Una mujer cautiva [es decir, la esposa de un Cohein, que había sido tomada cautiva], come terumah [y no tememos que el gentil viviera con ella y la convirtiera en una zonah, a quien terumah está prohibido.] Estas son las palabras de R. Dossa. Y los sabios dicen: hay una mujer cautiva que come, y una mujer cautiva que no come. ¿Cómo es eso? Come una mujer que dice: "Me llevaron cautiva, pero estoy limpia". Porque "la lengua que prohíbe" [es decir, su dicho "Me llevaron cautivo"] es la lengua que permite, [cuando ella dice "pero estoy limpio". ] Y si hubo testigos [de que fue llevada cautiva], y ella dice "Estoy limpia", no come.
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
שבויה – the wife of a Kohen who was taken captive (also, the daughter of a Kohen).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
A female captive may eat of terumah, according to the words of Rabbi Dosa b. Harkinas. But the Sages say: “There is a female captive who may eat, and there is a female captive who may not eat. How is this so? The woman who said: ‘I was taken captive but [nonetheless] I am pure’, she may eat; because the mouth that forbade is the same mouth that permit. But if there are witnesses [who declare] that she was made a captive, and she says: ‘[nonetheless] I am pure’, she may not eat.” This mishnah discusses a woman who was married to a priest or an unmarried daughter of a priest who is taken captive. These two types of women, prior to having been taken captive, could certainly have eaten terumah. According to the halakhah, a woman who has had sexual relations, even against her will, with someone with whom it is forbidden to do so, can no longer eat terumah. The issue in our mishnah is, do we assume that a woman who was taken captive by a non-Jew was raped by the non-Jew and therefore can no longer eat terumah. According to Rabbi Dosa, we do not make such an assumption, and she may continue to eat terumah unless there is evidence that she has been raped. According to the Sages, this is not always true. Her ability to eat terumah will depend on the circumstances in which the court found out that she had been taken captive. If she came in front of the court and stated that she had been taken captive but that she was still pure, i.e. she had not been violated by the captor, she may continue to eat terumah. This is due to a legal principle known as “the mouth that forbade is the same mouth that permit”. It means that if a person makes a statement that is to his own detriment and then makes another related statement to his benefit, he is believed in both statements. Since he could have said nothing, and thereby not aroused any suspicion about himself, he is believed when he exculpates himself from that suspicion. For instance, if Reuven says to Shimon, “this piece of land of mine used to be your father’s but now he sold it to me.” Reuven is admitting that the land he owns was not always his, but he also says that he bought it. Telling Shimon that it was his father’s is “forbidding” it and stating that he bought it is “permitting” it. In our case, if the woman says that she was taken captive, she has “forbidden” herself by creating a suspicion that she may have had relations with the captor. When she says that she did not she is believed. However, if there are witnesses who testify that she had been taken captive, then when she denies having been violated by the captor, she is not believed. Since she did not “forbid” but rather the witnesses did, the rule of “the mouth that forbade is the same mouth that permit” is not applicable here.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
אוכלת בתרומה – and we don’t suspect lest a heathen came upon her and made her a harlot nad invalidated her from the Terumah/priest’s due.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
שהפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר (this section of the Mishnah is taught in Tractate Ketubot, Chapter 2, Mishnah 5) – just as they believed her when she said: “I had been taken captive,” so one is able to believe her when she says, “and I am pure.
