Mishneh Torah — Forbidden Intercourse (Issurei Bi'ah) הלכות איסורי ביאה, Chapter 18

מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמַדְנוּ שֶׁהַ (ויקרא כא ז יד) "זּוֹנָה" הָאֲמוּרָה בַּתּוֹרָה הִיא כָּל שֶׁאֵינָהּ בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל. אוֹ בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּבְעֲלָה לְאָדָם שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה לְהִנָּשֵׂא לוֹ אִסּוּר הַשָּׁוֶה לַכּל. אוֹ שֶׁנִּבְעֲלָה לְחָלָל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא מֻתֶּרֶת לְהִנָּשֵׂא לוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ הַנִּרְבַּעַת לִבְהֵמָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא בִּסְקִילָה לֹא נַעֲשֵׂית זוֹנָה וְלֹא נִפְסְלָה לִכְהֻנָּה שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא נִבְעֲלָה לְאָדָם. וְהַבָּא עַל הַנִּדָּה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא בְּכָרֵת לֹא נַעֲשֵׂית זוֹנָה וְלֹא נִפְסְלָה לִכְהֻנָּה שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינָהּ אֲסוּרָה לְהִנָּשֵׂא לוֹ:

Based on the Oral Tradition, we learned that the term zonah as mentioned at the beginning of the previous chapter. used by the Torah refers to one who is not a nativeborn Jewess, a Jewish woman who engaged in relations with a man she was forbidden to marry, violating a prohibition that is universally applicable, or a woman who engaged in relations with a challal even though she is permitted to marry him. marrying any Jewish woman, even the daughter of a priest (see Chapter 19, Halachah 11).Accordingly, a woman who engages in relations with an animal, even though she is liable for execution by stoning is not deemed as a zonah, nor is she disqualified from marrying into the priesthood, for she did not engage in relations with a man. [Similarly, when] a man engages in relations with a woman in the niddah state even though she is liable for kerait, she is not deemed as a zonah, nor is she disqualified from marrying into the priesthood, for she is not forbidden to marry him.

וְכֵן הַבָּא עַל הַפְּנוּיָה אֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה קְדֵשָׁה שֶׁהִפְקִירָה עַצְמָהּ לַכּל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא בְּמַלְקוֹת לֹא נַעֲשֵׂית זוֹנָה וְלֹא נִפְסְלָה מִן הַכְּהֻנָּה שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינָהּ אֲסוּרָה לְהִנָּשֵׂא לוֹ. אֲבָל הַנִּבְעֶלֶת לְאֶחָד מֵאִסּוּרֵי לָאוִין הַשָּׁוִין בַּכּל וְאֵין מְיֻחָדִין בְּכֹהֲנִים. אוֹ מֵאִסּוּרֵי עֲשֵׂה. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר לְמִי שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה לוֹ מִשּׁוּם עֶרְוָה אוֹ לְעַכּוּ"ם וְעֶבֶד. הוֹאִיל וְהִיא אֲסוּרָה לְהִנָּשֵׂא לוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ זוֹנָה:

Whenever a person has relations with an unmarried woman, even if she is a harlot who wantonly makes herself available to everyone, although she is liable for lashes, 1:4. she is not deemed as a zonah, nor is she disqualified from [marrying] into the priesthood. For she is not forbidden to marry [the people with whom she engaged in relations].[When, by contrast, a woman] engages in relations with a man with whom relations are forbidden by a negative commandment that is universally applicable - the transgression is not specific to priests - or with whom they are forbidden by a positive commandment, she is forbidden to marry him, she is a zonah. and she and a priest are not punished by lashes if they engage in relations. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 6:8) quotes the Rambam's view. Needless to say, [this applies if she engages in relations with a man] who is forbidden to her as an ervah, a gentile, or a servant.

וְכֵן הַגִּיֹּרֶת וְהַמְשֻׁחְרֶרֶת אֲפִלּוּ נִתְגַּיְּרָה וְנִשְׁתַּחְרְרָה פְּחוּתָה מִבַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים הוֹאִיל וְאֵינָהּ בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל הֲרֵי זוֹ זוֹנָה וַאֲסוּרָה לְכֹהֵן. מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ עַכּוּ"ם אוֹ נָתִין אוֹ מַמְזֵר אוֹ גֵּר עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי אוֹ מִצְרִי וֶאֱדוֹמִי רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי אוֹ פְּצוּעַ דַּכָּא וּכְרוּת שָׁפְכָה אוֹ חָלָל שֶׁבָּאוּ עַל הַיְּהוּדִית עָשׂוּ אוֹתָהּ זוֹנָה וְנִפְסְלָה לִכְהֻנָּה וְאִם הָיְתָה כֹּהֶנֶת פְּסָלוּהָ מִן הַתְּרוּמָה. וְכֵן יְבָמָה שֶׁבָּא עָלֶיהָ זָר עֲשָׂאָהּ זוֹנָה. וְהָאַיְלוֹנִית מֻתֶּרֶת לְכֹהֵן וְאֵינָהּ זוֹנָה:

