If she was taken as security, in a case where her husband stipulated that if he fails to pay a debt the gentiles may take his wife and do with her as they please, yes, she requires witnesses to testify that she was not violated. However, if she was imprisoned by the authorities, no, she is deemed untainted even without witnesses. Apparently, the distinction is not based on the dominance of the Jewish people. Rather, it is based on the manner in which she was apprehended. The Gemara answers: The same is true that she is forbidden to her husband even if she was imprisoned, and the reason that the tanna鈥檌m testified about a case where she was taken as security is because the incident that transpired, transpired in that manner.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讛注讬讚 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讻讛谉 讜专讘讬 讝讻专讬讛 讘谉 讛拽爪讘 注诇 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 砖讛讜专讛谞讛 讘讗砖拽诇讜谉 讜专讬讞拽讜讛 讘谞讬 诪砖驻讞转讛 讜注讚讬讛 诪注讬讚讬诐 注诇讬讛 砖诇讗 谞住转专讛 讜砖诇讗 谞讟诪讗讛 讜讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗诐 讗转诐 诪讗诪讬谞讬诐 砖讛讜专讛谞讛 讛讗诪讬谞讜 砖诇讗 谞住转专讛 讜砖诇讗 谞讟诪讗讛 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 讗转诐 诪讗诪讬谞讬诐 砖诇讗 谞住转专讛 讜砖诇讗 谞讟诪讗讛 讗诇 转讗诪讬谞讜 砖讛讜专讛谞讛

Some say a different version of this tradition. Rava said that we too learn a proof from a mishna for the statement that Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k said that Rav said: Rabbi Yosei the priest and Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav testified about a Jewish woman about whom witnesses testified that she was taken as security for a debt in Ashkelon. And the members of her family, who suspected that she engaged in intercourse there, distanced themselves from her, and her witnesses testified about her that she neither entered into seclusion nor was violated. And the Sages said to the members of the family: If you believe the witnesses that she was taken as collateral, believe the witnesses who say that she neither entered into seclusion nor was violated. And if you do not believe the witnesses that she neither entered into seclusion nor was violated, do not believe the witnesses that she was taken as collateral at all.

讜讛讗 讗砖拽诇讜谉 讚注诇 讬讚讬 诪诪讜谉 讛讜讛 讜讟注诪讗 讚注讚讬诐 诪注讬讚讬谉 讗讜转讛 讛讗 讗讬谉 注讚讬诐 诪注讬讚讬谉 讗讜转讛 诇讗 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讗 砖谞讗 讛讜专讛谞讛 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 谞讞讘砖讛 诇讗 讛讜专讛谞讛 砖讗谞讬

Rava asks: But in the case in Ashkelon that was due to a monetary offense, the reason that she was permitted is that witnesses testified about her that she was untainted. However, if witnesses did not testify about her, no, she would not be permitted to her husband, although she was taken due to a monetary offense. What, is it not that it is no different if she was taken as collateral and it is no different if she was imprisoned? Apparently, if the authority of the gentiles is dominant, even if she was imprisoned for the sake of money there is concern that she was violated. The Gemara rejects the proof: No, the case where the woman is taken as collateral is different, and only in that case, where her husband stipulated that the gentiles could take her, would the gentiles allow themselves to violate her. However, in a case where she is imprisoned there is no concern of that sort.

讗讬讻讗 讚专诪讬 诇讛 诪讬专诪讗 转谞谉 注诇 讬讚讬 诪诪讜谉 诪讜转专转 诇讘注诇讛 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讛注讬讚 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讻讜壮 讜讛讗 讗砖拽诇讜谉 讚注诇 讬讚讬 诪诪讜谉 讜拽转谞讬 讟注诪讗 讚注讚讬诐 诪注讬讚讬诐 讗讜转讛 讛讗 讗讬谉 注讚讬诐 诪注讬讚讬谉 讗讜转讛 诇讗

Some raise it as a contradiction between the sources. We learned in the mishna: A woman who was taken hostage due to a monetary offense is permitted to her husband. And they raise a contradiction from the mishna in Eduyyot: Rabbi Yosei the priest and Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav testified about a Jewish woman about whom witnesses testified that she was taken as collateral for a debt in Ashkelon. But this is not the case in Ashkelon, which was due to a monetary offense, and it is taught that the reason that the woman was permitted is that witnesses testified about her that she was untainted. However, if witnesses did not testify about her, no, she would not be permitted, although she was taken for the sake of money.

