Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 13:57:39 +0000 Reply-To: yhe@virtual.co.il Sender: owner-yhe-parsha@virtual.co.il Precedence: bulk From: "Yeshivat Har Etzion" To: "VBM - Parashat Hashavua by Yeshivat Har Etzion Faculty" Subject: PARSHA - 48: PARASHAT KI TETZE YESHIVAT HAR ETZION ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH (VBM) ************************************************************** PARASHAT HASHAVUA PARASHAT KI TETZE The "Beautiful Captive" by Rav Mordechai Sabato ************************************************************** In loving memory of our dear father and granddad, Milton C. Kurland z"l, on his yahrzeit, 6th of Elul, by Sam, Judy, Yehuda, Shira, and Pearl Biber. ************************************************************** ************************************************************** In memory of Mr. Hy Rock z"l, father of Simcha Rock, grandfather of Yehuda Rock - by Judy and Lawrence Rosman. ************************************************************** Chazal explain the reasoning behind the parsha of "yefat to'ar" (the beautiful woman captive) as follows (Kiddushin 21b): "The Torah permits this only as a compromise to the yetzer ha-ra. For it is better that Israel eat kosher meat rather than neveila (non-kosher) meat." In the Midrash Tana'im on Devarim (edition of Rav Hoffman, p.127) this is illustrated further by the following parable: "A youth, born into nobility, desired a certain thing which he was not permitted to have. His father tried to convince him, saying, 'My son - if you partake of that now, it will harm you.' When he saw that his son was taking no heed, he said, 'Do such and such, and then it will not harm you.' Likewise the Israelite soldier is commanded, 'Remove the captive's garment from upon her....'" A. Rashi This reasoning is brought by Rashi in his commentary on Devarim: "'And you shall take her unto you as a wife' - the Torah only permits this in the context of the yetzer ha-ra, for if God would not permit her to him, he would marry her anyway despite the prohibition. But if he marries her he will end up hating her..." (Devarim 12:10). Following in the footsteps of the Sifri, Rashi understands the continuation of the parasha accordingly: "'And she shall do her nails' - i.e., grow them long until she becomes distasteful. 'And she shall remove her garment of captivity' - for these garments are beautiful; the gentile maidens used to dress and decorate themselves in the midst of the battle in order to lead others astray. 'And she shall sit in your house' - in the house which is his usual habitation, such that when he comes in he sees her and when he goes out he sees her, he sees her crying, he sees her distastefulness, in order that she become disgraceful in his eyes. 'And she shall cry for her father...' - why? In order that a Jewish maiden will appear joyful and this girl sad; the Jewish maiden pretty and this girl disgraceful. 'And it shall be that if he does not desire her' - the Torah is already informing you that in the end you will hate her." According to the above understanding it would appear that this parasha comes to teach us that the Torah permits marriage to a gentile woman in a battlefield situation, even though in general it is prohibited, but is not happy with the idea. For this reason, the permission to marry the woman is dependent on the fulfillment of a whole string of stipulations, the collective purpose of which is to make her distasteful in his eyes and ultimately to prevent this marriage from taking place. Rashi does not comment on whether he believes that the Torah requires that the woman convert to Judaism or not. (Rashi to Kiddushin 22a: The marriage is valid, even though ... she does not convert of her own free will.") The Ramban, in his commentary on the Torah, states: "And the reason for this parasha is because she converts against her will; she is not asked whether she wishes to leave her religion and convert to Judaism as is the usual practice for converts. Here the husband tells her to observe the Torah of Israel - against her will - and to leave her beliefs." This understanding of the parasha is problematic for several reasons: 1. The Ramban has already commented on the beraita in the Sifri (which also appears in Yevamot 48a): "'And she shall shave her head and do her nails' - Rabbi Eliezer holds that 'do her nails' means to cut them, while Rabbi Akiva says to grow them long. Rabbi Eliezer said, 'the verb "do" is used with reference both to her head and to her nails. Since this 'do' in the case of her head means to remove (cut) the hair, likewise the same meaning holds true in reference to her nails.' Rabbi Akiva said, 'the verb "do" is used in reference to both her head and her nails. Just as what she is commanded to "do" to the hair of her head leads to her making herself unattractive, likewise what she is commanded to "do" to her nails also means to make herself unattractive.'" Proof for Rabbi Eliezer's words is to be found in Shmuel I 19,25, "And Mefiboshet son of Shaul came down towards the king; he did not do his legs nor did he do his mustache." The Ramban comments on this proof for Rabbi Eliezer's words that "it is a strong proof." 2. Rashi's explanation (originating in the Sifri) for the "garment of captivity," i.e., that it is a beautiful garment meant to lead others astray, is also problematic. For the "garment of captivity" is not the garment she was wearing when she went out to the battlefield or which she wore when she was taken captive. The "garment of captivity" refers to what she wears while she is in captivity. There can be no doubt that the Torah is referring to an unattractive garment. Similarly we find in the case of Yehoyakhin, king of Yehuda, when Evil- Merodakh, king of Babylon, let him out of jail, "he changed his clothes" (Melakhim II 25:29). 