1)

(a)The second Lashon of the above episode considers Ashkelon to have been under Jewish authority. What is significant about the episode that took place there is - the fact that the woman was being held hostage for ransom.

(b)We now infer from the Beraisa, which seems to clash with the Din of 'Nechbeshah ... Al Yedei Mamon' in our Mishnah - that it is only because there were witnesses that she was permitted, but otherwise she would have been forbidden, in spite of the fact that she was being held for ransom (and not on threat of her life).

(c)We resolve the apparent contradiction - by differentiating between a case of Hurhenah (where she is forbidden) and Nechbeshah (where she is not), as we explained earlier.

(d)The third version (presented in the form of a Kashya, which Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak Amar Rav comes to resolve) - conforms to the first version discussed above.

(e)Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak Amar Rav answers - that our Mishnah speaks when it is the Jews who have jurisdiction over the town, whereas the Beraisa speaks when it is under the authority of the Nochrim.

2)

(a)The Tana of our Mishnah forbids a woman who has been captured to return to her husband. According to Rav, this refers to 'Hani Nashi d'Ganvi' - by which he means that the woman's husband had been taken into custody for stealing, and was now subject to the death-sentence, and his wife and property considered public (for people to do with as they pleased).

(b)According to Levi, it refers to people like Elazar ben Dina'i - who was a murderer. According to him, it was the wife and property of a murderer that were made public, but not of a thief.

(c)Chizkiyah explains that according to Levi, the woman only becomes forbidden after her husband has been declared guilty. Rebbi Yochanan says - even if he has not.

3)

(a)Our Mishnah now discusses an 'Ir she'Kavshuhah Karkom' - (a city that has been captured by a besieging army).

(b)The Tana rules - that not all women are forbidden to their husbands; only the wives of Kohanim ... .

(c)The reason for this distinction is - because we assume that they were raped (and a raped woman is permitted to her husband if he is a Yisrael, but forbidden, if he is a Kohen.)

(d)Anyone is permitted to testify on their behalf - including a slave or a Shifchah, though the women are not believed to testify on themselves.

4)

(a)We query our Mishnah from a Mishnah in Avodah-Zarah, which rules that if a Goyish army enters a city, closed barrels of wine are always permitted. If the army entered...

1. ... in peace-time - open barrels of wine are forbidden, whereas ...

2. ... in time of war - both are permitted (because they do not have time to open the wine and render it Nesech.

(b)The problem is whereas, according to our Mishnah, even an invading army seems to have time for other activities, the Mishnah in Avodah-Zarah maintains that they do not.

5)

(a)Rav Mari reconciles the two Mishnah's with the statement 'li'V'ol Yesh Pnai, l'Nasech Ein Pnai' - meaning that for women a soldier will always finds time).

(b)Rebbi Yitzchak ben Elazar in the name of Chizkiyah differentiates between the home army, who are under royal orders to preserve the well-being of the state (and will not therefore spoil the wine or molest the local women [Avodah-Zarah]), and a foreign army, who are only concerned with their own self-gratification (our Mishnah).

(c)The soldiers however, are not so well-disciplined, even if they are from the same country, and even if it is in time of war. In order to eliminate the possibility of some soldiers leaving camp to enter the town and 'give vent to their desires ...

1. ... Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel therefore establish the Mishnah in Avodah-Zarah - when the soldiers are in full view of the guards.

2. ... Rebbi Levi establishes it - when the camp is surrounded by metal-chains, dogs, sticks and thorns and geese (to catch any soldiers trying to slip by the sleeping guards.

(d)Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'a and the Rabanan argue over how to reconcile the two Mishnahs. One of them learns like Rebbi Yitzchak ben Elazar in the name of Chizkiyah (who differentiates between the home army and foreign troops). The other one - learns like Rebbi Levi.

6)

(a)Rav Idi bar Avin Amar Rav Yitzchak bar Ashian permits even the wives of Kohanim in the town - if there is even just one hiding-place in the town.

(b)Rebbi Yirmeyahu asks - whether a small hiding-place that holds only one person will suffice to permit each woman that comes to Beis-Din claiming to be Tahor, or whether we will declare them all Tamei, seeing as it is impossible for all of them to have hidden there.