Similarly, a female convert or a freed [maid-servant] - even if she was converted or freed when she was less than three years old 11b). Nevertheless, she is not considered as a native-born Jewess.The Ra'avad rules that such a woman is not considered as a zonah. Nevertheless, she is forbidden to marry into the priesthood, based on the interpretation of Ezekiel 44:22 advanced by Kiddushin 78a which states that a priest must marry only from "the seed of the House of Israel." Note the discussion of this difference of opinion by the Maggid Mishneh. See also Chapter 19, Halachah 12, which states that as long as converts marry among each other, their descendants are forbidden to marry into the priesthood. - since she is not a native-born Jewess, she is deemed a zonah and is forbidden to [marry] a priest.On this basis, [our Sages said: A woman who has relations with] a gentile, a netin, a mamzer, an Ammonite or Moabite convert, a first- or second-generation Egyptian or Edomite convert, a man with maimed testicles or a severed member, or a challal who has relations with a [nativeborn] Jewess causes her to be considered as a zonah and to be forbidden to [marry into] the priesthood. If she was a priest's daughter, she is disqualified from [partaking of] terumah. of holiness." Yevamot 68a states: "Since she engaged in relations with someone who is forbidden to her, she is disqualified." Similarly, a yevamah who engaged relations with a man other than her yevam becomes a zonah. relations with any other man cause her to be considered as a zonah.An aylonit refers to a woman who does not have female physical characteristics. Her breasts do not protrude, she stiffens during sexual relations, and her lower abdomen does not resemble that of a woman. She is considered incapable of giving birth (Hilchot Ishut 2:4-6). is permitted to [marry] a priest. She is not a zonah.

הַבָּא עַל אַחַת מֵהַשְּׁנִיּוֹת וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן כְּגוֹן הַבָּא עַל קְרוֹבַת חֲלוּצָתוֹ אוֹ עַל חֲלוּצָתוֹ לֹא עָשָׂה אוֹתָהּ זוֹנָה שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינָהּ אֲסוּרָה לְהִנָּשֵׂא לוֹ מִן הַתּוֹרָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת יִבּוּם:

When a man engages in relations with one of the shniot 1:6 for a list of these prohibitions. or the like, e.g., a man who engages in relations with a relative of the woman with whom he performed chalitzah or with the woman with whom he performed chalitzah, he does not cause her to be deemed a zonah. For she is not forbidden to him according to Scriptural Law, as we explained in Hilchot Yibbum. 1:12-13 which explains that once a woman is obligated to undergo chalitzah, there is no Scriptural prohibition against engaging in relations with her or her relatives. Nevertheless, our Sages instituted these prohibitions as safeguards.

הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁאֵין הֱיוֹתָהּ זוֹנָה תּוֹלֶה בִּבְעִילָה שֶׁל אִסּוּר. שֶׁהֲרֵי הַבָּא עַל הַנִּדָּה וְעַל הַקְּדֵשָׁה וְהַנִּרְבַּעַת לַבְּהֵמָה נִבְעֲלָה בְּעִילָה שֶׁל אִסּוּר וְלֹא נַעֲשֵׂית זוֹנָה. וּמִי שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת לְחָלָל נִבְעֲלָה בְּעִילָה שֶׁל הֶתֵּר כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר וְנַעֲשֵׂית זוֹנָה וְאֵין הַדָּבָר תָּלוּי אֶלָּא בִּפְגִימָה וּמִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁאֵינָהּ פְּגוּמָה אֶלָּא מֵאָדָם הָאָסוּר לָהּ אוֹ מֵחָלָל כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ:

We thus learned that a woman's being deemed as a zonah is not dependent on her engaging in forbidden relations, for when a man engages in relations with a niddah or a harlot or when a woman engages in relations with an animal, the woman has engaged in forbidden relations and yet she is not deemed a zonah. When, by contrast, [a woman] marries a challal, she engages in relations that are permitted, as will be explained, and yet she is deemed a zonah. Thus the matter is dependent on the spiritual blemish alone. According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that the spiritual blemish comes only from a man who is forbidden to her or a challal, as we explained.

כָּל הַנִּבְעֶלֶת לְאָדָם שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָהּ זוֹנָה בֵּין בְּאֹנֶס בֵּין בְּרָצוֹן בֵּין בְּזָדוֹן בֵּין בִּשְׁגָגָה [בֵּין כְּדַרְכָּהּ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ] מִשֶּׁהֶעֱרָה בָּהּ נִפְסְלָה מִשּׁוּם זוֹנָה. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁתִּהְיֶה בַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד וְיִהְיֶה הַבּוֹעֵל בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד וָמַעְלָה. לְפִיכָךְ אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ שֶׁנִּבְעֲלָה לְאַחֵר בֵּין בְּאֹנֶס בֵּין בְּרָצוֹן נִפְסְלָה לִכְהֻנָּה:

Whenever a woman engages in relations that cause her to be deemed a zonah, she becomes disqualified as soon as the man's organ enters her; see Chapter 1, Halachah 10. whether she engages in relations against her will or willingly, whether in conscious violation or inadvertently, whether through vaginal or anal intercourse. [This applies] provided she is at least three years old and the man with whom she engages in relations is nine years old or more. Therefore when a married woman engages in adultery, whether against her will or willingly, she is disqualified from [marrying into] the priesthood.

אֵשֶׁת כֹּהֵן שֶׁנֶּאֶנְסָה בַּעְלָהּ לוֹקֶה עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם טֻמְאָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד ד) "לֹא יוּכַל בַּעְלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן אֲשֶׁר שִׁלְּחָהּ לָשׁוּב לְקַחְתָּהּ לִהְיוֹת לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה אַחֲרֵי אֲשֶׁר הֻטַמָּאָה". הַכּל בִּכְלָל שֶׁאִם נִבְעֲלוּ אֲסוּרִין עַל בַּעֲלֵיהֶן. פֵּרֵט לְךָ הַכָּתוּב בְּאֵשֶׁת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנֶּאֶנְסָה שֶׁהִיא מֻתֶּרֶת לְבַעְלָהּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר ה יג) "וְהִיא לֹא נִתְפָּשָׂה" אֲבָל אֵשֶׁת כֹּהֵן בְּאִסּוּרָהּ עוֹמֶדֶת שֶׁהֲרֵי הִיא זוֹנָה:

When the wife of a priest is raped, [if her husband engages in relations with her afterwards,] he is punished by lashes because of her defilement. [This is derived from Deuteronomy 24:4]: "Her first husband who sent her away cannot return and take her as a wife after she has been defiled." 11:14), it is interpreted as referring to all married women who are defiled by adultery. The wife of an Israelite who was raped is an exception, but not the wife of a priest.The commentaries question the exactness of the Rambam's statements here, because in this instance two separate prohibitions - the prohibition against relations with one's defiled wife and the prohibition against a priest engaging in relations with a zonah - are involved. See the Maggid Mishneh for a discussion of the issue. See also Chapter 1, Halachah 22. All [women] were governed by the general principle: If they engaged in [adulterous] relations, they are forbidden to their husbands. The Torah singles out an exception: the wife of an Israelite who was raped. 24:19. She is permitted to her husband, as [implied by Numbers 5:13]: "And she was not seized." The wife of a priest remains forbidden, because she is a zonah.

