Kesubos - Daf 27
- לבעול יש פנאי לנסך אין פנאי
The next Mishnah states: עיר שכבשוה כרכום – Concerning a city conquered by a seige-army, כל כהנות שנמצאו בתוכה פסולות – All wives of Kohanim within the city are unfit for their husbands, for we fear that they were violated by the soldiers. The Gemara contrasts this Mishna with a Mishnah in Avoda Zarah which states: בלשת שבאה לעיר – Concerning a troop, which Rashi defines as marauding soldiers that search for hidden things in the city they are conquering, that came to a city, if they came during peacetime, then open barrels of wine are prohibited, out of fear they poured libations to their avodah zarah, but during wartime, the barrels are permitted, לפי שאין פנאי לנסך – because they do not have time to pour libations. This seems to indicate that during war, the soldiers do not have time for other activities, so why then are they suspected of violating the women? Rav Mari said: לבעול יש פנאי לנסך אין פנאי – To engage in relations they have time, but they do not have time to pour libations. Rashi explains that the pull of the yetzer hora is stronger when it comes to having relations than its pull for avodah zarah.
- The status of the women when there is a single hiding space
Rav Idi bar Avin said in the name of Rebbe Yitzchak bar Ashyan: אם יש שם מחבואה אחת מצלת על הכהנות כולן – If there exists in the city one single hiding place, it saves all the wives of Kohanim from the decree of separating from their husbands. We assume that they hid there and were not violated. Rebbe Yirmiyah asked: אינה מחזקת אלא אחת מהו – What is the halachah if the hiding place can only hold one person? Do we say regarding each one of the women, “This is the one who made use of it,” and all the women are permitted, or do we not say that, and suspect that each woman was violated? The Gemara asks how this is different from a case of two paths, where one has a grave across it and the other one does not, and one person walked down one path, and another person walked down the second one, and they both touched tahor food? If both people came at the same time to ask what their status is, they are both tamei, for we cannot say that either one is tahor, as one of them is definitely tamei. Here too, we cannot rule that any one of the women are tahor, as only one of them could have possibly hid . The Gemara rejects the comparison, saying that in the path case, one of the paths was certainly tamei, but here, who is to say that any of the women were actually violated?
- Question if a woman’s shifchah is believed when testifying the woman was not violated
The Mishnah had stated regarding wives of Kohanim in a besieged city: ואם יש להן עדים אפילו עבד אפילו שפחה הרי אלו נאמנין – But if they have witnesses who testify that they were not violated, even if the witness is an eved or a shifchah, they are believed. The Gemara infers that even the woman’s shifchah is believed and contrasts that ruling with a Mishnah in Gittin, which states that a woman in the midst of a divorce, may not have yichud with her husband unless they are in the presence of witnesses, and even the presence of an eved or shifchah suffices, חוץ משפחתה מפני שלבה גס בשפחתה – excluding her own shifchah since she is familiar with her and will not hesitate to have relations in front of her. Rav Pappi answered: בשבוייה הקילו – In the case of the captive woman, the Rabbanon were lenient, and permitted her shifchah to testify on her behalf. Rav Pappa said that the Mishnah is Gittin is dealing with her shifchah, whereas our Mishnah is dealing with the husband’s shifchah, who is believed to testify about his wife.
