Conclusion
This paper has examined the Targumim and a number of post-biblical texts relevant to Deut. 21: 10-14, the beautiful captive woman. It has examined certain of the post-biblical texts in an attempt to trace the development of some of the relevant issues mentioned in the introduction. Some of the conclusions reached are as follows:
It is difficult to conceive of a war which the participants would consider non-obligatory. Such assessments have only been attributed in hindsight. Even obviously expansionary wars can be explained as "offence is the best defence". As the capture and subsequent marriage of an enemy woman to an Israelite is only permitted is a non-obligatory war, it can perhaps be construed that such a situation would not occur often. Yet the Talmud tells us that David had four hundred captive wives. One possible (non- traditional) explanation might lie in a concusion of source criticism - that Deuteronomy was later than David.
A biblical imperative is sacrosanct, but the sages were unhappy with the situation of a heathen captive woman attached to an Israelite soldier. According to the Bavli sages in Kiddushin 21b, the permission offered to the soldier in this case is an accommodation to lust. The captive woman then becomes the vehicle for the satisfaction of his evil inclination. In bHullin 109b it is explained that the Torah forbids a man a non-Jewess, but permits him the captive woman. Not only is she the vehicle by which he releases his lust, she is not even his first choice. The captive woman can be described as a consolation prize.
As these women were heathens and by definition sexually desirable, the sages felt threatened by the possibility that the captive women's sexual power might entice men away from Judaism. This attitude can be seen in the way the laws applicable to the captive woman were developed.
Other than the compassion displayed by Maimonides, there was very little if any sympathy expended on the plight of the captive. The sages' major concern, given the inviolability of the biblical permission, was the conversion of the woman to Judaism. If that could not be done, then the absolute minimum was her conversion away from heathenism. Once the captive woman's heathenism could be obliterated, the effect of having a diverse and larger genetic pool could be accepted as beneficial.
There was no uniform opinion as to when the first intercourse was permitted. The timing varied from immediately after the battle, but in a private place, to not until after thirty days and conversion. Clearly, there was coercion in both cases, whether physical or psychological or both.
According to the Bavli, first intercourse could occur before the captive arrived at the man's home, perhaps as soon as the actual fighting stopped. The journey to his home could be lengthy, as she was taken from a city far away (Deut. 20: 15). It might occur that very shortly after she arrived at the man's home she would discover that she was pregnant. Even if she was not, her options were very limited. In order to simply survive, she might choose to be converted and remain in the household. It can be understood that a woman in these circumstances would be unhappy and resentful, and possibly full of hatred against the one she perceived to be the cause of her unfortunate circumstances. Possibly the sages were sensitive to this when they claimed that the marriage would not be a happy one.
When the man no longer wanted her, he had to let her go. Once he had intercourse with her, he could no longer enslave her. The captive woman was not a wife before conversion and not a captive after conversion. Once converted and married she was accorded the same privileges and had the same obligations as a Jewish born wife.
The post-biblical sources use the biblical term "woman of beautiful appearance," to describe the woman in Deut. 21: 10- 14. This paper has used the term "captive woman" instead. Sifrei pisqa 211 points out that her actual appearance is of no consequence. She merely has to be sexually desirable to a soldier at the time of her capture. As the term "beautiful woman" is used biblically, so it is used throughout the sources. It is interesting that in the post- biblical development of this section, a number of major changes were introduced by the sages. That they chose not to change or add to the term "beautiful woman" is an indication that they either did not find it inappropriate or it was not important enough to address.
Clearly, however, the operating principle in her description was not her appearance but her powerlessness. This may have been an issue the sages did not wish to confront. Perhaps they understood that if their perception of the captive woman changed from perpetrator to victim, it would be very difficult to set down the stringent rules of conversion. As theological pollution was their primary concern, it was easier to implement their goal if she were objectified.
Legislating behaviour is no guarantee that it will be followed, but it does demonstrate the intention of the legislators.The Yerushalmi clearly was against rape of captive women by soldiers at war. In light of recent events in Bosnia, it must be appreciated how ethically and morally forward this thinking was.
- Nope, nothing here suggesting that the verses promote rape. Although Bavli wants to allow it, there is nothing in the verses it self that gives such permission. At best we have indirect quotes of Bavli, so we really don't know what his opinion is.
- Although Elman discusses what Bavli wishes, she rejects his writing as having any bearing on the intent of the verses in question.
- You still haven't clearly stated if you believe that said verses promote rape
- The 50 shekel is not limited to Jewish woman only. Please cite verse that says it is.
- Marriage is a legal status. I knew a woman who hadn't seen her husband for 30 years, but was still married to him, assuming he is still alive. One does not need to live with another to be married in a legal sense. Same was true back then. Marriages weren't suspended just because the man went on a military campaign for a couple of years. In fact the ancient nobility of the time frequently didn't live in the same house as their wives at all. There is a difference in marriage as a legal contract and that of societal expectations.
- Yes, the woman may forced to marry him from a practical perspective of the circumstances, but it is a choice that is made in the best interest of the woman and her family. If it were not in their best interest, they could refuse it.
- Compensation and punishment is not an either/or proposition. They both should happen, as well as any other help the victim may need. This country does a poor job of compensating victims.
- We could very easily institute this here and now. The victim of rape would be awarded $200K (5x the median U.S. income) and a monthly stipend. All to be paid by the perpetrator. The marriage was simply a mechanism to make the compensation happen. Therefore, is not important as long as the larger goal of compensation is achieved. Don't you agree that something along this line would be a good thing to do today? This would allow the victim the time and resources to get the help she will need to heal.
- From your source: The evident purpose was, as far as possible, to favor the wife, and to protect her against an unceremonious expulsion from her home and children. http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Def.show/RTD/isbe/ID/2755/Divorce-In-Old-Testament.htm
- Also from your source: ...marriage among the Hebrews, as among most Orientals, was more a legal contract than the result of love or affection. (It was a practical thing that could be done for purely practical reasons.
- Although the article you linked is generally well written, it overlooks that ancient writing is done in a manner that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The Bible does not give licsence for a woman to steal an ox because it does not say that she can't. It says that a man can't steal an ox and it is understood that a woman can not either. Unless there is a distinct and separate handling of a situation stated, it is assumed that the same standards applied to both sexes. This would hold true of divorce.
- Your source also states: Divorces from the earliest times were common among the Hebrews. All rabbis agree that a separation, though not desirable, was quite lawful. The only source of dispute among them was as to what constituted a valid reason or just cause. It is unimaginable that she would be denied the right to a separation.
