Our Beautiful Captive Women: Parshat Ki Teitzei

We are still reeling from last week’s brutal execution style murder by Hamas of the six captives. Despite the fact that we had two very happy events in our family this week, it is difficult to celebrate amidst tragedy that seems to have no happy ending. My daughter sent us a picture of her standing with her newly published book and I sent out a picture of my husband with his newly published book.  Two books in two days. What can be more exciting than that! It is ironic that his book is his diary of his experiences in the chevra kadisha in the Yom Kippur war and her book consists of her poems about her “exile” in India after the events of October 7^th. It is hard to believe that a year has almost elapsed.   A few nights ago, I attended a webinar about how to Treat Survivors with Sensitivity, which related thoughtfully to the events about the sexual violence of October 7^th.  Listening to the event, I began to think about this week’s parsha which includes many items of interest to women, and even inspired me many years ago to write a midrash connecting the haftarah about the “barren one” (Isaiah 54) and the verse towards the end of parshat ki tetzei which mentions Miriam:   זָכ֕וֹר אֵ֧ת אֲשֶׁר־עָשָׂ֛ה יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ לְמִרְיָ֑ם בַּדֶּ֖רֶךְ בְּצֵאתְכֶ֥ם מִמִּצְרָֽיִם  “Remember what your God יהוה did to Miriam on the journey after you left Egypt” (Deuteronomy 24:9). I had originally planned to write about this and if you are curious, you can read my essay about this at this link. Perhaps, next year, if I am still alive and well and writing blogs, I will address that, beli neder!

THE BEAUTIFUL CAPTIVE WOMAN

Although our parsha talks about how WE are to treat captive beautiful women, I started thinking about how Hamas treated captive women.  It is a nightmare when you juxtapose the following passage on the enemy:

When you [an Israelite warrior] go out (ki teitzei) to war against your enemies… and you see among the captives a beautiful woman and you desire her and would take her to wife, וְלָקַחְתָּ֥ לְךָ֖ לְאִשָּֽׁה you shall bring her into your house… and she shall be your wife. וְאַ֨חַר כֵּ֜ן תָּב֤וֹא אֵלֶ֙יהָ֙ וּבְעַלְתָּ֔הּ וְהָיְתָ֥ה לְךָ֖ לְאִשָּֽׁה׃ you shall bring her into your household, and she shall trim her hair, pare her nails, and discard her captive’s garb. She shall spend a month’s time in your household lamenting her father and mother; after that you may come to her and thus become her husband, and she shall be your wife.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” (Deuteronomy 21:10-14).

On the one hand, the law surrounding the beautiful captive woman forces the warrior to be mindfully aware of his responsibility for his action. The soldier, who returns home with an enemy woman as booty, cannot do with her as he would. On the other hand, the sages routinely refer to the women of the nations as impure which allows them to regard the gentile woman not as victim but as evil temptress. Thus, in the commentary on “she removed her captive’s garb,” the rabbis teach us that

she transfers her beautiful clothing and puts on widow’s garb, for the nations are cursed and their daughters decorate themselves during wartime in order to tempt others into whoring after them” (Midrash Tanaim on Deuteronomy 21).

Clearly there is ambivalence in the attitude toward the law of the captive beautiful woman. Is it possible, that the Hamas animals who committed their atrocities on our women (babies, teenagers, women and female soldiers, mothers, grandmothers) saw them as “cursed and tempting” in order to dehumanize women to such an extent that gives us all nightmares when we think about it? If we have intellectual honesty we should look to our texts for answers as well. Let’s ignore the message of Midrash Tannaim and carefully read only what the biblical text says. We must allow victims to mourn, not because they are enemies, but because they have been traumatized: “She shall spend a month’s time in your household lamenting her father and mother.”  Not only are they captives, but they are human beings, who may have seen their fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters slaughtered in war time and now are being held captive.  They have to be treated with compassion. We have to follow their lead when they resume their lives. If they want to share, we listen. If they do not, we do not intrude. If they ask for help, we give it. And finally, if they want to be left alone, we leave them alone.

In the past I usually focused on the “humanity” of OUR holy text, which recognizes that the man has passions, but when the war is over, he cannot treat the victim of his passions as an object, but rather as a subject with rights. There is a distinction between what takes place in war time, on the front, and the home. Once he brings her into his home, he has obligations towards her and if he cannot honor those obligations, he cannot pass her on to another, but has to set her free (and presumably release her with the same compensation he would give his wife). However, after listening to the webinar and finally watching the movie Screams Before Silence, which I have avoided watching, I realize that I must identify with the victim, the woman who has been raped, who is collateral damage in the war. I can no longer “understand” our sacred text which justifies the rape in the first place.   I am not alone in this, because there is a dispute in the Talmud between Rav and Shmuel over this in a discussion about a priest who goes to war. Can he “engage in intercourse”, with a beautiful woman captured in that war? That is, can he rape her?

What is the halakha with regard to the permissibility for a priest who goes to war to engage in intercourse with a beautiful woman captured in that war? Does one say that the case of a beautiful woman is a novelty in that the Torah permits a man to engage in intercourse with a gentile woman? Consequently, it is no different in the case of a priest and no different in the case of an Israelite, as both are permitted to engage in intercourse with this woman. Or perhaps the case of priests is different, since the Torah includes additional mitzvot for them? Rav said: It is permitted, and Shmuel said: It is prohibited.

The Gemara comments: With regard to the first act of sexual intercourse between the soldier priest and the gentile woman, everyone agrees that it is permitted, as the Torah spoke only in response to the evil inclination, and the evil inclination of a priest is as strong as that of an Israelite. This passage serves to prevent intercourse performed in a prohibited manner, which is relevant to a priest as well.

