Study Ketubot folio 27A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
If she was taken as security, in a case where her husband stipulated that if he fails to pay a debt the non-Jews 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
Some say a different version of this tradition. Rava said that we too learn a proof from a Mishnah for the statement that Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said that Rav said: R' Yosei the priest and R' Zekharya ben HaKatzav testified about a Jewish woman about whom witnesses testified that she was taken a
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
Some raise it as a contradiction between the sources. We learned in the Mishnah: A woman who was taken hostage due to a monetary offense is permitted to her husband. And they raise a contradiction from the Mishnah in Eduyyot: R' Yosei the priest and R' Zekharya ben HaKatzav testified about a Jewish
And he answers that Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said: This is not difficult. Here, the Mishnah is referring to a period when the authority of the Jewish people is dominant over the non-Jewish nations. Then, a woman taken hostage for the sake of money is permitted. There it is referring to a period