7)

(a)To resolve the She'eilah, we cite a Mishnah in Taharos, which discusses two paths, one Tamei (due to a grave that ran across its entire width) and one, Tahor - where one person walked one path, and another person, along the other path, and they do not know which person walked along which path. They then touched Taharos, and now each one wanted to know whether the Taharos that he touched is Tahor or Tamei.

(b)According to Rebbi Yehudah, if the two men came to Beis-Din to ask ...

1. ... one after the other - Beis-Din will declare both sets of Taharos Tahor.

2. ... simultaneously - they will declare them both Tamei.

(c)In the opinion of Rebbi Yosi - either way they are both Tamei.

(d)According to Rava or Rebbi Yochanan, both Tana'im will agree that if the two men were to ask the She'eilah simultaneously, the ruling would be 'Tamei', and if they came individually, the ruling would be 'Tahor'. Their Machlokes is - when one of the two men came to ask on behalf of both of them, first for himself and then for his friend (see Tosfos DH 'be'Ba'). That is where Rebbi Yosi rules Tamei, because he compares it to the case where they both came to ask simultaneously.

8)

(a)We try to connect Rebbi Yirmeyahu's She'eilah to the Mishnah in Taharos, assuming that the Halachah is like Rebbi Yosi ('she'Nimuko Imo') - inasmuch as, if each woman comes to ask for herself, she will be Tahor, whereas if they all come together or if one comes to ask on behalf of all of them, they are all Tamei.

(b)But in fact, the cases are not comparable - because whereas in the case of the two paths it is impossible that both should both be Tahor, in our case it is quite possible that all of the women are Tahor (even if they did not hide). Consequently, we will declare any woman who claims to have been in the hiding-place Tahor, irrespective of how they come to ask.

9)

(a)Rav Ashi asks what the Din will be if the woman claims that she did not hide but that she is Tahor anyway - whether we will say 'Mah Li l'Shaker' ('Migo', seeing as she could have said that she hid), or whether 'Mah Li l'Shaker' does not apply here, because it is 'Mah Li l'Shaker' b'Makom Edim (since we are witnesses that a woman who did not hide was raped).

(b)We try to resolve the She'eilah from the case of a man who hired a donkey on the express condition that he does not follow the route of River Pakud (because there was water there), but to go via Neresh where there was no water. After the donkey died he admitted in front of Rava - that he had followed the very route that he was warned against taking. But he claimed, there was no water there.

(c)Abaye objected to Rava's ruling, believing him on the basis of a 'Mah Lo l'Shaker', because he could have said that he took the donkey via Neresh - because it is a 'Migo b'Makom Edim' (since we are witnesses that there is water in the River Pakud area).

(d)We suggest that in our case too - it is a 'Migo b'Makom Edim' (like the second side of the She'eilah), and the woman is Tamei.

(e)We refute that proof however - in that unlike the case that we cited (where we know for sure that there is water in area of Nahar Pakud), we do not for sure that every captive is raped. Consequently, the woman is believed with a 'Migo'.

10)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that even the woman's own Shifchah is believed to testify that her mistress was not raped. We query this from a Beraisa in Gitin, which discusses the case of a Shechiv Mera (a man on his death-bed) who gave his wife a Get to take affects as from now provided he dies from his illness. The Tana rules there - that not only is the woman forbidden to be intimate with her husband, but that even being secluded in the same room as him is prohibited.

(b)The Get (which is known as a Get Yashan) will become invalid should he subsequently seclude himself with her - because Chazal were afraid that people will say that the Get preceded the birth of her son (and that someone else is his true father).

(c)Her own Shifchah is ...

1. ... not believed to testify that they were not intimate - because she is familiar with her and she knows that, even if she is intimate in her presence, she will not inform on her.

2. ... then believed in our Mishnah, according to Rav Papi - because 'bi'Shevuyah Hikelu' (seeing as the decree forbidding all the wives of the Kohanim is only a Chumra).

11)

(a)Rav Papa does not differentiate between the two cases. According to him - it is the husband's Shifchah who is believed (in both of the above cases), but not hers.