אֵשֶׁת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנֶּאֶנְסָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא מֻתֶּרֶת לְבַעְלָהּ אֲסוּרָה לִכְהֻנָּה. אֵשֶׁת כֹּהֵן שֶׁאָמְרָה לְבַעְלָהּ נֶאֱנַסְתִּי אוֹ שָׁגַגְתִּי וּבָא עָלַי אֶחָד אוֹ שֶׁבָּא עֵד אֶחָד וְהֵעִיד לוֹ עָלֶיהָ שֶׁזִּנְּתָה בֵּין בְּאֹנֶס בֵּין בְּרָצוֹן הֲרֵי זוֹ אֵינָהּ אֲסוּרָה עָלָיו. שֶׁמָּא עֵינֶיהָ נָתְנָה בְּאַחֵר. וְאִם הִיא נֶאֱמֶנֶת לוֹ אוֹ הָעֵד נֶאֱמָן לוֹ וְסָמַךְ דַּעְתּוֹ לְדִבְרֵיהֶם הֲרֵי זֶה יוֹצִיא כְּדֵי לָצֵאת יְדֵי סָפֵק:

When the wife of an Israelite is raped, although she is permitted to her husband, she is forbidden to [marry into] the prietshood.When the wife of a priest tells her husband: "I was raped or inadvertently, I engaged in relations with another man," or one witness testifies against her that she committed adultery whether willingly or unwillingly, she is not forbidden to him. warning to his wife. See Hilchot Ishut 24:18). [The rationale is that we suspect] that perhaps she set her eyes on another [man]. If he considers her as trustworthy, or he considers the witness as trustworthy and he accepts his word, he should divorce her so that there is no doubt regarding the matter. to Hilchot Ishut, loc. cit.)

אֵשֶׁת כֹּהֵן שֶׁאָמְרָה לְבַעְלָהּ נֶאֱנַסְתִּי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא מֻתֶּרֶת לְבַעְלָהּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ הֲרֵי הִיא אֲסוּרָה לְכָל כֹּהֵן שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם אַחַר שֶׁיָּמוּת בַּעְלָהּ. שֶׁהֲרֵי הוֹדֵית שֶׁהִיא זוֹנָה וְאָסְרָה עַצְמָהּ וְנַעֲשֵׂית כַּחֲתִיכָה הָאֲסוּרָה:

Although the wife of a priest who tells her husband: "I was raped," is permitted to her husband as explained, she is forbidden to any other priest 6:25 states that the Rambam's ruling applies only as an initial and preferred option. After the fact, if she marries a priest, they may remain husband and wife unless he believes her statements. after her husband dies. justifies the Rambam's ruling and it is accepted as law by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 6:13).The Ra'avad's rationale is that if the woman is able to provide a satisfactory explanation why she originally stated that she was forbidden, her word is accepted, as is the case with regard to other similar situations. The Maggid Mishneh does not accept this logic. See Chelkat Mechokek 6:12 and Beit Shmuel 6:26 which discuss this issue. For she has acknowledged that she is a zonah and caused herself to be forbidden, making herself a prohibited entity.

כֹּהֵן שֶׁקִּדֵּשׁ גְּדוֹלָה אוֹ קְטַנָּה וְאַחַר זְמַן בָּא עָלֶיהָ וְטָעַן שֶׁמְּצָאָהּ דְּרוּסַת אִישׁ נֶאֶסְרָה עָלָיו מִסָּפֵק שֶׁמָּא קֹדֶם קִדּוּשִׁין נִבְעֲלָה אוֹ אַחַר קִדּוּשִׁין. אֲבָל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁטָּעַן טַעֲנָה זוֹ לֹא נֶאֶסְרָה עָלָיו שֶׁיֵּשׁ כָּאן שְׁנֵי סְפֵקוֹת שֶׁמָּא קֹדֶם קִדּוּשִׁין וְשֶׁמָּא אַחַר קִדּוּשִׁין. וַאֲפִלּוּ נֹאמַר לְאַחַר קִדּוּשִׁין שֶׁמָּא בְּאֹנֶס שֶׁמָּא בְּרָצוֹן. שֶׁהָאֲנוּסָה מֻתֶּרֶת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:

When a priest consecrates a woman, whether a minor or past majority, and afterwards engages in relations with her and claims that she had engaged in relations previously, 11:8-15. The rationale is that we operate on the presumption that a man will not take on the expense and trouble of making a wedding and then forfeit it because of a spurious claim. she is forbidden to him because of the doubt involved: perhaps she engaged in relations before she was consecrated or perhaps it was afterwards.. When, by contrast, an Israelite makes such a claim, there are two doubts involved: Maybe [the forbidden relations] preceded the consecration or maybe they came afterwards. Even if we say that they came afterwards, maybe she was raped or maybe she participated willingly. For a raped woman is permitted to an Israelite, as we explained.

