Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Musar 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

Shenei Luchot HaBerit

"The Torah permitted the marriage with the אשת יפת תואר only in order to help the soldier in question cope with his evil urge." There are many things which have been permitted: Not because they are objectively permissible, i.e. desirable for us to enjoy, but because, were the Torah to forbid these things altogether, we might well become guilty of far greater transgressions. For example: it is better to eat an animal which has first been slaughtered though the blade of the knife may have been nicked, than to eat an animal which has died without the benefit of ritual slaughter altogether. Anyone who has some common sense will appreciate that just because the Torah appears to have made a concession to the fact that we are not angels and suffer from an evil urge, this is no reason to avail ourselves of any or all of these "concessions" to our moral weakness. The latter principle is known as קדש עצמך במותר לך, "demonstrate your attempt to sanctify yourself by abstaining from matter which is technically permissible."
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse