"Love" and War - The Fate of the Female Captive
INTRODUCTION TO PARASHAT HASHAVUA
PARASHAT KI TETZE
By Rav Zvi Shimon
'Love'
and War
The Fate
of the Female Captive
"All is fair in love and war."
Does Judaism agree with this popular adage? This week's Torah reading provides
guidelines for both 'love' and war, and more specifically, for the interface
between the two:
"When you
take the field against your enemies, and the Lord your God delivers them into
your power and you take some of them captive, and you see among the captives a
beautiful woman and you desire her and would take her as a wife, you shall bring
her into your house, and she shall shave her head, do her nails, and discard her
captive's garb. She shall spend a
month in your house, lamenting her father and mother; after that you may come to
her and possess her, and she shall be your wife.
If, however, you should no longer want her, you must release her
outright. You may not sell her for
money: since you had your will of her, you may not enslave her." (Deuteronomy
21:10-14)
The Torah delineates an intricate set of procedures for the handling of a
woman captive that an Israelite desires for himself. He must bring her into his house and
she then:
1) shaves her head
2) does her nails
3) discards her captive's garb
4) is allowed to mourn a month for her
father and mother
What is the purpose of this odd procedure?
The commentators offer different and diverse explanations. We will begin with a dispute between
the two sages, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva (Israel, end of the 1st, beginning
of the 2nd century):
"Our
Rabbis taught: 'And she shall shave her head, and do her nails,' (Deut. 21:12)
R. Eliezer said, 'She shall cut them.'
R. Akiva said, 'She shall let them grow.'
R. Eliezer said: An act was mentioned in respect of the head, and an act
was mentioned in respect of the nails; as the former signifies removal, so does
the latter also signify removal. R.
Akiva said: An act was mentioned in respect of the head and an act was mentioned
in respect of the nails; as disfigurement is the purpose of the former so is
disfigurement the purpose of the latter...."
(Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yevamot, 48a)
The two sages disagree regarding the nature of the act relating to the
nails of the desired female captive.
Rabbi Eliezer interprets the word "ve-asta" (translated - do [her nails]) as to
cut her nails. Just as the first
requirement, which pertains to her hair, involves cutting; so too the second
requirement, pertaining to her nails, involves cutting. In contrast, Rabbi Akiva interprets
the word "ve-asta" as to grow her nails.
He makes a different comparison between the requirements regarding the
hair and nails of the woman captive: Just as the requirement regarding the hair
makes the woman less attractive; so too the requirement relating to her nails is
geared towards making her less attractive.
It is uncomely for a woman to shave her hair and it is unattractive for
her to have her nails grow long and untended.
In one case, cutting results in unseemly appearance while in another,
growth becomes unsightly. Although
opposite actions, they achieve identical results - the repulsiveness of the
woman in her captor's eyes.
Rabbi Akiva is of the opinion that the different actions prescribed by
the Torah for the woman captive are geared towards making her unattractive to
her captor. [ This approach is adopted by Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo ben Yitzchak,
France, 1040-1105) in explaining all four requirements pertaining to the woman
captive:
"Scripture is speaking (makes this concession) only in view of man's evil
inclination (his carnal desires).
For if the Holy one, blessed be He, would not permit her to him as a
wife, he would nevertheless marry her although she would then be forbidden to
him..."
"And she
shall do her nails - the reason is that she may become repulsive to her captor."
"And she
shall discard her captive's garb - the reason is because these are fine clothes,
for the women of the heathen peoples adorned themselves in time of war in order
to lure others (the enemy) to sin with them."
"And she
shall dwell in your house - not in the women's apartment, but in the house which
he constantly uses.
When
he goes in he meets her, when he leaves he meets her (i.e., he cannot
avoid meeting her constantly and the novelty of her beauty wears off). He sees
her endless crying, sees her neglected appearance - and all this in order that
she should become repulsive to him."
