Midrash 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.');">³⁰</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'.');">³¹</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.');">³²</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.');">³³</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.');">³⁴</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.');">³⁵</span> a woman - even married; 'of beautiful countenance' - the Torah only provided for human passions: it is better for Israel to eat flesh of

Explore midrash for Kiddushin 42:21. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.