Kiddushin 21

הא רבנן הא רבי שמעון

This second baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and that baraita, which teaches that one can borrow money and redeem the house and partially redeem it, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

תני חדא לוה וגואל וגואל לחצאין ותניא אידך אין לוה וגואל וגואל לחצאין לא קשיא הא רבנן הא רבי שמעון

The Gemara states: It is taught in one baraita with regard to the houses of walled cities: One can borrow money and redeem it, and one can partially redeem it, and it is taught in another baraita: One cannot borrow money and redeem it, nor can one partially redeem. Apparently, there is a contradiction between these two baraitot. The Gemara answers as above: This is not difficult. This baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

(סימן חרש חבש זמן)

The Gemara provides a mnemonic device for the names of the Sages who raise the dilemmas cited below and those to whom the questions are addressed: Ḥeresh, ḥavash, zeman. They allude to the following interlocutors: Ḥeresh alludes to Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, and Rav Ashi; ḥavash alludes to Rav Aḥa Sava and Rav Ashi; and zeman alludes to Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, and Ravina.

אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי איכא למיפרך מה למוכר בית בבתי ערי חומה שכן הורע כחו ליגאל לעולם תאמר במקדיש שיפה כחו ליגאל לעולם

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: The comparison detailed earlier (20b) between one who sells a house and one who consecrates a field, can be refuted as follows: What is unique about one who sells a house among the houses of walled cities is that his power is diminished, in that he is not able to redeem it forever, since he cannot redeem it after a year has passed (see Leviticus 25:30). Shall you say the same with regard to one who consecrates his field, as his power is enhanced in that he is able to redeem forever?

אמר ליה רב אחא סבא לרב אשי משום דאיכא למימר ניהדר דינא תיתי במה הצד מוכר שדה אחוזה יוכיח שיפה כחו ליגאל לעולם ואין לוה וגואל וגואל לחצאין מה למוכר שדה אחוזה שכן הורע כחו ליגאל מיד מוכר בית בבתי ערי חומה יוכיח

Rav Aḥa Sava said to Rav Ashi: The comparison is valid, because it can be said that the argument returns, as one can learn in a different manner. Let this matter be derived by an analogy derived from the common factor of two sources: The halakha of one who sells an ancestral field can prove it, as his power is enhanced in that he is able to redeem the field forever, and he cannot borrow money and redeem it, and he cannot partially redeem it. And if you say: What is unique about one who sells an ancestral field is that his power is diminished in that he is not able to redeem it immediately, the case of one who sells a house from among houses of walled cities can prove otherwise. Although one can redeem the house immediately, he cannot borrow money and redeem it, nor partially redeem it.

וחזר הדין לא ראי זה כראי זה הצד השוה שבהן שנגאלין ואין לוה וגואל וגואל לחצאין אף אני אביא מקדיש שנגאל ואין לוה וגואל וגואל לחצאין

And the derivation has reverted to its starting point, as one could alternate the explanations for each side with their respective refutations. Ultimately, the aspect of this case, an ancestral field, is not like the aspect of that case, a house from among houses of walled cities. Their common denominator is that they can be redeemed, and one cannot borrow money and redeem them, and likewise, one cannot partially redeem them. I will also bring the case of one who consecrates his field and rule that it may be redeemed, but one cannot borrow money and redeem it, and one cannot partially redeem it.

אמר ליה מר זוטרא בריה דרב מרי לרבינא איכא למיפרך מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן הורע כחם ליגאל בשנה שניה תאמר במקדיש שיפה כחו ליגאל בשנה שניה

Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said to Ravina: This derivation, based on the common denominator, can be refuted as follows: What is unique to their common denominator is that their power is diminished in that they are unable to redeem the respective properties during the second year, as in neither case can they be redeemed in the second year. One who sells a house in a walled city cannot redeem it beyond the first year, while one who sells an ancestral field cannot redeem it during the first two years. Shall you say the same with regard to one who consecrated his field, as his power is enhanced in that he is able to redeem the field in the second year?

אמר ליה רבינא משום דאיכא למימר עבד עברי הנמכר לנכרי יוכיח שיפה כחו ליגאל בשנה שניה ואין לוה וגואל וגואל לחצאין

Ravina said to him that the derivation is valid because it can be said that the case of a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile can prove otherwise, as his power enhanced in that he is able to redeem himself in the second year, and nevertheless he cannot borrow money and redeem himself, and he cannot partially redeem himself.