"And she
shall weep for her father [and her mother a full month] - Why all this? In order
to make a contrast - that whilst the Jewish woman (the captor's Jewish wife) is
happy, she should be downhearted, whilst the Jewish woman adorns herself, she
should bear a neglected appearance."
The Torah is clearly opposed to the Israelite's marriage to the woman
captive. Why then does it allow him to marry her? Rashi, citing our Sages,
answers that the Torah is making concessions only in view of man's weaknesses
and lustful inclinations.
This idea, when analyzed closely, is quite surprising, if not
revolutionary. How can the Torah permit that which it considers to be inherently
negative! How is this to be understood?
To answer this question, we must remember that the Torah was not given to
angels. It was given to man and takes into consideration his inherent
weaknesses. The Torah considered it futile to prohibit marriage to woman
captives of war. In the tumult and turmoil of war, where passions run so high,
the Torah considered it too much to forbid outright the taking of woman captors.
Such a dictate would not be adhered to by the people. Instead of creating a
situation in which the people would surely transgress the commandment of God,
the Torah offers a different remedy. This approach is illustrated in the
following homiletical interpretation of our sages:
"To what
may this be compared? To a son of royalty who craved a certain food which he
could not have, and his father would mollify him and tell him that were he to
eat [this food] it would harm him. However, once the father saw that [the son]
did not heed [his warnings, but ate the prohibited food], he told him that he
should take certain precautions so that he not suffer [from the food]." (Midrash Ha-gadol, 14th century
Yemenite collection of homiletical interpretations of our sages compiled by
Rabbi David HaEdni)
According to Rashi, all four acts prescribed by the Torah with regard to
the female captive are geared towards the same end. Their purpose is to lessen
the allure of the woman so that the Israelite no longer desire her as his wife.
A woman emanating from an idolatrous culture is unable to raise a committed
Jewish household, and to the contrary, will undoubtedly have a very negative
impact. The Torah therefore prescribes a method for helping the Israelite
overcome his obsession with this woman. The woman captive shaves her hair, grows
her nails to an unseemly length, divests herself of her elegant clothing and
sits in the Israelite's home depressed and bemoaning her predicament. It is the
Torah's hope that following this month long interim period that the Israelite no
longer desire this woman captive and realize that it is preferable that he marry
a woman from his own people and faith.
Rashi's interpretation is according to the approach of the sage, Rabbi
Akiva, who interprets that the woman's nails are left to grow untended in order
to make her repulsive. However, as stated above, in contrast to Rabbi Akiva,
Rabbi Eliezer interprets that the woman must cut her nails. The question which
requires elaboration is whether this is simply a technical difference from the
approach of Rabbi Akiva, cutting instead of growing the nails, or is it
indicative of a fundamental difference in understanding of the entire section?
Does Rabbi Eliezer reject the conception that the Torah's requirements regarding
the woman captive are geared towards diminishing her beauty? Although they don't
all attribute their interpretations to Rabbi Eliezer, many of the medieval
commentators reject the conception that the purpose of the four acts prescribed
by the Torah are to make the woman captive less attractive. These commentators
offer interpretations very different from that of Rabbi Akiva and Rashi.
After citing Rashi's interpretation, the Ibn Ezra (Rabbi Avraham ben
Ezra, Spain, 1092-1167) cites an alternative interpretation and combines
different explanations for the requirements regarding the woman captive. He
offers the following reasoning for the requirement of shaving her head:
"She
shall shave her head because she is impure, as is the case regarding the
[purification of a] leper." (See Leviticus 14:8,9.)
The shaving of the woman's head is not in order to make her ugly but is
rather part of a process of purification. This woman originates from an
idolatrous nation and has thus defiled herself with their vanities. As in the
case of the leper, she must shave her hair before entering the Israelite camp.
