(a) Rashi 27a DH Hurhenah explains that at that time the secular law was that one could take a person as a collateral for a loan. It appears from Rashi that according to Torah law one may not do such a thing. Possibly the reason for this is that when the woman is handed over as a security, this effectively means making her into a slave, for which one needs a proper transaction (even if she was handed over to Jews), which does not occur when she is simply handed over as a security.

(b) It seems to me that the woman can refuse to be used as a security, since it is evident from the Gemara that there is genuine possibility that she might be raped by her Nochri captors. (In fact, it is not clear how she would be allowed to consent to being handed over.)

(The Rashi cited above writes that she was handed over "mi'Da'as" - voluntarily. This would seem to imply that she can refuse, as I wrote above. However one could say that Rashi means she was handed over with the will of the people who took the loan -- but she herself did not necessarily agree. Nevertheless, I still maintain that she can refuse for the above reason.)

(c) The above-mentioned Rashi states that if the time of the loan arrives and the debt has not been paid up, the woman belongs to the Ovdei Kochavim. Rashba states even more emphatically that she belongs "entirely" to them. I think that this is another good reason to assume that one needs the woman's consent before one can make her into a security, as I wrote above. Presumably, the woman agreed to be made into a security because she was confident that the debt would be paid on time. It is likely that public pressure was also involved, because the public wanted to receive the loan from the Nochrim.

KOL TUV

Dovid Bloom

Upon reviewing the Sugya, it seems clear to me that the people in Ashkelon who handed over the woman committed a transgression in doing so. A couple of source can be cited to prove this.

1. The Mishnah Terumos 8:12 states that one is not allowed to hand over a Jewish woman to the Nochrim because they may defile her.

2. Even if one might say that there is no proof from the above Mishnah in which the Nochrim were threatening explicitly to defile her, nevertheless proof can be brought from the Mishnah Avodah Zarah 22a, in which we find that a woman is forbidden to be alone with Nochrim because they are suspect of immoral behavior.

This leads us to the conclusion that a woman may not be handed to Nochrim as a security for a debt, and that she certainly may refuse. In the case in the Gemara, the people who handed her over went against the Halachah.

KOL TUV

D. Bloom