讜诪砖谞讬 讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 砖讬讚 讬砖专讗诇 转拽讬驻讛 注诇 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 讻讗谉 砖讬讚 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 转拽讬驻讛 注诇 注爪诪谉

And he answers that Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k said: This is not difficult. Here, the mishna is referring to a period when the authority of the Jewish people is dominant over the nations of the world. Then, a woman taken hostage for the sake of money is permitted. There it is referring to a period when the authority of the nations of the world is dominant over themselves and over the Jewish people. Therefore, even a woman taken because of a monetary offense is forbidden unless witnesses testify that she is untainted.

注诇 讬讚讬 谞驻砖讜转 讗住讜专讛 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讻讙讜谉 谞砖讬 讙谞讘讬 讜诇讜讬 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 讗砖转讜 砖诇 讘谉 讚讜谞讗讬 讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 讜讛讜讗 砖谞讙诪专 讚讬谞谉 诇讛专讬讙讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专 讚讬谞谉 诇讛专讬讙讛

搂 We learned in the mishna: A woman who was imprisoned because of a capital offense is forbidden to her husband. Rav said: The mishna is referring to a case where the wives of thieves are involved, as when thieves were apprehended and hanged, their wives were abandoned and made available to all, and they were not protected from potential rapists. And Levi said: The mishna is referring to a case where the wife of ben Donai, a murderer, is involved, as in that case the government abandons his wife and makes her available to all, which is not the case when one is condemned for theft. 岣zkiyya said: And this abandonment is only in a case where the husbands were sentenced to death. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Although their husbands were not sentenced to death, if the imprisonment is because of a capital offense, the women are abandoned and available to all.

诪转谞讬壮 注讬专 砖讻讘砖讜讛 讻专讻讜诐 讻诇 讻讛谞讜转 砖谞诪爪讗讜 讘转讜讻讛 驻住讜诇讜转 讜讗诐 讬砖 诇讛谉 注讚讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 注讘讚 讗驻讬诇讜 砖驻讞讛 讛专讬 讗诇讜 谞讗诪谞讬谉 讜讗讬谉 谞讗诪谉 讗讚诐 注诇 讬讚讬 注爪诪讜

MISHNA: With regard to a city that was conquered by an army laying siege, all the women married to priests located in the city are unfit and forbidden to their husbands, due to the concern that they were raped. And if they have witnesses, even if the witness is a slave, even if the witness is a maidservant, both of whom are generally disqualified as witnesses, they are deemed credible. And a person is not deemed credible to establish his status by his own testimony. Therefore, a woman is not deemed credible to claim that she was not violated.

讙诪壮 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讘诇砖转 砖讘讗讛 诇注讬专 讘砖注转 砖诇讜诐 讞讘讬讜转 驻转讜讞讜转 讗住讜专讜转 住转讜诪讜转 诪讜转专讜转 讘砖注转 诪诇讞诪讛 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 诪讜转专讜转 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 驻谞讗讬 诇谞住讱

GEMARA: The Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Avoda Zara 70b): If there is a gentile military unit that entered a city, if it entered during peacetime, after the soldiers leave, the open barrels of wine are forbidden and the wine in them may not be drunk, due to suspicion that the gentile soldiers may have poured this wine as a libation for idolatry. The sealed barrels are permitted. However, if the unit entered in wartime, both these and those are permitted because in wartime there is no respite to pour wine for idolatry. One can be certain that the soldiers did not do so because the soldiers were preoccupied with preparations for a potential attack by the enemy. Why, then, is the mishna concerned that perhaps the soldiers laying siege to the city rape the women?

讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 诇讘注讜诇 讬砖 驻谞讗讬 诇谞住讱 讗讬谉 驻谞讗讬 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗诇注讝专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 讻讗谉 讘讻专讻讜诐 砖诇 讗讜转讛 诪诇讻讜转 讻讗谉 讘讻专讻讜诐 砖诇 诪诇讻讜转 讗讞专转

Rav Mari said: To engage in intercourse there is respite; to pour wine for idolatry there is no respite. Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Elazar said in the name of 岣zkiyya: There is a different distinction between the cases. There, the mishna is referring to the siege of a city under the rule of the same monarchy. In that case, the soldiers, acting as the enforcement body of the monarchy, seek to minimize unnecessary damage to the city and will refrain from ruining the wine and raping the women. Here, the mishna is referring to the siege of a city under the rule of a different monarchy. Therefore, there are no restraints with regard to ruining the wine or raping the women.