3. From Rashi it would appear that the words "and you shall take her unto you as a wife" represent the ultimate goal of the Torah's permit. But then it is not clear why the Torah places the actual permit at the very beginning of the parasha, before its dependent conditions. It would seem that this very problem led the Ibn Ezra to explain that these words form part of the description of the situation: "That you will desire her in order to take her as a wife". (The Ramban agrees with this explanation.) But the text itself doesn't seem to support this. 4. If the parasha is addressing the problem of marriage to a gentile woman, we must assume that the Torah has already introduced the general prohibition of such marriage and the process for conversion. It may be that this prohibition is included in the words, "You shall not intermarry with them" (Devarim 7:3). However, according to a simple understanding of the text, the Torah in the above verse is referring exclusively to the seven Canaanite nations (as is the opinion of Chazal, see Kiddushin 68b). Also, the conversion process is not specified anywhere in the Written Law. Hence, it is difficult to understand why the Torah on one hand conceals the general prohibition of marriage to a gentile and the process for conversion, while on the other hand addresses this special permissible case and this peculiar list of conversion requirements. B. Ramban In light of the first question Ramban differs from the opinion of Rashi, and explains that these actions are simply mourning customs: "Therefore I say that all of these are customs of mourning, and all of them pertain to the conclusion: "And she shall cry for her father and her mother." She is commanded to cut off her hair as is customary in mourning - compare "And he shore Iyov's head." Similarly, cutting of the fingernails is a sign of mourning. And the Torah says, "And she shall remove the garment of captivity from upon herself" - in other words, she shall don garments of mourning." In my opinion, the aim is not to make the woman unattractive in order to prevent the marriage from taking place, but rather to allow her to get used to her new religious and social status, in order to minimize the measure of coercion in her conversion. The Ramban's explanation also presents certain difficulties: a. Why should cutting the fingernails reflect a state of mourning? Even though the Ramban compares this to cutting off her hair, the two actions are not similar. After all, the Torah uses the phrase "do her nails," which reflects a positive action rather than something which spoils. b. It is not the removal of the garment of captivity which reflects a state of mourning but rather the donning of mourning clothes, and this action is omitted from the Torah's description. Moreover, some of the same problems which we encountered in the case of Rashi's explanation hold equally true for that of the Ramban. C. Rambam The Rambam (in Moreh Nevukhim 3:41) explains the whole parasha as being based on another reasoning altogether. In his opinion, the crux of the parasha is not its religio- national aspect but rather the moral-humanist one. Although the Rambam agrees that the nature of the actions undertaken by the captive woman reflect mourning and unattractiveness, their purpose is neither to prevent the marriage from taking place, as Rashi holds, nor to strengthen the commitment to conversion, as the Ramban maintains, but rather a simple humane concern for a woman prisoner of war, and consideration for her delicate emotional state: "... And likewise it is forbidden for him to unite with her a second time until her mourning has passed and her heartache subsided, and she must not be prevented from mourning and making herself unattractive and crying... because for mourners there is comfort in tears and experiencing their grief to the point where they no longer have the physical strength to bear their emotional pain... For this reason the Torah had mercy on her and permitted her this until she ceases crying and mourning." The Rambam finds proof for his view in the conclusion of the parasha: "And it shall be that if he does not desire her he shall set her free; he shall not sell her for money, nor shall he treat her as a slave, because he has afflicted her." Clearly, this halakha comes to address the issue of the captive's status and to limit the rights of the captor, and the Rambam expands this aim to encompass the entire parasha. D. The Problem of Captive Women in War I have no doubt that the parasha leans towards Rambam's interpretation, but we need to return to the text again and examine its details and wording. The permissibility of the first union with the captive woman (before he takes her home) does not sit well with the view that the parasha is taking care of the captive woman's rights. In the opinion of the Ramban, this permissibility is to be learned from the gemara (Kiddushin 21b), from the words "And you shall take her for yourself as a wife" which, as you remember, is mentioned before any of the details of the procedure which follows. However, the Ramban has already mentioned that "according to a simple understanding of the text it would appear that he is not permitted to unite with her until she completes this whole procedure." (The Rambam cites the opinion of R. Yochanan [Yerushalmi Makkot 2:6] as agreeing.) Indeed, the phrase "and you shall take her for yourself for a wife" would seem to refer not only at physical union but at marriage. Why, then, does the Torah use this phrase right at the beginning of the parasha, before the description of all the actions which are supposedly required before the marriage? In order to answer this question, let us remember that since time immemorial, women taken captive during war have been considered part of the spoil to which the soldiers are legitimately entitled ("Have they not found booty, a damsel or two for each man" - Shoftim 5:30), and it was customary to treat them as ownerless property, to be treated as one wished. The purpose of our parasha is precisely to counteract this practice. "And it shall come to pass when you go out to war, and you see in