בעא מיניה רב הונא בר חיננא מרב ששת המוכר בית בבתי ערי חומה נגאל לקרובים או אין נגאל לקרובים גאלתו גאלתו משדה אחוזה גמר מה שדה אחוזה אינה נגאלת לחצאין ונגאלת לקרובים אף האי נמי אין נגאל לחצאין ונגאל לקרובים

The Gemara discusses a similar matter. Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: In the case of one who sells a house from among the houses of walled cities, can it be redeemed by relatives or can it not be redeemed by relatives? Is the ability to redeem a house limited to the seller himself? The Gemara presents the two sides of the dilemma: Does one derive the verbal analogy of “ge’ullato” (Leviticus 25:29) and “ge’ullato” (Leviticus 25:26) from an ancestral field in this manner: Just as an ancestral field cannot be partially redeemed and yet it can be redeemed by relatives, so too, this house also cannot be partially redeemed and yet it can be redeemed by relatives?

או דילמא כי כתיבא גאולה בחצאין הוא דכתיב בקרובים לא כתיב אמר ליה אינו נגאל

Or perhaps, when the word ge’ula is written in the case of an ancestral field, it is written with regard to partial redemption; but the word redemption is not written with regard to relatives. If so, the verbal analogy does not apply to the halakha of redemption by relatives. Rav Sheshet said to him: The house cannot be redeemed by relatives.

איתיביה בכל גאלה תתנו לרבות בתים ועבד עברי מאי לאו בתי ערי חומה לא בתי חצרים

Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana raised an objection to the ruling of Rav Sheshet from a baraita that deals with the verse: “And in all of your ancestral land you shall grant redemption for the land” (Leviticus 25:24). This verse serves to include houses and a Hebrew slave. What, is it not correct to say that the term houses is referring to houses of walled cities, indicating that they can also be redeemed by relatives? The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, this is referring to houses in open areas without walls.

בתי חצרים בהדיא כתיב בהו על שדה הארץ יחשב ההוא לקובעו חובה ואליבא דרבי אליעזר

The Gemara asks: With regard to houses in open areas without walls, it is explicitly written: “Shall be reckoned with the field of the country” (Leviticus 25:31), meaning that they are like ancestral fields. If so, there is no need for another verse to teach this halakha. The Gemara answers: That verse: “And in all of your ancestral land you shall grant redemption for the land” (Leviticus 25:24), serves to establish that redemption by relatives is an obligation, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

דתניא וגאל את ממכר אחיו רשות אתה אומר רשות או אינו אלא חובה תלמוד לומר ואיש כי לא יהיה לו גאל וכי יש אדם בישראל שאין לו גואלים אלא זה שיש לו ואינו רוצה ליקח שהרשות בידו דברי רבי יהושע

As it is taught in a baraita, with regard to a verse that deals with one who sells ancestral land: “And he shall redeem that which his brother has sold” (Leviticus 25:25), this redemption is optional, i.e., if he wishes to do so he may redeem the land. Do you say that it is optional or is it nothing other than an obligation? The verse states concerning an ancestral field that was sold: “And if a man has no one to redeem it” (Leviticus 25:26). This verse is puzzling: But is there a man in Israel who does not have redeemers? Every Jew has a relative of some sort, even if he must trace his family tree back all the way to Jacob. Rather, this is referring to one who has a relative who does not want to purchase, i.e., redeem, the land, as he has permission to refrain from doing so, since this redemption is optional. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua.

רבי אליעזר אומר וגאל את ממכר אחיו חובה אתה אומר חובה או אינו אלא רשות תלמוד לומר בכל גאלה תתנו הכתוב קבעו חובה

Rabbi Eliezer says that when the verse states: “And he shall redeem that which his brother has sold,” this redemption is an obligation. Do you say that it is an obligation, or is it only optional? The verse states: “And in all of your ancestral land you shall grant redemption for the land” (Leviticus 25:24). Here the verse established it as obligatory. This is the interpretation of the verses according to Rabbi Eliezer.