The Bechor Shor (Rabbi Yoseph Ben Yitzchak Bechor Shor, France, 12
century) and the Chizkuni (Rabbi Chizkiya ben Manoach, France, mid-thirteenth
century) develop this line of interpretation with regard to all the physical
requirements relating to the woman captive:
"...and
she shall discard her captive's garb since she worshipped in these clothes idols
as is the case in [the verse in
which Jacob tells his family, "get rid of the idolatrous artifacts that you
have, purify yourselves] and CHANGE YOUR CLOTHES" (Genesis 35:2). And whatever
she can rid herself of from that which was upon her in the period when she was a
gentile, like her hair and her
nails, she must do away with." (Chizkuni 21:13)
The acts prescribed by the Torah in relation to the woman captive
comprise a process of detachment from her idolatrous past and an initiation into
the Jewish people. They are not an attempt at preventing her entrance into the
Israelite nation but rather the procedure through which this is accomplished.
The Ramban (Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman, Spain, 1194-1274) offers an
alternative approach to that of Rashi and the Chizkuni:
"I say
that these are all regulations of mourning, all connected with the expression,
and she shall bewail her father and mother.
Thus he commanded that she shall shave her head, similar to what is
written of Job [when he heard of the death of his children], and "he shaved his
head" [Job 1:20], and so also, "cut off thy hair, [and cast it away, and take up
a lamentation]" [Jeremiah 7:29]. So,
too, the cutting of nails is a form of mourning like the shaving of the head. It
states, "and she shall discard her captive's garb," that is to say, she shall
don the garments of mourning and she shall remain in thy house like a widow and
not go outside at all, and she shall bewail her father and her mother, doing all
this a full month, for such is the custom of mourners. ...
And the
reason for this section [i.e., of all these regulations] is that she is
converted against her will, and no one asks her whether she is willing to
abandon her religion and become Jewish as is [customarily] done with proselytes.
...
This is
the reason for the verse, and she shall bewail her father and her mother a full
month, because she abandons her people and her gods. ...
In my
opinion this respite is not primarily intended to show compassion for her, but
to eliminate the names of idols from her mouth and her heart. The wandering away
and separation from her father and her mother and her people will further
'quench the coal,' for it is improper to cohabit with a woman who is coerced and
in mourning..., who cries out in her heart to her gods to save her and bring her
back unto her people and unto her gods.
Thus when they inform her that we will force her to give up her people
and her native land, and convert to Judaism, we must tell her, 'Be comforted for
thy father and thy mother, and the land of your nativity whom you shall not see
any more, but, instead, be your master's wife, in accordance with the law of
Moses and Jewish custom.' Then we
are to give her a time for weeping and mourning as is the way of mourners in
order to assuage her sorrow and her longing, for in all sorrow there is profit
and consolation afterwards. Now,
during that time she has pondered in her mind about the conversion, and
has partly eradicated
from her heart her idols, people, and native land, she has consoled herself for
them and has attached herself to this man to whom she knows she will become [a
wife] and has become accustomed to him.
Therefore Scripture states, 'and she shall remain in thy house" (21:17)
meaning that all this time she is to stay in the house which he uses, perhaps
she will desire and consent to [marry] him.
And in general, all these regulations are on account of the compulsion,
but if she voluntarily expresses a desire to be legally converted by the court,
she is immediately permitted to him, or even to his father or his brother."
