Commentary for Kiddushin 42:21
ת"ר וראית בשביה בשעת שביה אשת ואפילו אשת איש יפת תואר לא דברה תורה אלא כנגד יצר הרע מוטב שיאכלו ישראל בשר
Is it an anomaly.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a new,' unexpected law.');"><sup>30</sup></span> and so there is no difference between priests and Israelites: or perhaps. priests are different, since the Writ imposes additional precepts upon them? - Rab said: He is permitted; while Samuel maintained, He is forbidden. With respect to the first intercourse there is universal agreement that it is permitted, since the Torah only provided<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'spoke'.');"><sup>31</sup></span> for man's evil passions;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The permission to take a beautiful captive is a concession to human failings, which priests share equally with Israelites.');"><sup>32</sup></span> their dispute refers to the second intercourse. Rab ruled: It is permitted; and Samuel ruled,it is forbidden. Rab ruled: It is permitted: since it was [once] allowed, it remains so. But Samuel said, it is forbidden; because she is a proselyte, and so ineligible to [marry] a priest. Others state, with respect to the second intercourse it is generally agreed that it is forbidden, since she is a proselyte. Their dispute refers to the first intercourse: Rab maintained, It is permitted, since the Torah only provided for man's evil passions. Whilst Samuel ruled: that it is forbidden: where one can read, then thou shalt bring her home to thine house,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXI, 12, i.e., take her permanently.');"><sup>33</sup></span> we also read, and seest among the captives. [etc.];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 11; i.e., permission to satisfy one's lust.');"><sup>34</sup></span> but where we cannot read: 'Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house,' we do not read: 'and seest among the captives [etc.].' Our Rabbis taught: 'And thou seest among the captives' - when taking her captive;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Permission is granted only if the woman was originally taken for lust, but not if she was taken for enslavement.');"><sup>35</sup></span> a woman - even married; 'of beautiful countenance' - the Torah only provided for human passions: it is better for Israel to eat flesh of
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
1) This rule applies only when in war. This is not something that can be done in peace time.
2) The rule applies even if she is already married to a non-Jewish man.
3) The reason that the Torah calls her beautiful is that it realizes the evil inclination of men. The Torah preferred to the lesser evil of basically forced marriage to what would basically be rape. This is a concession, not an ideal
4) While the Torah calls her beautiful, the law applies to any woman the man desires.
5) The soldier can only take one such wife, not two.
6) He must marry her (after the first intercourse).
7) He cannot take two women, one for him and one for a family member.
8) He cannot have sex with her there on the battlefield. He must bring her home.
Note that while there is still much that is disturbing in these laws (what about her consent?) the rabbis do seem to be modifying the Torah’s rulings such that the situation is slightly better for her.