## Ketubot Daf 27a

###### Ketubot 27a:1
[Ketubot 27a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/27a:1)

הוּרְהֲנָה — אִין, נֶחְבְּשָׁה — לָא. הוּא הַדִּין אֲפִילּוּ נֶחְבְּשָׁה. וּמַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהָיָה, כָּךְ הָיָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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’im* testified about a case where she was taken as security is because **the incident that transpired, transpired** in **that** manner.


###### Ketubot 27a:2
[Ketubot 27a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/27a:2)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רָבָא: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: הֵעִיד רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַכֹּהֵן וְרַבִּי זְכַרְיָה בֶּן הַקַּצָּב עַל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהוּרְהֲנָה בְּאַשְׁקְלוֹן, וְרִיחֲקוּהָ בְּנֵי מִשְׁפַּחְתָּהּ, וְעֵדֶיהָ מְעִידִים עָלֶיהָ שֶׁלֹּא נִסְתְּרָה וְשֶׁלֹּא נִטְמָאָה, וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: אִם אַתֶּם מַאֲמִינִים שֶׁהוּרְהֲנָה — הַאֲמִינוּ שֶׁלֹּא נִסְתְּרָה וְשֶׁלֹּא נִטְמָאָה, וְאִם אֵין אַתֶּם מַאֲמִינִים שֶׁלֹּא נִסְתְּרָה וְשֶׁלֹּא נִטְמָאָה — אַל תַּאֲמִינוּ שֶׁהוּרְהֲנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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 Yitzḥak 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.


###### Ketubot 27a:3
[Ketubot 27a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/27a:3)

וְהָא אַשְׁקְלוֹן, דְּעַל יְדֵי מָמוֹן הֲוָה, וְטַעְמָא דְּעֵדִים מְעִידִין אוֹתָהּ, הָא אֵין עֵדִים מְעִידִין אוֹתָהּ — לָא. מַאי לָאו: לָא שְׁנָא הוּרְהֲנָה, וְלָא שְׁנָא נֶחְבְּשָׁה! לָא, הוּרְהֲנָה שָׁאנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Ketubot 27a:4
[Ketubot 27a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/27a:4)

אִיכָּא דְּרָמֵי לַהּ מִירְמָא, תְּנַן: עַל יְדֵי מָמוֹן מוּתֶּרֶת לְבַעְלָהּ, וּרְמִינְהוּ: הֵעִיד רַבִּי יוֹסֵי כּוּ׳. וְהָא אַשְׁקְלוֹן, דְּעַל יְדֵי מָמוֹן, וְקָתָנֵי: טַעְמָא דְּעֵדִים מְעִידִים אוֹתָהּ, הָא אֵין עֵדִים מְעִידִין אוֹתָהּ לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Ketubot 27a:5
[Ketubot 27a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/27a:5)

וּמְשַׁנֵּי, אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק, לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן שֶׁיַּד יִשְׂרָאֵל תַּקִּיפָה עַל אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם, כָּאן שֶׁיַּד אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם תַּקִּיפָה עַל עַצְמָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And he answers** that **Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak 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.


###### Ketubot 27a:6
[Ketubot 27a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/27a:6)

עַל יְדֵי נְפָשׁוֹת אֲסוּרָה וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב: כְּגוֹן נְשֵׁי גַנָּבֵי. וְלֵוִי אָמַר: כְּגוֹן אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁל בֶּן דּוֹנַאי. אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: וְהוּא שֶׁנִּגְמַר דִּינָן לַהֲרִיגָה, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמַר דִּינָן לַהֲרִיגָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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. **Ḥizkiyya said: And** this abandonment **is** only in a case **where** the husbands **were sentenced to death. And Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.


###### Ketubot 27a:7
[Ketubot 27a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/27a:7)

**מַתְנִי׳** עִיר שֶׁכְּבָשׁוּהָ כַּרְכּוֹם — כׇּל כֹּהֲנוֹת שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ בְּתוֹכָהּ פְּסוּלוֹת. וְאִם יֵשׁ לָהֶן עֵדִים, אֲפִילּוּ עֶבֶד, אֲפִילּוּ שִׁפְחָה — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נֶאֱמָנִין. וְאֵין נֶאֱמָן אָדָם עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Ketubot 27a:8
[Ketubot 27a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/27a:8)

**גְּמָ׳** וּרְמִינְהוּ: בַּלֶּשֶׁת שֶׁבָּאָה לָעִיר, בִּשְׁעַת שָׁלוֹם — חָבִיּוֹת פְּתוּחוֹת אֲסוּרוֹת, סְתוּמוֹת מוּתָּרוֹת. בִּשְׁעַת מִלְחָמָה — אֵלּוּ וְאֵלּוּ מוּתָּרוֹת, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין פְּנַאי לְנַסֵּךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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?