砖诇 讗讜转讛 诪诇讻讜转 谞诪讬 讗讬 讗驻砖专 讚诇讗 注专拽 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻砖诪砖诪专讜转 专讜讗讜转 讝讜 讗转 讝讜 讗讬 讗驻砖专 讚诇讗 谞讬讬诪讗 驻讜专转讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 诇讜讬 讻讙讜谉 讚诪讛讚专 诇讛 诇诪转讗 砖讜砖讬诇转讗 讜讻诇讘讗 讜讙讜讜讝讗 讜讗讜讜讝讗

The Gemara asks: Even in the siege of a city under the rule of the same monarchy, it is impossible that one of the soldiers did not wander off and rape a woman. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This is referring to a case where the sentries see each other and do not allow the soldiers to plunder the city. The Gemara asks: It is impossible that the sentries would not doze a bit, enabling some soldiers to enter and plunder the city. Rabbi Levi said: It is referring to a case where they surround the city with chains, and dogs, and branches [gavza], and geese, as obstacles preventing unauthorized entry.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讝讘讚讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖讬讗讛 讜专讘谞谉 讞讚 讗诪专 讻讗谉 讘讻专讻讜诐 砖诇 讗讜转讛 诪诇讻讜转 讻讗谉 讘讻专讻讜诐 砖诇 诪诇讻讜转 讗讞专转 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讜讞讚 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讻诇 讛谞讬 讜诪砖谞讬 讻讙讜谉 讚诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 诇诪转讗 砖讜砖讬诇转讗 讜讻诇讘讗 讜讙讜讜讝讗 讜讗讜讜讝讗

Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said: Rabbi Yehuda Nesia, grandson of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, redactor of the mishna, and the Rabbis dispute this matter. One said: There, the mishna is referring to the siege of a city under the rule of the same monarchy. Here, the mishna is referring to the siege of a city under the rule of a different monarchy, and it was not difficult for him at all, as in that case there is no concern that perhaps an individual soldier would enter the city. And for the other one, all these questions were difficult, and he answers: It is referring to a case where they surround the city with chains, and dogs, and branches, and geese.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗砖讬讗谉 讗诐 讬砖 砖诐 诪讞讘讜讗讛 讗讞转 诪爪诇转 注诇 讛讻讛谞讜转 讻讜诇谉

搂 With regard to the ruling in the mishna, Rav Idi bar Avin said that Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Ashyan said: If there is a single hideaway there in the city, where the women could hide from the soldiers, it saves all the women married to priests. Due to the uncertainty, the presumption is that each of the women found the hideaway, and therefore they are not forbidden to their husbands.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗讬谞讛 诪讞讝拽转 讗诇讗 讗讞转 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻诇 讞讚讗 讜讞讚讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If the hideaway holds only one woman, what is the ruling? Do we say that with regard to each woman who appears before us, this is the one who hid there, and each is permitted to her husband? Or, perhaps we do not say that.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪砖谞讬 砖讘讬诇讬谉 讗讞讚 讟诪讗 讜讗讞讚 讟讛讜专 讜讛诇讱 讘讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讜注砖讛 讟讛专讜转 讜讘讗 讞讘讬专讜 讜讛诇讱 讘砖谞讬 讜注砖讛 讟讛专讜转

The Gemara asks: And in what way is this different from the case of two paths? As we learned in a mishna: There were two paths, one that was ritually impure due to a corpse buried there and one that was ritually pure. And one walked on one of them, but he does not remember which, and afterward engaged in handling items of ritual purity, e.g., teruma or consecrated items. And another person came and walked on the second path, and he too does not remember which path it was, and he also engaged in handling items of ritual purity.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 谞砖讗诇 讝讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讜讝讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讟讛讜专讜转 砖谞讬讛诐 讻讗讞转 讟诪讗讜转 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 讟诪讗讬谉