לְפִיכָךְ אִם קִדְּשָׁהּ אָבִיהָ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל וְהִיא פְּחוּתָה מִבַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד וְטָעַן שֶׁמְּצָאָהּ דְּרוּסַת אִישׁ נֶאֶסְרָה עָלָיו מִסָּפֵק שֶׁאֵין כָּאן אֶלָּא סָפֵק אֶחָד שֶׁמָּא בְּאֹנֶס שֶׁמָּא בְּרָצוֹן וְסָפֵק אִסּוּר שֶׁל תּוֹרָה לְחֻמְרָא:

Therefore if a girl's father consecrated her to an Israelite when she was less than three years old and [when they married, the Israelite] claimed that he discovered that she had engaged in relations previously, she is forbidden to him because of the doubt. For there is only one doubt involved: Maybe the relations were against her will or maybe she engaged willingly. When there is a doubt concerning a Scriptural prohibition involved, [we rule] stringently.

כָּל אִשָּׁה שֶׁקִּנֵּא לָהּ בַּעְלָהּ וְנִסְתְּרָה וְלֹא שָׁתָת מֵי סוֹטָה אֲסוּרָה לְכֹהֵן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא סְפֵק זוֹנָה. בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא רָצָת הִיא לִשְׁתּוֹת. בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא רָצָה לְהַשְׁקוֹתָהּ. בֵּין שֶׁהָיְתָה שָׁם עֵדוּת שֶׁמּוֹנְעָהּ מִלִּשְׁתּוֹת. בֵּין שֶׁקִּנְּאוּ לָהּ בֵּית דִּין. בֵּין שֶׁהָיְתָה מִן הַנָּשִׁים שֶׁאֵין רְאוּיוֹת לִשְׁתּוֹת. הוֹאִיל וְלֹא שָׁתָת מִכָּל מָקוֹם הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה לִכְהֻנָּה מִסָּפֵק:

Any woman who was given [a sotah] warning 1:1). by her husband, entered into privacy [with the man she was warned against], but did not drink the sotah waters is forbidden to [marry] a priest, because there is an unresolved question whether or not she is a zonah. [This applies] whether she did not wish to drink [the waters], 2:1, 3:2 which imply that the refusal to drink the waters is tantamount to an admission of guilt. her husband did not wish to compel her to drink the waters, (Hilchot Sotah 2:1). there was testimony that prevented her from drinking, 1:14 states that if even one witness testifies that he saw the woman commit adultery after receiving the sotah warning, she becomes forbidden to her husband. the warning was delivered by the court, 1:10 states that, when a husband is unable to supervise his wife's moral behavior, the court may issue such a warning on his behalf. In such an instance, however, the woman is not compelled to drink the sotah waters. or she was one of the woman who is not fit to drink. 2:2 lists fifteen women who are not given the option of drinking the sotah waters. Whatever the reason that she did not drink, she is forbidden to [marry into] the priesthood because of the doubt [that has been created].

פְּנוּיָה שֶׁרָאוּהָ שֶׁנִּבְעֲלָה לְאֶחָד וְהָלַךְ לוֹ וְאָמְרוּ לָהּ מִי הוּא זֶה שֶׁבָּא עָלַיִךְ וְאָמְרָה אָדָם כָּשֵׁר הֲרֵי זוֹ נֶאֱמֶנֶת. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא אֲפִלּוּ רָאוּהָ מְעֻבֶּרֶת וְאָמְרוּ לָהּ מִמִּי נִתְעַבַּרְתְּ וְאָמְרָה מֵאָדָם כָּשֵׁר הֲרֵי זוֹ נֶאֱמֶנֶת וְתִהְיֶה מֻתֶּרֶת לְכֹהֵן:

[The following rules apply if we] saw that an unmarried woman engaged in relations with a man who then departed. She is asked: "Who is the man with whom you engaged in relations?" If she says, "He is an acceptable man,", nor a gentile, nor another individual who would disqualify her from marrying into the priesthood. her word is accepted. Moreover, even if we see that she is pregnant and we ask her: "From whom did you conceive?" and she says, "From an acceptable man," her word is accepted and she is permitted [to marry] a priest.

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁנִּבְעֲלָה בּוֹ פָּרָשַׁת דְּרָכִים אוֹ בִּקְרָנוֹת שֶׁבַּשָּׂדוֹת שֶׁהַכּל עוֹבְרִין שָׁם. וְהָיוּ רֹב הָעוֹבְרִים שָׁם כְּשֵׁרִים וְרֹב הָעִיר שֶׁפָּרְשׁוּ אֵלּוּ הָעוֹבְרִין מִמֶּנָּה כְּשֵׁרִים. שֶׁהַחֲכָמִים עָשׂוּ מַעֲלָה בְּיוּחֲסִין וְהִצְרִיכוּ שְׁנֵי רֻבּוֹת. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ רֹב הָעוֹבְרִים פּוֹסְלִים אוֹתָהּ כְּגוֹן עַכּוּ"ם אוֹ מַמְזֵרִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרֹב הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁבָּאוּ מִמֶּנָּה כְּשֵׁרִים אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ רֹב אַנְשֵׁי הַמָּקוֹם פְּסוּלִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרֹב הָעוֹבְרִין שָׁם כְּשֵׁרִים חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ שֶׁמָּא לְמִי שֶׁפּוֹסֵל אוֹתָהּ נִבְעֲלָה וְלֹא תִּנָּשֵׂא לְכֹהֵן לְכַתְּחִלָּה. וְאִם נִשֵּׂאת (לֹא) תֵּצֵא:

When does the above apply? When the place where she engaged in relations was on a thoroughfare or in a carriage in the fields where everyone passes by,, in its fixed place, we do not follow the majority. and most of the passersby are acceptable and most of the inhabitants of the city from which these passersby departed are acceptable. [The rationale for this stringency is that] our Sages elevated the standards required with regard to lineage). and required two majorities.If, by contrast, most of the people passing by would disqualify her, e.g., they were gentiles, mamzerim, or the like, even if most of the inhabitants of the city from which they came were acceptable, we are suspect regarding her [status]. Perhaps she engaged in relations with a person who would disqualify her. Hence, the initial and preferred option is for her not to marry a priest. (Even HaEzer 6:17). That source, however, also cites the view of the Tur and other Rishonim which maintains that if she states that the person with whom she engaged in relations are acceptable and the majority of the people are acceptable, she may marry into the priesthood at the outset. The Beit Shmuel 6:31 also cites a third, more lenient view. If she marries one, she need not divorce. 6:32). [This ruling also applies] if most of the inhabitants of the locale were unacceptable even though most of the passersby were acceptable.

