Ketubot

'when she was pledged' but not 'when she was imprisoned'?  — [No] the same applies also to [the case if] she had been imprisoned. only it happened so. Some say. Raba said: We have also learned [in a Mishnah] to the same effect: R. Jose the priest and R. Zechariah b. ha-Kazzab testified regarding an Israelitish woman. who was pledged in Ashkelon and her family put her away and her witnesses testified concerning her that she did not hide herself [with a man] and that she was not defiled [by a man]. [that] the Sages said: If you believe [the witnesses] that she was pledged believe [them also] that she did not hide herself and that she was not defiled, and if you do not believe [them] that she did not hide herself and was not defiled, do not believe [them] that she was pledged. In Ashkelon [it happened] for the sake of money, and [yet] the reason [why the Sages permitted her to her husband was] because witnesses testified concerning her, but if witnesses did not testify concerning her [she would] not [have been permitted]; and is it not [also to be supposed] that there is no difference whether she was pledged or imprisoned?  — No, when she was pledged it is different.  Some put [this argument] in the form of a contradiction. We have learned: IF FOR THE SAKE OF MONEY SHE IS PERMITTED TO HER HUSBAND. But here is a contradiction: 'R. Jose testified etc.' [Now] in Ashkelon [it happened] for the sake of money and [yet] the reason [why she is permitted to her husband] is because witnesses testify concerning her, but if no witnesses testify concerning her, [she would] not [have been permitted]. And it is answered: R. Samuel b. Isaac said: It is no contradiction; here  [it speaks] when the hand of Israel is strong over the heathens, [and] there  when the hand of the heathens is strong over themselves. IF FOR THE PURPOSE OF [TAKING HER] LIFE SHE IS FORBIDDEN [TO HER HUSBAND]. Rab said: As, for instance, the wives of thieves.  Levi said: As, for instance, the wife of Ben Dunai.  Hezekiah said: This is only  when they have [already] been sentenced to death — R. Johanan says: Even if they have not yet been sentenced to death. MISHNAH. IF TROOPS OF SIEGE HAVE TAKEN A TOWN. ALL THE PRIESTS' WIVES  WHO ARE IN IT ARE UNFIT.  IF THEY HAVE WITNESSES,  EVEN A SLAVE.  EVEN A HANDMAID,  THEY ARE BELIEVED. NO ONE IS BELIEVED AS TO HIMSELF. GEMARA. There is a contradiction against this: If a reconnoitering troop comes to a town in time of peace the open casks [of wine] are forbidden  and the closed ones are permitted.  In times of war both are permitted, because they have no time to offer libations.  — R. Mari answered: To have intercourse they have time.  To offer libations they have no time. R. Isaac b. Eleazar said in the name of Hezekiah: There  [it speaks] of a besieging troop of the same kingdom.  here  [it speaks] of a besieging troop of another kingdom.  [Even in the case of a besieging troop] of the same kingdom it is not possible that one of them does not run away  [from the rest of the troop]!  — Rab. Judah answered in the name of Samuel: When the guards  see one another.  [But] it is not possible that one does not sleep a little!  — R. Levi answered: When they placed round the town chains. dogs. trunks of trees and geese.  R. Abba, b. Zabda said: With regard to this R. Judah Nesi'ah  and the Rabbis differ: one said [that] there  [it speaks] of a besieging troop of the same kingdom. and here  of a beseiging troop of another kingdom, and he found no difficulties, whereas one  raised all those questions  and answered [them by saying] when they placed round the town chains, dogs. trunks of trees, and geese. R. Idi b. Abin said in the name of R. Isaac b. Ashian: If there is there one hiding place. it protects all priests' wives.  R. Jeremiah asked [a question]: What is [the law] if it holds only one? Do we say of each one:  This is the one  or not? — But why should it be different from [the following case]? There were two paths, one was clean  and one was unclean, and someone walked in one of them and [then] prepared clean things.  and another person came and walked in the second path and [then] prepared clean things. R. Judah says: If each one comes to ask  separately,  they are [declared] clean;  [but] if they both come together, they are [declared] unclean;  R. Jose Says: In either case  they are [declared] unclean.  [Whereon] Raba, and some say R. Johanan said: [if they come to ask] at the same time, all agree that they are [declared] unclean, if they come one after another, all agree that they are [declared] clean; they differ only when one comes to ask for himself and for the other one; one  regards this as  [if it were] at the same time, and the other  regards this as [if it were] one after another. Now here  also, since all [women] [are declared] permitted.it is like [the case where they came] at the same time?  — How is this so?  There  there is certainly an impurity,  [but] here  who says that any one  has been defiled? R. Ashi asked: If she  says. 'I have not hidden myself and I have not been defiled', what is [the law]? Do we say