Rabbi Yehuda says: If this one asked a Sage in and of himself, and that one asked a Sage in and of himself, they are both pure. When considered separately, each person retains his presumptive status of ritual purity. However, if they both came to ask at the same time, they are both ritually impure. Since one of the two certainly passed on the impure path, although it is uncertain which, both are deemed impure due to that uncertainty. Rabbi Yosei says: One way or another they are both ritually impure.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讘转 讗讞转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讟诪讗讬谉 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讟讛讜专讬诐 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 讘讘讗 诇讬砖讗诇 注诇讬讜 讜注诇 讞讘讬专讜 诪专 诪讚诪讬 诇讬讛 诇讘讘转 讗讞转 讜诪专 诪讚诪讬 诇讬讛 诇讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讜讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚砖专讬 诇讛讜 诇讻讜诇讛讜 讻讘转 讗讞转 讚诪讬

And Rava said, and some say it was Rabbi Yo岣nan who elaborates: If they came at the same time, everyone agrees that they are ritually impure, as even Rabbi Yehuda concedes that this is the halakha. If they came independently, this one after that one, everyone agrees that they are ritually pure. They disagree only with regard to a case where one comes to ask about himself and about the other. One Sage, Rabbi Yosei, likens it to a case where they come to ask at the same time, and Rabbi Yehuda likens it to a case where this one comes after that one. The Gemara concludes the analogy: And here too, where there was room in the hideout for only one woman, although they came and asked individually, since they seek to render all the women married to priests permitted to their husbands based on that hideout, it is tantamount to asking about them all at the same time, and they should be deemed forbidden to their husbands.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讜讚讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讻讗 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讚讗讬讟诪讬

The Gemara asks: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of the two paths, there is certainly ritual impurity in one of the paths, and therefore there is certainly one man who is impure. Here, who says any of the women was violated? Since there is uncertainty whether any woman was violated at all, one is more likely to rule that each woman was the one who hid than it is to rule that each of the men walked on the ritually pure path.

讘注讬 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专讛 诇讗 谞讞讘讗转讬 讜诇讗 谞讟诪讗转讬 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉

Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: If there was a hideaway in the city and a woman married to a priest says: Neither did I hide nor was I violated, what is the ruling? Do we say the principle:

诪讛 诇讬 诇砖拽专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

Why would I lie in so ineffectual a manner, and deem her credible? Had she wanted to lie, she could have claimed that she hid, which is a more effective claim. Or perhaps we do not say that principle.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛讛讜讗 诪注砖讛 讚讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗讙专 诇讬讛 讞诪专讗 诇讞讘专讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 转讬讝讬诇 讘讗讜专讞讗 讚谞讛专 驻拽讜讚 讚讗讬讻讗 诪讬讗 讝讬诇 讘讗讜专讞讗 讚谞专砖 讚诇讬讻讗 诪讬讗 讜讗讝诇 讗讬讛讜 讘讗讜专讞讗 讚谞讛专 驻拽讜讚 讜诪讬转 讞诪专讗

The Gemara asks: And in what way is this different from that incident where a certain man who rented a donkey to his colleague said to the renter: Do not go on the path of the Pekod River, where there is water, and the donkey is likely to drown. Go on the path of Neresh, where there is no water. And he went on the path along the Pekod River and the donkey died.

讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讘讗讜专讞讗 讚谞讛专 驻拽讜讚 讗讝诇讬 诪讬讛讜 诇讗 讛讜讜 诪讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讛 诇讬 诇砖拽专 讗讬 讘注讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讗讜专讞讗 讚谞专砖 讗讝诇讬 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讛 诇讬 诇砖拽专 讘诪拽讜诐 注讚讬诐 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

The renter came before Rava and said to him: Yes, I went on the path along the Pekod River; however, there was no water there. The donkey鈥檚 death was caused by other factors. Rava said: His claim is accepted based on the principle: Why would I lie. If he wanted to lie, he could have said to him, I went on the path of Neresh. And Abaye said to Rava: We do not say the principle: Why would I lie, in a situation where there are witnesses. This principle, which is a form of miggo, is effective only when his claim does not contradict established facts. In this case, since it is known to all that there is water on the path along the Pekod River, his claim is not accepted. Similarly, as it is an established fact that the women taken captive were certainly raped, her claim is not accepted even though it is based on a miggo.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讜讚讗讬 讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讚讗讬讻讗 诪讬讗 讛讻讗 讜讚讗讬 讗讬讟诪讬 讞砖砖讗 讛讜讗 讜讘诪拽讜诐 讞砖砖讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

The Gemara asks: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of the donkey, there are certainly witnesses capable of confirming that there is water along that path. Here, in the case of the women, is it clearly established that she was definitely defiled? It is merely a concern, and in a situation where there is merely a concern and not an established fact we say the principle: Why would I lie, and her claim is accepted.

讗诐 讬砖 注讚讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 注讘讚 讜讗驻讬诇讜 砖驻讞讛 谞讗诪谞讬谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 砖驻讞讛 讚讬讚讛 诪讛讬诪谞讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 诇讗 转转讬讬讞讚 注诪讜 讗诇讗 注诇 驻讬 注讚讬诐

搂 We learned in the mishna: If they have witnesses, even if the witness is a slave and even if the witness is a maidservant, they are deemed credible. The Gemara asks: And is even her personal maidservant deemed credible? The Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Gittin 73a): With regard to one who divorced his wife conditionally, and the condition was not yet fulfilled, the woman may enter into seclusion with him only on the basis of the presence of witnesses, due to the concern that they will engage in intercourse. If between the drafting of a bill of divorce and its taking effect the husband and wife enter into seclusion together, the bill of divorce must be discarded and a new document drafted in its place.

讜讗驻讬诇讜 注诇 驻讬 注讘讚 讜注诇 驻讬 砖驻讞讛 讞讜抓 诪砖驻讞转讛 诪驻谞讬 砖诇讘讛 讙住 讘砖驻讞转讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讬 讘砖讘讜讬讛 讛拽讬诇讜

And she may enter into seclusion even on the basis of the presence of a slave and on the basis of the presence of a maidservant, except for her personal maidservant, due to the fact that she is accustomed to her maidservant, and her presence will not serve as an impediment that would prevent her from engaging in intercourse. Therefore, with regard to the woman taken captive as well, the testimony of the maidservant is not accepted to establish that she was not defiled. Rav Pappi resolved the contradiction and said: With regard to a captive woman, the Sages ruled leniently. Because the prohibition against intercourse with a captive woman is based on the concern that she was violated, the Sages relied on the testimony of her personal maidservant.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讛讗 讘砖驻讞讛 讚讬讚讛 讛讗 讘砖驻讞讛 讚讬讚讬讛

Rav Pappa resolved the contradiction and said: This halakha in the case of conditional divorce is stated with regard to her maidservant, who is not deemed credible even in the case of a captive woman. That halakha in the case of the captive woman, where they said even the testimony of the maidservant is accepted, is stated with regard to his maidservant to whom the woman is not so accustomed, and therefore her presence serves as an impediment.

讜砖驻讞讛 讚讬讚讛 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讗 讛讗 拽转谞讬 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪注讬讚 注诇 注爪诪讜 讛讗 砖驻讞讛 讚讬讚讛 诪讛讬诪谞讗 砖驻讞转讛 谞诪讬 讻注爪诪讛 讚诪讬

The Gemara asks: And is her maidservant not deemed credible? But isn鈥檛 it taught in the mishna: A person is not deemed credible to establish his status by his own testimony? From that statement it may be inferred that the woman is not deemed credible to testify about herself, but her maidservant is deemed credible. The Gemara answers: The legal status of her maidservant is like her own status. Neither is deemed credible.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讛讗 讜讛讗 讘砖驻讞讛 讚讬讚讛 讜砖驻讞讛 诪讬讞讝讗 讞讝讬讗 讜砖转拽讛 讛转诐 讚砖转讬拽转讛 诪转讬专转讛 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讗 讛讻讗 讚砖转讬拽转讛 讗讜住专转讛 诪讛讬诪谞讗

Rav Ashi resolved the contradiction and said: Both halakhot are stated with regard to her maidservant, but there is a distinction between the cases. A maidservant sees what transpires and is silent, but does not testify falsely. Therefore, there, in the case of conditional divorce, where the maidservant鈥檚 silence with regard to whether her mistress engaged in intercourse renders the woman permitted, as it is sufficient for the maidservant to say merely: I was there, she is not deemed credible due to the concern lest she witnessed them engaging in intercourse and remained silent. However, here, in the case of the captive woman, where the maidservant鈥檚 silence would render her mistress forbidden, as a captive woman is presumed to have been violated and the only way to render her permitted is by saying: She was not defiled, she is deemed credible.

讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讗转讬讗 讜诪砖拽专讗 转专转讬 诇讗 注讘讚讛

The Gemara asks: Here too there should be concern that she will come and lie for the benefit of her mistress. The Gemara answers: She would not perform two acts of dishonesty. Although there is suspicion that she will refrain from telling the truth, there is no suspicion that she will lie as well. Therefore, if she relates that her mistress was not defiled, she is deemed credible.

