Ketubot 27: Permitting Women Who May Have Been Violated to their Priestly Husbands

The Gemara continues to discuss a recently introduced Mishna.  Women who are taken captive as security for money owed by their husbands are permitted to return to their husbands.  There is an assumption that they would not be violated, for the fine might not be paid if they were harmed.  The rabbis consider when witnesses are required in such cases.  We are told about similar questioning  when women are held as collateral.  However, if women are held because their husbands have been charged with a capital crime, those women will not be permitted to return to their husbands.  The rabbis discuss whether these women have also committed crimes or colluded with their husbands.  They might be left to fend on their own, where nothing can "protect them from rape".  I am not clear on how women are protected from rape in ordinary circumstances, however.

A new Mishna teaches that women married to priests are forbidden to their husbands if their city is under siege by an army.  However, even a maidservant can testify that the wife of a priest has not been violated.  Women are not permitted to testify on behalf of themselves.

The Gemara begins with a description of what happens when an army takes over a city - not as an act of war, but as a place of refuge.  They make use of the inhabitants' goods - they take from open barrels, for example (not closed barrels for soldiers would not bother to close those barrels again).   The Gemara speak of violations of halachot of kashrut - wine might be used in idol worship, for example.

The rabbis must not have been fond of this Mishna.  They walk through a number of exceptions.  Perhaps the Mishna was speaking of only a certain type of army.  Perhaps it was speaking of cities where there was no possible escape.  Perhaps it was referring to a city that was not fortified with chains, dogs, geese and branches - all deterrents to soldiers.  Perhaps it was describing cities where there was not even a small hiding place that could hold even just one fleeing woman.  In all of these cases, the rabbis wish to permit wives to their priest husbands.

The Gemara wonders if a woman might remain forbidden to her husband because she has used a pathway that covers a buried corpse, leaving her ritually impure.  In response, the rabbis introduce the principle of ma li l'shaker?, why would I lie?.  If a concern is simply a concern, and not something confirmed by witnesses, a woman's testimony should be accepted according to this principle.  To this end, the Gemara considers the testimony of a woman's maidservant, husband, and son.  Interestingly, her maidservant and minor son are not considered to be credible witnesses, but their words - said in another context, incidentally - can be used as proof in a court proceeding.  

We end today's daf with a new Mishna featuring Rabbi Zeharya ben Katzav.  He swore to the court that his hand did not leave that of his wife while Jerusalem was under siege. He knew for a fact that he wife was not violated and thus she should be permitted to him.  The court used the principle a person cannot testify about oneself to justify their decision to force a divorce.  However, Rabbi Zeharya did not comply.  He build a home in his courtyard for his wife to live.  He also ensured that she was always with their sons when she entered the courtyard or at home, ensuring no opportunity for seclusion with her 'husband'.  The Gemara begins by questioning whether or not women who have been taken captive or divorcees are permitted similar circumstances.