אמרי ליה רבנן לרב אשי ואמרי לה רבינא לרב אשי בשלמא למאן דאמר לרבות בתי ערי חומה היינו דכתיב בכל אלא למאן דאמר לרבות בתי חצרים מאי בכל קשיא

The Sages said to Rav Ashi, and some say Ravina said this to Rav Ashi: Granted, according to the one who says that the verse serves to include houses of walled cities, this is as it is written “in all.” “In all” serves to include a case omitted by the phrase “you shall grant a redemption for the land.” But according to the one who says that it serves to include houses in open areas without walls, what is meant by the term “in all”? It was already taught that these houses are included in the category of ancestral fields, and therefore they are referred to by the expression “redemption for the land.” No answer was found to this question and the Gemara states that it is a difficulty.

איתיביה אביי מה תלמוד לומר יגאלנו יגאלנו יגאלנו שלש פעמים לרבות כל הגאולות שנגאלות כסדר הזה מאי לאו בתי ערי חומה ועבד עברי לא בתי חצרים ושדה אחוזה

Abaye raised an objection to this opinion that houses in walled cities cannot be redeemed by relatives. It is taught in a baraita: What does it mean when the verse states: “May redeem him,” “may redeem him,” and “may redeem him” (Leviticus 25:48–49), three times? This serves to include all redemptions, and that they are redeemed in this order: In the case of a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile, if he does not redeem himself he can be redeemed by a brother; if he is not redeemed by a brother, then he can be redeemed by an uncle or some other relative. What, is it not correct to say that this inclusion is referring to houses of walled cities and a Hebrew slave, that they too can be redeemed by relatives? The Gemara rejects this interpretation: No, it includes houses in open areas and an ancestral field.

בתי חצרים ושדה אחוזה בהדיא כתיב על שדה הארץ יחשב כדאמר רב נחמן בר יצחק לקרוב קרוב קודם הכי נמי לקרוב קרוב קודם

The Gemara asks: But the cases of houses in open areas and the case of an ancestral field are written explicitly: “Shall be reckoned with the field of the country” (Leviticus 25:31). The Gemara answers: This is as Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said, that the verse detailing the redemption by relatives stated with regard to an ancestral field teaches that the closer of a relative one is to the seller, the earlier one is in the order of redeeming the ancestral field. The obligation or merit to redeem the field applies first to one who is more closely related to the seller. So too, with regard to houses in open areas, this verse teaches that the closer of a relative one is to the seller, the earlier one is in the order of redeeming the house.

היכא איתמר דרב נחמן בר יצחק אהא דאיבעיא להו עבד עברי הנמכר לישראל נגאל לקרובים או אינו נגאל לקרובים אליבא דרבי לא תבעי לך דאמר מי שאינו נגאל באלה נגאל בשש אלמא לא מיפרק

The Gemara asks: Where was this opinion of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak originally stated? The Gemara answers that it was stated with regard to this issue, as a dilemma was raised before the Sages: Can a Hebrew slave sold to a Jew be redeemed by his relatives or can he not be redeemed by his relatives? The Gemara comments: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, you should not raise the dilemma, as he says: One who is not redeemed by these relatives is redeemed by six years of service. Evidently, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile cannot be redeemed by his relatives.

כי תיבעי לך אליבא דרבנן מאי ילפינן שכיר שכיר ולא דרשי יגאלנו או דילמא יגאלנו לזה ולא לאחר

When you raise the dilemma, it is according to the opinion of the Rabbis. What is the halakha? Does one derive the verbal analogy comparing “hired worker” (Leviticus 25:40) and “hired worker” (Leviticus 25:53) from the case of a Jew sold to a gentile, and say that just as one can be redeemed by one’s relatives if sold to a gentile, so too, one can be redeemed if sold to a Jew? And at the same time one does not interpret homiletically the phrase “may redeem him” (Leviticus 25:48), stated with regard to one sold to a gentile, as a restricting term. Or perhaps the phrase “may redeem him” is in fact a restricting term, which indicates that this halakha applies only to this slave, i.e., only one sold to a gentile can be redeemed by relatives, and it does not apply to another slave, one sold to a Jew.

תא שמע בכל גאולה תתנו לרבות בתים ועבד עברי מאי לאו בתי ערי חומה ועבד עברי הנמכר לישראל לא עבד עברי הנמכר לנכרי

Come and hear a baraita: “And in all of your ancestral land you shall grant redemption for the land” (Leviticus 25:24). The inclusive expression “in all” serves to include houses and a Hebrew slave. What, is it not correct to say that this includes houses of walled cities and a Hebrew slave sold to a Jew? The Gemara rejects this interpretation: No, one can say that this is referring to a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile.