讻讬 讛讗 讚诪专讬 讘专 讗讬住拽 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讞谞讗 讘专 讗讬住拽 讗转讗 诇讬讛 讗讞讗 诪讘讬 讞讜讝讗讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻诇讜讙 诇讬 讘谞讻住讬 讚讗讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 诇讱 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专 诇讱 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讻专 讬讜住祝 讗转 讗讞讬讜 讜讛诐 诇讗 讛讻讬专讛讜 诪诇诪讚 砖讬爪讗 讘诇讗 讞转讬诪转 讝拽谉 讜讘讗 讘讞转讬诪转 讝拽谉

Proof that one is not suspected of both concealing the truth and lying is cited, as in that case of Mari bar Isak, and some say it was 岣na bar Isak, where someone claiming to be his brother came to him from Bei 岣za鈥檃, a district located far from the Jewish population centers in Babylonia. This brother said to him: Apportion me a share in my father鈥檚 property. Mari said to him: I do not know you. The brother came before Rav 岣sda seeking a legal remedy. Rav 岣sda said to him: Your brother is speaking well and his response is well founded, as it is written: 鈥淎nd Joseph recognized his brothers but they recognized him not鈥 (Genesis 42:8). This teaches that Joseph left the land of Canaan without the trace of a beard and came to meet his brothers with the trace of a beard.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讗讬讬转讬 住讛讚讬 讚讗讞讜讛 讗转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬转 诇讬 住讛讚讬 讜诪住转驻讬谞讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讚讙讘专讗 讗诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讝讬诇 讗讬讬转讬谞讛讜 讗转 讚诇讗讜 讗讞讜讱 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讬谞讗 讛讻讬 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪讞讘讬专讜 注诇讬讜 讛专讗讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讚讗讬谞谞讗 诇讱 讜诇讻讜诇讛讜 讗诇诪讬 讞讘专讱 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讗转讜 讜诪砖拽专讬 转专转讬 诇讗 注讘讚讬

Rav 岣sda said to him: Go bring witnesses that you are his brother. He said to Rav 岣sda: I have witnesses, but they are afraid of Mari, who is a violent man, and will not testify. Rav 岣sda said to Mari: Go bring witnesses that he is not your brother. Mari said to him: Is that the halakha? Isn鈥檛 the guiding principle in cases of this sort: The burden of proof rests upon the claimant? Let the man claiming part of my inheritance bring proof supporting his claim. Rav 岣sda said to him: This is how I render judgment for you and for all your fellow violent men; I place the burden of proof upon them. The Gemara asks: Now too, witnesses will come and lie in fear of Mari, and what is accomplished by requiring Mari to bring the witnesses? Apparently, one is not suspected of performing two acts of dishonesty, to both conceal the truth and to lie.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讝讜 注讚讜转 讗讬砖 讜讗砖讛 转讬谞讜拽 讜转讬谞讜拽转 讗讘讬讛 讜讗诪讛 讜讗讞讬讛 讜讗讞讜转讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘谞讛 讜讘转讛 诇讗 注讘讚讛 讜砖驻讞转讛 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讛讻诇 谞讗诪谞讬谉 诇讛注讬讚 讞讜抓 诪讛讬诪谞讛 讜讘注诇讛

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the opinions of the amora鈥檌m with regard to the testimony of her maidservant are subject to this dispute between tanna鈥檌m. It is taught in one baraita: This testimony that a captive woman was not defiled with regard to which a man and a woman, a male child or a female child, the woman鈥檚 father, and her mother, and her brother, and her sister are deemed credible, but not her son and her daughter, and not her slave or maidservant. And it is taught in another baraita: All are deemed credible to testify with regard a captive woman, except for her and her husband.

讚专讘 驻驻讬 讜讚专讘 讗砖讬 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚专讘 驻驻讗 [诪讬] 诇讬诪讗 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗

The Gemara notes: The opinion of Rav Pappi and the opinion of Rav Ashi are certainly subject to the dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as they hold that her maidservant is deemed credible contrary to the first baraita cited. However, with regard to the opinion of Rav Pappa, who distinguishes between her maidservant, who is not deemed credible, and his maidservant, who is, do we say that it is subject to the dispute between tanna鈥檌m? Perhaps the tanna in each baraita holds that her maidservant is not deemed credible, and the baraita that deems everyone credible except for the woman and her husband could be explained in another manner, e.g., the legal status of her maidservant is like her own status.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 驻驻讗 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 讘诪住讬讞讛 诇驻讬 转讜诪讛

The Gemara says: There is no proof that Rav Pappa鈥檚 opinion is contingent upon the tannaitic dispute, as Rav Pappa could have said to you: When that baraita that deems everyone credible except for the woman and her husband is taught, it is taught in a case where she is making an unconsidered, incidental remark in the context of a conversation about an unrelated matter. However, direct testimony of her maidservant is not accepted.