רָאוּהָ שֶׁנִּבְעֲלָה בָּעִיר אוֹ נִתְעַבְּרָה בָּעִיר אֲפִלּוּ לֹא הָיָה שׁוֹכֵן שָׁם אֶלָּא עַכּוּ"ם אֶחָד אוֹ חָלָל אֶחָד וְעֶבֶד וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן הֲרֵי זוֹ לֹא תִּנָּשֵׂא לְכַתְּחִלָּה לְכֹהֵן. שֶׁכָּל הַקָּבוּעַ כְּמֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה הוּא. וְאִם נִשֵּׂאת לֹא תֵּצֵא הוֹאִיל וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת לְכָשֵׁר נִבְעַלְתִּי:

If we saw that she engaged in relations in a city or she became pregnant in a city, [more stringent rules apply]. Even if there was only one gentile, challal, servant, or the like dwelling in the city, the initial and preferred option is that she not marry a priest. [The rationale is that] whenever entities are in their permanent locale, [probability is not taken into consideration. Instead, all doubts] are considered as equally balanced. explains the Rambam's ruling as follows: When the woman goes to the unacceptable man for relations, he is considered as in his established place and hence, the doubt is considered equally balanced. Even when the unacceptable man comes to the woman for relations - in which instance, he has been separated from his natural place, and hence the principles of probability should apply - we rule stringently. This is a safeguard, lest one rule leniently when the woman goes to the man.The Tur (Even HaEzer 6) rules more leniently, maintaining that if the man comes to the woman, we follow the principles of probability. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 6:18) mentions both views without stating which one should be followed. If she already married [a priest], she need not be divorced because she says: "I engaged in relations with an acceptable man."

הָיְתָה אִלֶּמֶת אוֹ חֵרֶשֶׁת אוֹ שֶׁאָמְרָה אֵינִי יוֹדַעַת לְמִי נִבְעַלְתִּי אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה קְטַנָּה שֶׁאֵינָהּ מַכֶּרֶת בֵּין כָּשֵׁר לְפָסוּל הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק זוֹנָה. וְאִם נִשֵּׂאת לְכֹהֵן תֵּצֵא אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיוּ שְׁנֵי הָרֻבִּין הַמְּצוּיִין אֶצְלָהּ כְּשֵׁרִים:

When a woman is dumb, deaf, she says: "I don't know the identity of the man with whom I engaged in relations," or she was a minor that cannot differentiate between a man who is acceptable and one who is not, she is considered as a zonah of questionable status.). A child born from these relations is considered a mamzer of questionable status, as stated in Chapter 15, Halachah 12. [After the fact,] if she married a priest, she must be divorced unless there is a twofold majority of men with whom she could have engaged in relations that are acceptable.

הַשְּׁבוּיָה שֶׁנִּפְדֵּית וְהִיא בַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד אוֹ יֶתֶר אֲסוּרָה לְכֹהֵן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא סְפֵק זוֹנָה שֶׁמָּא נִבְעֲלָה לְעַכּוּ"ם. וְאִם יֵשׁ לָהּ עֵד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְיַחֵד הָעַכּוּ"ם עִמָּהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה לִכְהֻנָּה. וַאֲפִלּוּ עֶבֶד אוֹ שִׁפְחָה אוֹ קָרוֹב נֶאֱמָן לְעֵדוּת זוֹ. וּשְׁתֵּי שְׁבוּיוֹת שֶׁהֵעִידָה כָּל אַחַת מֵהֶן לַחֲבֶרְתָּהּ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נֶאֱמָנוֹת. הוֹאִיל וְאִסּוּר כָּל הַסְּפֵקוֹת כֻּלָּן מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים לְפִיכָךְ הֵקֵלּוּ בִּשְׁבוּיָה:

When a woman taken captive is redeemed and she is three years old or more, she is forbidden to [marry] a priest, because there is a question whether she is a zonah. Perhaps a gentile engaged in relations with her.If there is a witness that a gentile did not enter into seclusion with her, she is acceptable to the priesthood. Even a servant, a maid-servant, or a relative 7:1; Beit Shmuel 7:3). is acceptable with regard to this testimony. [Moreover,] when two women who were taken captive give testimony on behalf of each other, their word is accepted. [The rationale is] that all the prohibitions involving questionable situations are of Rabbinic origin. Therefore they ruled leniently with regard to a woman taken captive.

וְכֵן קָטָן שֶׁהָיָה מֵסִיחַ לְפִי תֻּמּוֹ נֶאֱמָן. מַעֲשֵׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּה הוּא וְאִמּוֹ וּבְנָהּ מֵסִיחַ לְפִי תֻּמּוֹ וְאָמַר נִשְׁבֵּינוּ לְבֵין הָעַכּוּ"ם אֲנִי וְאִמִּי יָצָאתִי לִשְׁאֹב מַיִם וְדַעְתִּי עַל אִמִּי לִלְקֹט עֵצִים וְדַעְתִּי עַל אִמִּי. וְהִשִּׂיאוּ אוֹתָהּ חֲכָמִים לְכֹהֵן עַל פִּיו:

Similarly, a minor who states [that a woman was not touched by her captors] in the course of conversation., Chapter 13, and commentaries.There are authorities (Rabbenu Nissim) who maintain that a child's word is also accepted when he gives testimony directly. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 7:1) also quotes that view although he appears to favor the above perspective. An incident occurred with regard to a child who was captured together with his mother. In the course of conversation, he said: "My mother and I were captured by the gentiles. When I went out to draw water from the well, I was thinking about my mother. [When I went] to gather wood, I was thinking about my mother." Our Sages [permitted] her to marry a priest because of his words.

אֵין הַבַּעַל נֶאֱמָן לְהָעִיד בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ הַשְּׁבוּיָה שֶׁלֹּא נִטְמְאָה. שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מֵעִיד לְעַצְמוֹ. וְכֵן שִׁפְחָתָהּ לֹא תָּעִיד לָהּ. אֲבָל שִׁפְחַת בַּעְלָהּ מְעִידָה לָהּ. וְשִׁפְחָתָהּ שֶׁהָיְתָה מְסִיחָה לְפִי תֻּמָּהּ נֶאֱמֶנֶת:

A husband's word is not accepted if he testifies; Beit Shmuel 7:4). The Rama (Even HaEzer 7:2), however, mentions opinions that grant leniency when he makes such statements in the course of conversation. that his wife who was taken captive was not defiled. (Even HaEzer 7:2)]. Similarly, her maid-servant may not testify on her behalf. A maid-servant belonging to her husband, however, may testify on her behalf. And statements made by her maid-servant in the midst of conversation are accepted.

כֹּהֵן שֶׁהֵעִיד לִשְׁבוּיָה שֶׁהִיא טְהוֹרָה הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִשָּׂאֶנָּה שֶׁמָּא עֵינָיו נָתַן בָּהּ. וְאִם פְּדָאָהּ וְהֵעִיד בָּהּ הֲרֵי זֶה יִשָּׂאֶנָּה. שֶׁאִלּוּ לֹא יָדַע שֶׁהִיא טְהוֹרָה לֹא נָתַן בָּהּ מְעוֹתָיו:

When a priest testifies that a woman who had been taken captive is pure, he may not marry her. [We suspect that] he focused his attention on her. 7:6, Beit Shmuel 7:7). If he redeemed her and testified on her behalf, he may marry her, for if he did not know that she was pure, he would not have paid money on her behalf. 36b).

הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָמְרָה נִשְׁבֵּיתִי וּטְהוֹרָה אֲנִי נֶאֱמֶנֶת שֶׁהַפֶּה שֶׁאָסַר הוּא הַפֶּה שֶׁהִתִּיר אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה שָׁם עֵד אֶחָד שֶׁמֵּעִיד שֶׁהִיא שְׁבוּיָה. אֲבָל אִם יֵשׁ שָׁם שְׁנֵי עֵדִים שֶׁנִּשְׁבֵּית אֵינָהּ נֶאֱמֶנֶת עַד שֶׁיָּעִיד לָהּ אֶחָד שֶׁהִיא טְהוֹרָה. הָיוּ שָׁם שְׁנֵי עֵדִים שֶׁנִּשְׁבֵּית וְעֵד אֶחָד מֵעִיד שֶׁנִּטְמֵאת וְאֶחָד מַכְחִישׁ אוֹתוֹ וּמֵעִיד לָהּ שֶׁהִיא טְהוֹרָה וְלֹא נִתְיַחֵד עִמָּהּ עַכּוּ"ם עַד שֶׁנִּפְדֵּית. אֲפִלּוּ זֶה שֶׁמֵּעִיד שֶׁהִיא טְהוֹרָה אִשָּׁה אוֹ שִׁפְחָה הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת:

When a woman says: "I was taken captive, but I am pure," her word is accepted. [The rationale is] that the mouth that forbid her granted her license. [This applies] even if there is one witness who testifies that she was taken captive. 23b), the Beit Shmuel 7:8 states that this applies even if the witness testifies that the woman was defiled. If, however, there are two witnesses who testify that she was taken captive, her word is not accepted unless one person testifies that she is pure.If there were two witnesses who testified that she was taken captive, one witness who testifies that she was defiled and another who contradicts his statements and testifies that she is pure and that a gentile did not enter into seclusion with her until she was redeemed, she is permitted. states that this applies even if the witness who testified that she was defiled testified first. Although one might think that once the first witness testifies, her status would be established as forbidden, our Sages ruled leniently with regard to a woman taken captive. [This applies] even if the one who testifies that she is pure is a woman or a maid-servant.

מִי שֶׁאָמְרָה נִשְׁבֵּיתִי וּטְהוֹרָה אֲנִי וְהִתִּירוּהָ בֵּית דִּין לְהִנָּשֵׂא וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּאוּ שְׁנֵי עֵדִים שֶׁנִּשְׁבֵּית הֲרֵי זוֹ תִּנָּשֵׂא לְכַתְּחִלָּה וְלֹא תֵּצֵא מֵהֶתֵּרָהּ. וַאֲפִלּוּ נִכְנַס אַחֲרֶיהָ שַׁבַּאי וַהֲרֵי הִיא שְׁבוּיָה לְפָנֵינוּ בְּיַד אֲדוֹנֶיהָ הֲרֵי זוֹ לֹא תֵּצֵא מֵהֶתֵּרָהּ שֶׁהִתִּירוּהָ. וּמְשַׁמְּרִין אוֹתָהּ מֵעַתָּה עַד שֶׁתִּפָּדֶה:

When a woman stated: "I was taken captive, but I am pure," and a court granted her license to marry [a priest], she may marry [one] as an initial and preferred option. Her license is not revoked [even if] afterwards two witnesses come and testify that she was taken captive. Even if her captor enters afterwards and we see that she is a captive under his dominion, her license [to marry a priest] is not revoked. We provide her with protection until she is redeemed. 23a relates, the daughters of the Sage Shmuel were taken captive. They were transported to Eretz Yisrael. They told their captors to wait for them outside and entered the court of Rabbi Chaninah and said: "We were taken captive, but we are pure." The Sages permitted them to marry into the priesthood.