The Torah's instructions regarding the woman captive are not an attempt
to make her appear unattractive, nor are they a process of physical
purification. Rather, they are all regulations of mourning. The Ramban connects
the first three acts prescribed by the Torah with the last one, "she shall spend
a month's time in your house lamenting her father and mother" (21:13). The whole
procedure is an act of mourning over her separation from her parents, people and
culture. It is only after the woman has come to terms with her new situation,
has realized that she is joining a new people and a new monotheistic faith, that
she is permitted to the Israelite. The Israelite should not marry this woman
while she is still under the influence of her people of origin and still praying
to her idols to save her. Only after she has despaired and separated herself
from her past, may the Israelite take her for a wife. Thus, her mourning is a
period of separation from her previous culture. This idea was first articulated
in a homiletical interpretation of the sage, Rabbi Akiva:
"Our
Rabbis taught: 'And bewail her father and her mother;' (Deut. 21:13) R. Eliezer
said: 'Her father' means her actual father; 'Her mother,' her actual mother. R. Akiva said: 'Her father and her
mother' refer to idolatry; for so Scripture says, "Who say to wood; 'Thou art my
father.'" (Jer. 2:27)" (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yevamot 48b)
According to Rabbi Akiva, her mourning is not so much for her parents as
it is for her gods. The Ramban explains that only after she no longer awaits for
salvation from her idols, can the Israelite marry her.
Although novel, the Ramban's interpretation suffers from several
difficulties. (Take a few minutes and try to identify them yourselves!) First,
the Ramban does not substantiate how cutting nails is an act of mourning. Even
more problematic is his explanation of the requirement that the woman discard
her captive's garb. According to the Ramban she must discard it in order that
she don garments of mourning. However, according to this interpretation, the
essence of the requirement does not appear in the text. Were the Ramban's
interpretation correct, Scripture should have stated that she should wear
clothes of mourning and not just state that she should discard her previous
dress. The text emphasizes the discarding of her old clothes, not the donning of
new clothes of mourning!
So far, we have seen three explanations of the requirements relating to
the woman captive. Rashi explains that they aim at making the woman repulsive to
her captor. The Chizkuni opines that they comprise a process of purification and
initiation into the Jewish people. Finally, the Ramban suggests that they are
all mourning practices. I would like to conclude with one more interpretation
which is hinted by the commentators and which we will develop more fully.
In the alternative interpretation brought down by the Ibn Ezra, he
explains the requirement regarding the woman's nails as an act of embellishment
and improvement of their appearance. This fixing of the nails is accomplished by
trimming them. He then explains that the woman must discard her captive's
garments because they are dirty. The Abrabanel
(Don Isaac Abrabanel, Spain, 1437-1508) explains
that once it was clear to the vanquished people that they would be taken captive
they put on rough and ugly sackcloth
- called captive's garments. The Torah instructs that
instead of these dirty captive's garments the woman must wear nice clean
clothing. Both these interpretations are diametrically opposed to Rashi. The
Torah's requirements do not aim at making the woman captive repulsive but, to
the contrary, aim at improving her appearance! She must fix her nails and don
new and more presentable clothes.
If we wish to continue this line of interpretation, how are we to explain
the requirement that the woman shave her head? Shaved heads are not usually
considered esthetic! HaKetav VeHakabala
(Rabbi Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenburg, Central Europe, 1785-1865) offers the following novel interpretation:
"The word
'giluach' (translated shave [her head]) does not necessarily have to mean
shaving in a repulsive manner in which the scalp is left with no hair at all,
for, in truth, we find the word 'giluach' also in the context of beautifying,
namely when one cuts the hairs that grow wild and unruly so that they appear
orderly and even. This is the case with Joseph where it is stated "He got a
haircut ('Vayegalach') and changed clothes" (Genesis 41:14). It is
incontrovertible that the word 'giluach' is used there in the sense of
beautifying in honor of the king [Pharaoh] as is the case with regard to the
Joseph's changing of his clothes. This is also the case with regard to the
'giluach' of Absalom (see Samuel II 14:26)... for he didn't really shave but
only cut his hair so that it wouldn't be too heavy...In all these cases the word
'giluach' is used in the sense of beautifying, not making repulsive. Therefore,
it is possible that just as Rabbi Eliezer does not consider the requirement
regarding the nails as a repulsive act, so to with regard to the requirement
regarding her hair."
So far, we have seen that the first three requirements regarding the
woman, the cutting of her hair, trimming of her nails and donning of different
clothing can all be explained as improvements in the woman captive's appearance.