讻讬 讛讗 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谉 拽专讟讬讙谞讗讛 诪砖转注讬 诪注砖讛 讘讗 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪讬砖转注讬 诪注砖讛 讘讗 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讘讗讚诐 讗讞讚 砖讛讬讛 诪住讬讞 诇驻讬 转讜诪讜 讜讗诪专 讗谞讬 讜讗诪讬 谞砖讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谉 讛讙讜讬诐 讬爪讗转讬 诇砖讗讜讘 诪讬诐 讚注转讬 注诇 讗诪讬 诇诇拽讟 注爪讬诐 讚注转讬 注诇 讗诪讬 讜讛砖讬讗讛 专讘讬 诇讻讛讜谞讛 注诇 驻讬讜

As in that case when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia; he said that Rav 岣nan of Carthage relates: An incident came before Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi for judgment; and some say that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi relates: An incident came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, with regard to a person who was making an unconsidered, incidental remark, and said: My mother and I were taken captive among the gentiles. When I went out to draw water, my thoughts were about my mother; to gather wood, my thoughts were about my mother. We were never separated. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deemed her fit to marry into the priesthood on the basis of those remarks, even though with regard to testimony about his mother, a son is disqualified as a witness. The same is true of the woman鈥檚 maidservant.

诪转谞讬壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讻专讬讛 讘谉 讛拽爪讘 讛诪注讜谉 讛讝讛 诇讗 讝讝讛 讬讚讛 诪转讜讱 讬讚讬 诪砖注讛 砖谞讻谞住讜 讙讜讬诐 诇讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜注讚 砖讬爪讗讜 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪注讬讚 注诇 注爪诪讜

MISHNA: Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav said: I swear by this abode of the Divine Presence that my wife鈥檚 hand did not move from my hand from the time that the gentiles entered Jerusalem until they left, and I know for a fact that she was not defiled. The Sages said to him: A person cannot testify about himself. The legal status of one鈥檚 wife is like his own status in this regard. Therefore, your testimony is not accepted, and your wife is forbidden to you.

讙诪壮 转谞讗 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 讻谉 讬讬讞讚 诇讛 讘讬转 讘讞爪专讜 讜讻砖讛讬讗 讬讜爪讗讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讘专讗砖 讘谞讬讛 讜讻砖讛讬讗 谞讻谞住转 谞讻谞住转 讘住讜祝 讘谞讬讛

GEMARA: The tanna taught in the Tosefta: And even so, despite the fact that the Sages ruled his wife forbidden to him because he was a priest, he did not divorce her. He designated a house in his courtyard for her, but did not enter into seclusion with her, and when she would go out of the courtyard she would go out before her sons so that she would not be alone in the courtyard with her husband, and when she would enter the house, she would enter after her sons, for the same reason.

讘注讬 讗讘讬讬 诪讛讜 诇注砖讜转 讘讙专讜砖讛 讻谉 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讘砖讘讜讬讛 讛拽讬诇讜 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诇讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗

Abaye raises a dilemma: What is the halakha regarding whether we have to do likewise with a divorc茅e? Can a priest who divorces his wife designate a house for her in the courtyard and rely on the children to ensure that the couple will not enter into seclusion? Is it specifically there, in the case of Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav because with regard to a captive woman the Sages ruled leniently, since the prohibition is based on suspicion and not certainty; however here, in the case of a divorc茅e, where there is a certain Torah prohibition, no, he may not designate a residence for her in the courtyard? Or perhaps, the case of a divorc茅e is no different.

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 讛诪讙专砖 讗转 讗砖转讜 诇讗 转谞砖讗 讘砖讻讜谞转讜

The Gemara cites proof to resolve the dilemma: Come and hear proof as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who divorces his wife, she may not marry and live in his immediate vicinity, i.e., his courtyard, due to the concern that because of the intimacy they once shared, her living there will lead to transgression.

Scroll To Top