עבד עברי הנמכר לנכרי בהדיא כתיב ביה או דדו או בן דדו יגאלנו

The Gemara asks: It is explicitly written with regard to a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile: “Either his uncle or his uncle’s son may redeem him” (Leviticus 25:49). If so, it is unnecessary to derive the option of redemption by a relative from an inclusive expression in a different verse.

ההוא לקובעו חובה ואפילו לרבי יהושע

The Gemara answers: That verse serves to establish that redeeming him is an obligation. And even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who says that there is no requirement to redeem land, this case is different, as it is proper to redeem him to prevent him from being assimilated by gentiles.

תא שמע מה תלמוד לומר יגאלנו יגאלנו יגאלנו שלש פעמים לרבות כל הגאולות שנגאלות כסדר הזה מאי לאו בתי ערי חומה ועבד עברי הנמכר לישראל לא בתי חצרים ושדה אחוזה בתי חצרים בהדיא כתיב בהו על שדה הארץ יחשב אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק לקרוב קרוב קודם:

Come and hear a proof from a baraita: What is the meaning when the verse states: “May redeem him,” “may redeem him,” and “may redeem him” (Leviticus 25:48–49), three times? This serves to include all redemptions, and that they are redeemed in this order. What, is it not correct to say that this inclusion is referring both to houses of walled cities and a Hebrew slave sold to a Jew, that they can be redeemed by relatives? The Gemara rejects this interpretation: No, it includes houses in open areas and an ancestral field. The Gemara asks: Concerning houses in open areas and an ancestral field, it is written explicitly: “Shall be reckoned with the field of the country” (Leviticus 25:31). Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: This teaches that the closer of a relative one is to the seller, the earlier one is in the order of redeeming the house or the field. This is the context of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak’s statement.

והנרצע נקנה ברציעה: דכתיב ורצע אדניו את אזנו במרצע וגו׳:

§ The Gemara returns to the mishna, which teaches: And a Hebrew slave who is pierced after serving six years is acquired as a slave for a longer period through piercing his ear with an awl. The Gemara explains that this is as it is written: “And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him forever” (Exodus 21:6).

וקונה את עצמו ביובל ובמיתת האדון: דכתיב ועבדו ולא את הבן ולא את הבת לעלם לעולמו של יובל

The mishna further teaches that a pierced slave acquires himself through the advent of the Jubilee Year and through the master’s death. The Gemara explains that this is as it is written: “And he shall serve him forever” (Exodus 21:6). This term indicates that he serves only the master, but not the son and not the daughter. The term “forever” is referring to the forever represented by the Jubilee Year. The word “forever” does not mean for eternity, but refers to the end of the cycle of the Jubilee Year.

תנו רבנן מרצע אין לי אלא מרצע מנין לרבות הסול והסירא והמחט והמקדח והמכתב תלמוד לומר ולקחת לרבות כל דבר שנקח ביד דברי רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה

The Sages taught: From the term “an awl” I have derived only that a master can pierce the ear of a Hebrew slave with an awl. From where do I derive that a sharp thorn [sol], a thorn [sira], a needle, an auger, and a stylus used to engrave in wax may be used? The verse states: “And you shall take the awl” (Deuteronomy 15:17). This term “and you shall take” serves to include any implement that can be taken in the master’s hand. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda.

רבי אומר מה מרצע מיוחד של מתכת אף כל של מתכת דבר אחר המרצע להביא המרצע הגדול

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Not all of these utensils may be used for piercing. Just as an awl is unique in that it is made of metal, so too any tool made of metal can be used; one may not pierce a slave’s ear with non-metal implements. Alternatively, the verse states: “And you shall take the awl,” to include the large awl for piercing.

