Responsa 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
Maharach Or Zarua Responsa
R. Hayyim Eliezer then writes that when he was visited by R. Levi, the latter filled in the following details, concerning the case:
A, who was critically ill, was instructed [by R. Levi] that he must issue a divorce to his wife effective as of now, without any stipulations whatsoever. A agreed to abide by all the instructions [of R. Levi]. However, A petitioned that his wife should not wed anyone else but should remarry him, upon his recovery.
R. Levi thereupon asked A's wife whether she would agree to A's request, and she replied in the affirmative. R. Levi thereupon asked A whether the latter wanted to issue the divorce, effective as of now, and A agreed. The divorce was issued, and subsequent to the interval needed for an utterance to take effect, A cried out, "If I die, the divorce shall take effect as of now, on condition that my wife would have to remarry me, upon my recovery". Were it not for the fact that R. Levi instructed A to announce "If I die, the divorce should take effect as of now", A would have remained silent, and would not have added the stipulation which required his wife to remarry him upon his recovery.