the spoils a beautiful woman and you shall desire her, you shall not treat her as ownerless property, as is customary among soldiers. The only legitimate means of fulfilling your desire is to take her as your wife." This is the main directive of our parasha, and for this reason it appears at the beginning of the whole discussion. It appears that this expression, "and you shall take her to you for a wife," is neither part of the description of the process, as the Ibn Ezra and the Ramban maintain, nor a permit, as Rashi would have us believe, but rather a commandment that falls under the category of a "positive prohibition" - in other words, you shall take her as a wife, if you desire her; do not treat her as a prostitute. From this starting point the Torah goes on to explain the practical meaning of this principle. Most importantly her captive status must be canceled and its outward signs removed. "And you shall bring her into your house" - do not come to her in the captives' camp, as is the usual military custom, but rather bring her into your house as a regular wife. "And she shall shave her head" - after many long months of captivity, her hair has certainly grown wild, and you must allow her to cut it. The author of the "Ha-Ketav Ve-HaKabbala" points out that the word "gilu'ach" (shave) does not mean that all her hair must be shaved off, but rather refers to something that in modern parlance would be called a "haircut." Similarly, we find in the case of Yosef, when he is freed from the prison, that "he cut his hair (galach) and changed his garments and came to Par'o" (Bereishit 41:14; see also Shmuel II 14:26). "And she shall do her nails" - just as her hair has grown long, so have her nails, and they should also be cut just as any other woman would wish to do. "And she shall remove the garment of captivity from upon herself" - the garment of captivity is the ultimate symbol of her captive status, and its removal is a clear expression of her change of status. "And she shall sit in your house and cry for her father and her mother for a month" - the captive is not an inanimate object meant solely for the fulfillment of your desires. She also has feelings, and you have to respect them - as explained by the Rambam, above. The author of "Ha-Ketav Ve-HaKabbala" further points out that this explanation may really be the understanding of Rabbi Eliezer in the Sifri; after all, the expressions of disgrace and ugliness are mentioned only by Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Eliezer, on the other hand, holds that the verb "do" with reference to nails means cutting them, by comparison with the cutting of the hair. This interpretation fits nicely with what we have explained above. Our parasha doesn't refer to the question of marriage to a gentile at all. It deals with our attitude towards captives. In order to emphasize this point, the parasha purposefully ignores the first question. Perhaps even Rabbi Akiva would admit that this is indeed the simple meaning of the parasha, but he derives from other sources the Torah's reservations regarding such marriages, where the woman is not converting of her own free will, and therefore interprets the parasha in light of this additional aspect of the situation. Therefore, some of the actions involved take on the added significance of disgrace as part of the effort to prevent the marriage from taking place. In effect, two ideals collide in this parasha: the one is humane treatment of a helpless captive, the second is the wish to prevent a marriage to a gentile. The halakha comes to determine the correct balance between these two ideals. The dual play and ambiguity of these two ideals finds clear expression in the comparison of the Rambam's words in Moreh Nevukhim, quoted above, and his halakha in the Mishneh Torah. In Moreh Nevukhim, the Rambam emphasizes that the purpose of the disgrace and the mourning is to ease the distress of the woman and to ease her fear, and he doesn't mention the aim of preventing the marriage except by a hint at the beginning of his discussion: "And as we know the Torah permits this only in consideration of the yetzer ha-ra." In the Mishneh Torah, on the other hand, he emphasizes this latter purpose, saying (Laws of Kings 8:5), "And she grows her nails long and shaves her head in order that she become disgraced in his eyes, and she is with him in his house in order that he sees her when he comes in and sees her when he goes out, in order that he tire of her," while the concern for the captive woman is mentioned in one single sentence: "And hence she mourns for her tradition and he should not prevent her." For further study: 1. Chazal made a famous connection between the opening sections of the parasha. What is the connection according to the explanation in this week's shiur between yefat to'ar - the two wives - sorer u-moreh - etc. (At least until 22,4). ************************************************************** BE SURE TO VISIT THE "VIRTUAL CITY OF JERUSALEM" WWW.VIRTUAL.CO.IL ************************************************************** VISIT YHE'S WEB SITE: HTTP://WWW.VIRTUAL.CO.IL/EDUCATION/YHE ************************************************************** To subscribe send e-mail to: LISTPROC@VIRTUAL.CO.IL: subject:(leave blank or type word 'subscription'), on first line of text type: sub YHE-PARSHA . To participate in a weekly discussion group on this shiur, moderated by the instructor, please subscribe to YHE-PAR.D as described above. For direct questions or comments regarding this shiur, please send email to parsha@etzion.org.il. Copyright (c) 1997 Yeshivat Har Etzion. All rights reserved. ************************************************************** SHIURIM MAY BE DEDICATED TO VARIOUS OCCASIONS - YAHRZEITS, SEMACHOT, BIRTHDAYS, ETC. PLEASE E-MAIL YHE@VIRTUAL.CO.IL FOR AN APPLICATION. YESHIVAT HAR ETZION ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH ALON SHEVUT, GUSH ETZION 90433 E-MAIL: YHE@VIRTUAL.CO.IL or OFFICE@ETZION.ORG.IL