בָּאוּ לָהּ שְׁנֵי עֵדִים אַחַר כָּךְ שֶׁנִּטְמֵאת אֲפִלּוּ נִשֵּׂאת וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיוּ לָהּ בָּנִים הֲרֵי זוֹ תֵּצֵא. וְאִם בָּא עֵד אֶחָד אֵינוֹ כְּלוּם. אָמְרָה נִשְׁבֵּיתִי וּטְהוֹרָה אֲנִי וְיֵשׁ לִי עֵדִים שֶׁאֲנִי טְהוֹרָה אֵין אוֹמְרִין נַמְתִּין עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ הָעֵדִים אֶלָּא מַתִּירִין אוֹתָהּ מִיָּד. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא אֲפִלּוּ יָצָא עָלֶיהָ קוֹל שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלֶיהָ עֵדֵי טֻמְאָה מַתִּירִין אוֹתָהּ עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ. שֶׁבִּשְׁבוּיָה הֵקֵלּוּ:

If two witnesses came and stated that [a woman] was defiled, even if she had married and even if she bore children [to her husband, the priest], she must be divorced. If one witness came and testified [that she was defiled], his testimony is of no consequence. 7:9 and the Beit Shmuel 7:12 states that even if the witness came after she was given license to marry into the priesthood, but before she actually married, his testimony is of no consequence and the license is not rescinded. This applies even if witnesses had also come and testified that she had been held captive.If the woman says, "I was taken captive, but I am pure, and I have witnesses that I am pure," we do not say: "Let us wait until the witnesses come." Instead, we grant her license [to marry into the priesthood] immediately. Moreover, even if a rumor is circulated that there are witnesses that she was defiled, 7:11 quotes the Ritbah who maintains that this ruling applies even if the rumor was substantiated in court. As long as there is not actually testimony, her status remains unchanged. we grant her license [to marry into the priesthood] until the witnesses come. [The rationale is that] we are lenient with regard to a woman taken captive.

הָאָב שֶׁאָמַר קִדַּשְׁתִּי אֶת בִּתִּי וְגֵרַשְׁתִּיהָ וַהֲרֵי הִיא קְטַנָּה נֶאֱמָן. קִדַּשְׁתִּיהָ וְגֵרַשְׁתִּיהָ כְּשֶׁהָיְתָה קְטַנָּה וַהֲרֵי הִיא גְּדוֹלָה אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן לְהַחֲזִיקָהּ גְּרוּשָׁה. נִשְׁבֵּית וּפְדִיתִיהָ בֵּין שֶׁהִיא גְּדוֹלָה בֵּין שֶׁהִיא קְטַנָּה אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. שֶׁלֹּא הֶאֱמִינָה אוֹתוֹ תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא לְאָסְרָהּ מִשּׁוּם אִישׁוּת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כב טז) "אֶת בִּתִּי נָתַתִּי לָאִישׁ הַזֶּה". אֲבָל לֹא לְפָסְלָהּ מִשּׁוּם זְנוּת:

When a father states: "I consecrated my daughter and I had her divorced," 3:11 (see also 9:10). [as long as] she is a minor," his word is accepted. "I consecrated my daughter and I had her divorced while she was a minor," when she is past majority, his word is not accepted with regard to her being considered as a divorcee. 64a).[When he says,] "She was held captive and I redeemed her," his word is not accepted whether she is a minor or past majority. For the Torah deems him trustworthy only with regard to having her forbidden because of marriage, for it is written [Deuteronomy 22:16]: "I gave my daughter to this man," but not to have her disqualified as a zonah. 7:15 explains that we do not accept his word based on the principle of miggo. To explain: one might think that since the father's word would be accepted were he to claim that he consecrated her and had her divorced, we accept his word if he claims that she was taken captive, for had he desired to lie, he could have claimed that she was divorced. We do not follow that argument, because the statement that she was taken captive involves a more encompassing prohibition, causing her to be forbidden to partake of terumah as well as being forbidden to marry a priest.

אֵשֶׁת כֹּהֵן שֶׁנֶּאֶסְרָה עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּיָה הוֹאִיל וְהַדָּבָר סָפֵק הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת לָדוּר עִמּוֹ בֶּחָצֵר אֶחָד וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ עִמּוֹ בָּנָיו וּבְנֵי בֵּיתוֹ תָּמִיד לְשָׁמְרוֹ:

When the wife of a priest is forbidden to him because she was taken captive, [we grant a leniency]. Since [the prohibition was instituted because] of a doubt, (Even HaEzer 7) states that, based on the Rambam's statements, if there are witnesses that the woman was defiled, this leniency is not granted. she is permitted to dwell together with him in the same courtyard, provided his children and the members of his household will always be there to watch him.

עִיר שֶׁבָּאָה בְּמָצוֹר וְנִכְבְּשָׁה אִם הָיוּ הָעַכּוּ"ם מַקִּיפִין אֶת הָעִיר מִכָּל רוּחוֹתֶיהָ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִּמָּלֵט אִשָּׁה אַחַת עַד שֶׁיִּרְאוּ אוֹתָהּ וְתֵעָשֶׂה בִּרְשׁוּתָן הֲרֵי כָּל הַנָּשִׁים שֶׁבְּתוֹכָהּ פְּסוּלוֹת לִכְהֻנָּה כִּשְׁבוּיוֹת שֶׁמָּא נִבְעֲלוּ לְעַכּוּ"ם. אֶלָּא מִי שֶׁהָיְתָה מִבַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וּלְמַטָּה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:

[The following laws apply when] a city was held under siege and conquered. If the gentiles surrounded the city from all sides so that it was impossible for [even] one woman to escape 27b. There are several other interpretations of that passage. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 7:10) quotes the Rambam's view, but also that of dissenting authorities. See also Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 12:24 which states a ruling dependent on the same passage. without being seen and placed under their dominion, all of the women in [the city] are forbidden [to marry into] the priesthood. They are considered as if they were held captive for perhaps they were raped by gentiles. [The only exception] are those less than three years old as explained.