(b)He explains our Mishnah 'Ein Adam Ne'eman al Atzmo' - to incorporate her Shifchah, who is considered like herself.

(c)Rav Ashi agrees with Rav Papi, but for a different reason. According to him, the woman in the Beraisa is not permitted to seclude herself with her husband in the presence of her Shifchah, yet a woman is permitted through the testimony of her Shifchah who testifies that she was not raped by the invading soldiers ...

(d)... due to the Sevara, 'Tarti Lo Avdi' - meaning that although the Shifchah might condescend to be silent to cover-up for her mistress, she will not lie on her behalf).

12)

(a)Rav Ashi proves his point from the story of Mari bar Isak, who claimed that he did not recognize the brother who came from overseas to claim a portion in his father's property. Rav Chisda justified that with the Pasuk "va'Yaker Yosef es Echav (because they already had beards when Yosef parted from them), v'Hem Lo Hikiruhu" (because his had not yet grown). Here too, the brother of Mari bar Isak left when he was a young child, and it was therefore natural for Mari not to recognize him now that he had grown-up.

(b)When Rav Chisda instructed him to bring witnesses to prove that he was indeed Mari bar Isak's brother - he replied that he had witnesses but that they were afraid to testify against Mari, because he was known to be a bully.

(c)So Rav Chisda - ordered Mari to bring the witnesses to testify that they did not recognize the brother, ignoring the principle 'ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro Alav ha'Re'ayah' - because that is what he ruled when dealing with tough characters like Mari bar Isak.

(d)He was not afraid that the witnesses would come and testify against Mari's brother, simply because they were afraid of Mari - because 'Tarti Lo Avdi' (as we just explained).

13)

(a)We now cite two conflicting Beraisos. One Beraisa declares a man, a woman, a boy and a girl, the woman's father and mother, brother and sister eligible to testify. Besides the woman's own son and daughter - the Tana of the first Beraisa also disqualifies the woman's own Eved and Shifchah from testifying.

(b)The only two people whom the Tana of the second Beraisa disqualifies from testifying - are her husband and herself.

(c)Rav Papi and Rav Ashi (who accept the testimony of the woman's Shifchah in our Mishnah) will explain - that the Beraisos argue, and that they follow the opinion of the second Beraisa.

14)

(a)Rav Papa (who does not accept the testimony of the woman's Shifchah in our Mishnah) will certainly hold like the first of the two Beraisos. The second Beraisa according to him (which seems to permit the woman's Shifchah) - speaks by 'Masiach Lefi Tumo', in which case all relatives and even her own Shifchah are believed.

(b)The example of Masiach Lefi Tumo' that came before Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi (or Rebbi) - was that of a daughter (who, we just ruled, is not believed to testify for her mother, and) who described, 'Masiach Lefi Tumo, how they had both been captured, and how she kept a watch on her mother even when she went to draw water or to collect fire-wood.

(c)He permitted the mother on the basis of her daughter's statement.

(d)The second Beraisa permits all other relatives 'Masiach Lefi Tumo' - but not the woman's husband and herself.

15)

(a)Our Mishnah cites Rebbi Zecharyah ben ha'Katzav, who declared, after his town had been captured by an invading army - that his hand did not leave his wife's until all the soldiers had left.

(b)He had good reason to be particularly worried - because he was a Kohen.

(c)The Chachamim said to him - that a person is not believed to testify on his own behalf ('Ishto k'Gufo').

16)

(a)The Beraisa informs us, that although Rebbi Zecharyah ben ha'Katzav did not divorce his wife - he designated a house in his Chatzer for her to live ...

(b)They avoided 'Yichud' from that time on - by her always leaving the courtyard in front of her children, and entering it behind them (whenever he was in the courtyard).

(c)A Yisrael who divorced his wife may not live in the same Shechunah (group of houses) as her - because she recognizes all his signs and movements (and we are afraid that he will easily lure her back to him).

(d)A Kohen is even forbidden to live in the same Mavoy (street). A small village - is considered like a Mavoy, in which case a Yisrael is permitted, but a Kohen is forbidden.