###### Ketubot 27a:9
[Ketubot 27a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/27a:9)

אָמַר רַב מָרִי: לִבְעוֹל יֵשׁ פְּנַאי, לְנַסֵּךְ אֵין פְּנַאי. רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר אֶלְעָזָר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּחִזְקִיָּה אָמַר: כָּאן בְּכַרְכּוֹם שֶׁל אוֹתָהּ מַלְכוּת, כָּאן בְּכַרְכּוֹם שֶׁל מַלְכוּת אַחֶרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Mari said: To engage in intercourse there is respite; to pour** wine for idolatry **there is no respite. Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Elazar said in the name of Ḥizkiyya:** 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.


###### Ketubot 27a:10
[Ketubot 27a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/27a:10)

שֶׁל אוֹתָהּ מַלְכוּת נָמֵי, אִי אֶפְשָׁר דְּלָא עָרַק חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כְּשֶׁמִּשְׁמָרוֹת רוֹאוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ. אִי אֶפְשָׁר דְּלָא נָיְימָא פּוּרְתָּא! אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי: כְּגוֹן דִּמְהַדַּר לַהּ לְמָתָא שׁוּשִׁילְתָּא וְכַלְבָּא וּגְווֹזָא וַאֲווֹזָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Ketubot 27a:11
[Ketubot 27a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/27a:11)

אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר זַבְדָּא: פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה נְשִׂיאָה וְרַבָּנַן. חַד אָמַר: כָּאן בְּכַרְכּוֹם שֶׁל אוֹתָהּ מַלְכוּת, כָּאן בְּכַרְכּוֹם שֶׁל מַלְכוּת אַחֶרֶת, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ וְלָא מִידֵּי. וְחַד קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ כֹּל הָנֵי, וּמְשַׁנֵּי: כְּגוֹן דִּמְהַדַּר לֵיהּ לְמָתָא שׁוּשִׁילְתָּא וְכַלְבָּא וּגְווֹזָא וַאֲווֹזָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Ketubot 27a:12
[Ketubot 27a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/27a:12)

אָמַר רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר אַשְׁיָאן: אִם יֵשׁ שָׁם מַחְבּוֹאָה אַחַת — מַצֶּלֶת עַל הַכֹּהֲנוֹת כּוּלָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ With regard to the ruling in the mishna, **Rav Idi bar Avin said** that **Rabbi Yitzḥak 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.


###### Ketubot 27a:13
[Ketubot 27a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/27a:13)

בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: אֵינָהּ מַחְזֶקֶת אֶלָּא אַחַת מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן כֹּל חֲדָא וַחֲדָא הַיְינוּ הָא, אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא אָמְרִינַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Ketubot 27a:14
[Ketubot 27a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/27a:14)

וּמַאי שְׁנָא מִשְּׁנֵי שְׁבִילִין, אֶחָד טָמֵא וְאֶחָד טָהוֹר. וְהָלַךְ בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶן וְעָשָׂה טְהָרוֹת, וּבָא חֲבֵירוֹ וְהָלַךְ בַּשֵּׁנִי וְעָשָׂה טְהָרוֹת,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Ketubot 27a:15
[Ketubot 27a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/27a:15)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם נִשְׁאַל זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְזֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ — טְהוֹרוֹת. שְׁנֵיהֶם כְּאַחַת — טְמֵאוֹת. רַבִּי יוֹסִי אוֹמֵר: בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ טְמֵאִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Ketubot 27a:16
[Ketubot 27a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/27a:16)

וְאָמַר רָבָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּבַת אַחַת — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל: טְמֵאִין. בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל: טְהוֹרִים. לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא בְּבָא לִישָּׁאֵל עָלָיו וְעַל חֲבֵירוֹ: מָר מְדַמֵּי לֵיהּ לִבְבַת אַחַת, וּמָר מְדַמֵּי לֵיהּ לְבָזֶה אַחַר זֶה. וְהָכָא נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן דְּשָׁרֵי לְהוּ לְכוּלְּהוּ — כְּבַת אַחַת דָּמֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava said, and some say** it was **Rabbi Yoḥanan** 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.


###### Ketubot 27a:17
[Ketubot 27a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/27a:17)

הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם וַדַּאי אִיכָּא טוּמְאָה, הָכָא מִי יֵימַר דְּאִיטַּמַּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Ketubot 27a:18
[Ketubot 27a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/27a:18)

בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי, אָמְרָה: לֹא נֶחְבֵּאתִי וְלֹא נִטְמֵאתִי, מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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: