Introduction Two more testimonies, both of which deal in some way with marital law.
Rabbi Judah ben Baba and Rabbi Judah the priest testified concerning a minor, the daughter of an Israelite who married a priest, that she could eat terumah as soon as she entered the bridal chamber even though she had not engaged in marital intercourse. According to the Torah when a woman from an Israelite family marries a priest she may eat terumah, food which is normally reserved for the priests. However, the question must be asked, when is the marriage considered valid such that she may eat terumah? Furthermore, this question must also be asked with regards to a minor girl, who was married off by her mother or brother. As we learned in mishnah 7:9, this type of marriage is not valid deoraita (from the Torah) and is only a rabbinic institution. Therefore, if she is not married according to the Torah, when can she eat terumah, a right normally reserved for those married deoraita? [We learned in 7:9 that when married she can eat terumah.] This is an important question, since the penalty for a non-priest who eats terumah is quite harsh (death by the hands of heaven). Our mishnah teaches that she may eat terumah once she has entered the bridal chamber (huppah) even though she has not yet had relations with her husband. She may not eat, however, while she is merely betrothed, a period that could last a year or even more.
Rabbi Yose the priest and Rabbi Zechariah ben Hakatzav testified concerning a young girl who had been taken as collateral (by in Ashkelon, and that her family had distanced her, even though her witnesses testified that she had not secluded herself [with any Man] and that she had not been defiled. The Sages said to them: if you believe that she had been taken as collateral, believe also that she did not seclude herself [with any man] and that she was not defiled; and if you do not believe that she did not seclude herself and that she was not defiled, neither believe that she had been taken as collateral. In the sad case under discussion in this mishnah a girl is taken by gentile debt collectors as security on a debt that a Jewish family owes them. The family, assuming that the girl has been raped by the gentiles, distances themselves from her. This “distancing” means that they refused to marry her (those in the family that would have been eligible to marry her, such as uncles and cousins), even though there was no law that prevented them from doing so. This family distanced her even though she had witnesses who testified that she had not been so much as secluded with a gentile, let alone raped. The Sages respond to this family that their position vis-a-vis the girl is illogical. If they believed the witnesses that she had been taken as collateral, then they must believe the same witnesses who testify that she had not been raped. If they don’t believe the witnesses that she had not been raped, then they shouldn’t believe them that she had been taken in the first place. The Sages do not tolerate the family’s overly stringent and extremely cruel position. While the Sages did believe that under certain circumstances, a girl who had been raped could no longer marry certain men (priests), they did not seek to compound this difficult situation by assuming that this had happened when witnesses testify explicitly that it had not. The family’s distancing the girl is a case of a stringency run amok, and one against which the Sages rightly put down their halakhic feet.