When they disagree it is with regard to the second act of sexual intercourse. Is a priest permitted to bring the captive into his house, convert her, and marry her? Rav said it is permitted, and Shmuel said it is prohibited. Their reasoning is as follows: Rav said it is permitted: Since she was permitted to him once, she remains permitted to him. And Shmuel said it is prohibited, as ultimately, she is a convert, and a convert is not fit to marry a priest.

There are those who say a different version of this dispute. With regard to the second act of intercourse everyone agrees that it is prohibited, as she is a convert, and a priest may not marry a convert.

When they disagree it is with regard to the first act of intercourse. Rav said it is permitted, as the Torah spoke only in response to the evil inclination. And Shmuel said it is prohibited, as any situation that one can read with regard to it: “Then you shall bring her home to your house” (Deuteronomy 21:12), one can also read and fulfill with regard to the earlier command of: “And see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you have a desire for her, and would take her to you as a wife” (Deuteronomy 21:11). Conversely, any situation that one cannot read with regard to it: “Then you shall bring her home to your house,” i.e., if the soldier may not marry her, one does not read with regard to it: “And sees among the captives,” and one may not engage in sexual intercourse with her.

The Sages taught: With regard to a beautiful captive, the verse states: “And sees among the captives,” teaching that this halakha applies only if he notices her when she is a captive. The expression “a woman” teaches that she is permitted even if she is a married woman. The phrase “a beautiful woman” indicates that the Torah here spoke only in response to the evil inclination, as it is due to her beauty that he desired her.

And why does the Torah permit this? It is preferable for Jews to eat the meat of dying animals that were slaughtered, and let them not eat the meat of dying animals that were not slaughtered but which will become carcasses. In other words, it is preferable for this act to be performed in a somewhat permitted way rather than in a manner that is entirely prohibited.

The expression: “And you have a desire for her and would take her to you as a wife” (Deuteronomy 21:11), teaches that this halakha applies even if she is not pretty, as this is a subjective judgment dependent on one’s desire. The term “for her” indicates that he may take her, but not her and another woman. A soldier is allowed to take only one captive in this manner. The phrase “and would take her” teaches: You have the ability to take her, i.e., to marry her. “To you as a wife” teaches that he may not take two women, one for him and one for his father, or one for him and one for his son. The verse: “Then you shall bring her home into your house” (Deuteronomy 21:12), teaches that he should not pressure her to engage in sexual intercourse during the war, but he should first take her into his home (B Kiddushin 21b-22a).

I hope that you are as amazed by the previous very long and detailed Talmudic analysis of our biblical passage as I am. (And, if you decided to skip it, because of its length, go back and read it). On the one hand, there seems to be some regard about the beautiful captive woman as a human being, as a subject, on the other hand, when we read that the woman is likened to the meat of a dying animal, we are horrified by the analogy. This is not the only place where women are treated as meat in the bible (see the end of Judges 19)  and in the Talmud where the husband can do what he wants to her during sexual intercourse because she is like a fish (b Nedarim 20b). I have written critically about these texts elsewhere. But when I juxtapose my holy texts on what has happened and is still happening in Gaza I am horrified to think that the roots of weaponizing the treatment of women during wartime has ancient roots. Perhaps we should be proud that our tradition recognizes honestly that this is problematic and something that should not be done. Yet there are always two opinions or more—after all, ours is not a monolithic religion. And there are opinions that allow us to overlook the humanity of the victims during wartime—especially when they are NOT our own.

THE NEED TO PROTEST INJUSTICE

I would like to end with a text that I have used before, but which is certainly necessary to read again today, before it is too late for our hostages:

Rab and R. Hanina, R. Johanan and R. Habiba taught…  All who can protest against [something wrong that] one of their family [is doing] and does not protest, is held accountable for their family.  [All who can protest against something wrong that] a citizen of their city [is doing and does not protest], is held accountable for all citizens of the city.[All who can protest against something wrong that is being done] in the whole world, is accountable together with all citizens of the world. R. Papa observed, And the household members of the Head of the Diaspora are accountable for the whole world. As R. Hanina said it is written “The Lord will enter into judgment with the elders of his people, and the princes thereof” (Isaiah 3).  How did the elders sin? Because the elders do not protest against the princes (b Shabbat 54b-55a).

In last week’s portion, in the final verse which precedes our section about the pretty woman, we are told that if we do what is right in God’s eyes he will “give” the enemy into our hands (Deut 21:9). It is clear that we need to behave morally when God is on our side and show compassion for this foreign woman who is our prisoner. In her case we can distinguish between the battlefield and the home and she is brought into the house where she is treated compassionately like a person. In contrast, at the end of our parsha we are told to should show no compassion to Amalek (Deuteronomy 25:17). Ironically, we both need to wipe him and his memory out and not forget what he did to us: the demoralization of a tired depleted people. When we were on the run, there was no home and thus no distinction between home and battlefield. But when we are in our own lands and are the victors, we need to regulate lust and make sure it does not spread and become habitual. These complicated verses, which on the surface seem to be totally unrelated, are both related to what our sages wrote: “the Torah spoke against the evil inclination.” We must address both aspects of the lust for the captive woman and the Amalekite within us, who is the incarnation of evil. We are complicated creatures in a constant battle between good and evil, between the permissible and the unconscionable, between the urge for life (libido) and the urge for death (thanatos). The lesson to be learned by linking these two episodes is that we must try and impose moral order in our world. And we should choose life!!!