How are we to understand, according to this approach, the fourth provision which
allows the woman one month to mourn for her father and mother? The Rambam (Rabbi
Moshe ben Maimon, Egypt, 1138-1204) in his 'Guide to the Perplexed' offers the
following explanation:
"She must
not be prevented from mourning and crying, in accordance with the words, 'and
she shall weep for her father and for her mother' (ibid.); for mourners find
comfort in crying and in excitement till the body has not sufficient strength to
bear the inner emotions; in the same manner as happy persons find rest in
various kinds of play. Thus the Lord is merciful to her and gives her permission
to continue her mourning and weeping till she is worn out. You know certainly
that he married her as a heathen and that during the thirty days she openly
keeps
her religion and even continues her idolatrous practices; no interference
with her faith is allowed during this time; and after all that she cannot be
sold, nor treated as a handmaid, if she could not be induced to accept the
statutes of the Law...."
The purpose of the mourning period is not, as Rashi says, to make her
less appealing to the Israelite, nor is it intended, as the Ramban suggests, to
"eliminate the names of idols from her mouth and her heart". Rather, it stems
from mercy and compassion for the woman due to the fear and sorrow which she is
experiencing. The Torah wishes to give her time to adapt to her new
circumstances and therefore forbids her to the Israelite till the termination of
her mourning period.
It is this concern for the plight of the vanquished, and in this specific
case, for the helpless woman captive, which also motivates the Torah in all the
provisions regarding the desired captive. If the woman is to be taken as a wife,
she is to be treated like all Israelite woman. She is not to be taken as a
maidservant or anything of the like. She must be treated in a humane manner. If
an Israelite desires her he must bring her into his home. She must not be seen
in her unkempt and disheveled state. She must fix her hair and her nails and
wear dignified clothing. This change of appearance emphasizes the Torah's
expectation regarding her treatment. She is no longer an enemy prisoner. She is
to enter the household as an equal and her appearance declares this. As an
equal, the Torah demands that she be given a period of mourning as is the case
with any Jew in mourning. This concern for the treatment and status of the woman
captive is particularly evident in the last verse of the section. "Then, should
you no longer want her, you must release her outright. You must not sell her for money:
since you had your will of her, you must not enslave her." The woman captive may
only be taken as a wife. If the Israelite does not desire her she must be
released and she may not be treated as a slave.
To summarize, we have seen four completely different explanations of the
procedure prescribed by the Torah for the treatment of a woman captive desired
by an Israelite. Differences in understanding are already noticeable amongst our
sages. It is plausible that the sharp differences between some of the
commentators are manifestations of the disagreement between Rabbi Akiva and
Rabbi Eliezer in their interpretation of the clause relating to the nails of the
woman captive. Rashi adopts the interpretation of Rabbi Akiva and explains the
whole procedure as an attempt at convincing the Israelite not to marry the woman
captive. The Chizkuni suggests that it is a process of purification and
initiation into the Jewish people. The Ramban interprets that all the prescribed
acts are regulations of mourning. We concluded with a new explanation which has
its roots in the interpretations of the Ibn Ezra, the Rambam and HaKetav
Vehakabala. The major concern of the Torah is the proper treatment of the woman
captive. The wide scale rape of woman of conquered nations is well known and
documented. It takes place in almost all wars including such recent conflicts as
the Serbian / Bosnian war. There are those who maintain that this is an
unavoidable part of war. They might declare that "all is fair in love and war."
Most of the civilized world disagrees. It asserts that there are moral norms
that must be upheld even in the savage world of war. The Geneva Conventions for
the protection of war victims were signed in 1949. More than three thousand
years prior to the signing of the Geneva Conventions, the Torah set down the
first laws governing the treatment of war victims, the law of the woman captive.
(Thanks to my teacher, R. Mordekhai
Sabato, for inspiring many of the ideas in this lecture.)
**************************************************************