וְאִם הָיָה אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁתִּמָּלֵט אִשָּׁה אַחַת וְלֹא יֵדְעוּ בָּהּ אוֹ שֶׁתִּהְיֶה בָּעִיר מַחֲבוֹאָה אַחַת אֲפִלּוּ אֵינָהּ מַחְזֶקֶת אֶלָּא אִשָּׁה אַחַת הֲרֵי זוֹ מַצֶּלֶת עַל הַכּל:

If it was possible for one of the woman to escape without being detected or there was one hiding place in the city - even if it could hold only one woman - it saves all [the women from being deemed forbidden].. As stated in the following halachah, had she desired to lie, instead of saying merely that she was not molested, she could have claimed to have escaped or have hidden.

כֵּיצַד מַצֶּלֶת. שֶׁכָּל אִשָּׁה שֶׁאָמְרָה טְהוֹרָה אֲנִי נֶאֱמֶנֶת. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לָהּ עֵד מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיְּכוֹלָה לוֹמַר נִמְלַטְתִּי כְּשֶׁנִּכְבְּשָׁה הָעִיר אוֹ בְּמַחֲבוֹאָה הָיִיתִי וְנִצַּלְתִּי נֶאֱמֶנֶת לוֹמַר לֹא נִמְלַטְתִּי וְלֹא נֶחְבֵּאתִי וְלֹא נִטְמֵאתִי:

How does it save [the women from being deemed forbidden]? The word of every woman who claims "I am pure" is accepted. Since she could have said: "I escaped when the city was conquered," or "I was in a hiding place and I was saved," her word is accepted if she says: "I did not escape, nor did I hide, but I was not defiled." 7:15 which state that the Rambam's words imply that the woman must come to court and make these statements to be granted license to marry into the priesthood. They also mention Rabbenu Nissim's view that does not require this measure, but instead permits all women in these situations to marry into the priesthood automatically.

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּגְדוּד שֶׁל אוֹתָהּ מַלְכוּת שֶׁהֵם מִתְיַשְּׁבִין בָּעִיר וְאֵין יְרֵאִין לְפִיכָךְ חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהֶם שֶׁמָּא בָּעֲלוּ. אֲבָל גְּדוּד שֶׁל מַלְכוּת אַחֶרֶת שֶׁפָּשַׁט וְשָׁטַף וְעָבַר לֹא נֶאֶסְרוּ הַנָּשִׁים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם פְּנַאי לִבְעל שֶׁהֵן עוֹסְקִים בַּשָּׁלָל וּבוֹרְחִין לָהֶם. וְאִם שָׁבוּ נָשִׁים וְנַעֲשׂוּ בִּרְשׁוּתָן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרָדְפוּ אַחֲרֵיהֶם יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהִצִּילוּ אוֹתָן מִיָּדָם הֲרֵי הֵן אֲסוּרוֹת:

When does the above apply? With regard to a battalion from that country who settle in the city and are not afraid. Therefore we fear that they raped the women. With regard to a battalion from another country, which swept through the city, pillaged and passed on, the women are not forbidden. [The rationale is that] they do not have time to rape, because they are busy gathering spoil and fleeing. maintains that even when the conquering army is from another country, if they remain in the city for a longer period, the women are forbidden from marrying into the priesthood. We suspect that since there was no immediate pressure to flee, the soldiers may have raped the local women. If, however, they took the women captive and they were under their dominion, they are forbidden [to the priesthood] even though Jews pursue [the battalion] and rescued [the women] from them.).

הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנֶחְבְּשָׁה בְּיַד עַכּוּ"ם עַל יְדֵי מָמוֹן מֻתֶּרֶת. עַל יְדֵי נְפָשׁוֹת אֲסוּרָה לִכְהֻנָּה וּלְפִיכָךְ אִם הָיָה בַּעְלָהּ כֹּהֵן נֶאֶסְרָה עָלָיו. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּזְמַן שֶׁיַּד יִשְׂרָאֵל תַּקִּיפָה עַל הָעַכּוּ"ם וְהֵם יְרֵאִין מֵהֶם. אֲבָל בִּזְמַן שֶׁיַּד הָעַכּוּ"ם תַּקִּיפָה אֲפִלּוּ עַל יְדֵי מָמוֹן כֵּיוָן שֶׁנַּעֲשֵׂית בִּרְשׁוּת הָעַכּוּ"ם נֶאֶסְרָה אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הֵעִיד לָהּ אֶחָד כִּשְׁבוּיָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:

When a woman was imprisoned because of financial matters, she is permitted [to marry into the priesthood]. 7:11)]. These laws apply not only to jails, but instances when women are held captive by men for other reasons. When she is imprisoned with regard to matters involving capital punishment, she is forbidden to the priesthood. Therefore if her husband is a priest, she is forbidden to him. (Even HaEzer 7:11). The Ramah quotes the opinion of Rabbenu Asher and other Ashkenazic authorities who maintain that a woman would be forbidden to even an Israelite husband for the reasons stated above. He does, however, mention more lenient views.When does the above apply? When the Jews have power over the gentiles and they are afraid of them. When, by contrast, the gentiles are in power, even when a woman is imprisoned because of financial matters, she is forbidden since she was taken under the dominion of the gentiles unless there is a witness who testifies on her behalf as is the law regarding a woman taken captive, as explained above.