אמר רבי אלעזר יודן בריבי היה דורש כשהן רוצעים אין רוצעים אלא במילתא וחכמים אומרים אין עבד עברי כהן נרצע מפני שנעשה בעל מום ואם תאמר במילתא הם רוצעים היאך עבד עברי כהן יעשה בעל מום הא אין נרצע אלא בגובה של אזן במאי קמיפלגי

Rabbi Elazar said: Yudan the Distinguished would teach as follows: When they pierce, they pierce only the earlobe. And the Rabbis say: The piercing is not performed on the earlobe, as the halakha is that a Hebrew slave who is a priest is not pierced at all because the piercing renders him blemished and unfit to serve in the Temple. And if you say that they pierce a slave’s earlobe, how does a Hebrew slave who is a priest become blemished through piercing? A pierced earlobe is not considered a blemish. This indicates that he is pierced only on the upper part of the ear through the cartilage. The Gemara inquires: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, disagree?

דרבי דריש כללי ופרטי ולקחת כלל מרצע פרט באזנו ובדלת חזר וכלל כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט מה הפרט מפורש של מתכת אף כל של מתכת

The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi expounds the verses by means of the hermeneutical principle of reading the verse as consisting of generalizations and details. Accordingly, he maintains that the term “and you shall take” is a generalization that indicates piercing may be performed with any implement. “An awl” is a detail, and when the verse states: “Through his ear and into the door” (Deuteronomy 15:17), it then generalized again. When the verse writes a generalization and a detail and a generalization, you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail: Just as the explicit detail mentions an awl, which is made of metal, so too, any utensil used for piercing must be made of metal.

רבי יוסי דריש ריבויי ומיעוטי ולקחת ריבה מרצע מיעט באזנו ובדלת חזר וריבה ריבה ומיעט וריבה ריבה הכל

By contrast, Rabbi Yosei expounds the verses by means of the hermeneutical principle of reading the verse as consisting of amplifications and restrictions. Accordingly, he learns that the term “and you shall take” amplifies, i.e., it includes any item that can be taken in one’s hand. The term “an awl” restricts. When the verse states “through his ear and into the door,” it then amplifies again. When the verse amplifies, restricts, and amplifies, it has amplified the halakha to include everything except one item.

מאי רבי רבי כל מילי מאי מיעט מיעט סם

What has it amplified, i.e., included beyond an awl? It has amplified the category to include everything that can pierce an ear. What has it restricted from inclusion in the category? It excludes only the method that is most dissimilar to the use of an awl, which is a corrosive substance. Producing a hole in the slave’s ear with a substance of this kind is not a valid form of piercing.

אמר מר המרצע להביא מרצע הגדול מאי משמע כדאמר רבא הירך המיומנת שבירך הכא נמי המרצע מיוחד שבמרצעין:

The Master said above: “The awl,” this serves to include the large awl for piercing. The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that this expression is referring to a large awl? The Gemara answers that this is as Rava said with regard to the verse: “The sinew of the thigh vein which is upon the hollow of the thigh” (Genesis 32:33), that this is referring to the most important [meyummenet] part of the thigh. The definite article indicates something clear and obvious. Here too, the term “the awl” is referring to a special awl.

אמר רבי אלעזר יודן בריבי היה דורש כשהן רוצעין אין רוצעין אלא במילתא וחכמים אומרים אין עבד עברי כהן נרצע מפני שנעשה בעל מום ויעשה בעל מום אמר רבה בר רב שילא אמר קרא ושב אל משפחתו למוחזק שבמשפחתו

It was further stated in the above baraita that Rabbi Elazar said: Yudan the Distinguished would teach: When they pierce a slave they pierce only the earlobe. And the Rabbis say: A Hebrew slave who is a priest is not pierced at all, because piercing renders him blemished. The Gemara asks: And let him be pierced and be rendered blemished and disqualified for Temple service. Why is it prohibited to do this? Rabba bar Rav Sheila says: The verse states concerning a Hebrew slave at the end of his servitude: “And he shall return to his own family” (Leviticus 25:41), i.e., to his status in his family. He must be able to return to the position he had as a member of his family. If he was rendered a blemished priest while a slave, once he is emancipated he can no longer return to his status as a priest who can perform the Temple service.

איבעיא להו עבד עברי כהן מהו שימסור לו רבו שפחה כנענית חידוש הוא לא שנא כהנים ולא שנא ישראל

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to a Hebrew slave who is a priest, what is the halakha concerning the permissibility for his master to provide him with a Canaanite maidservant with whom to engage in sexual intercourse? The Gemara analyzes the two sides of the dilemma: Does one say that the halakha permitting a Hebrew slave to engage in intercourse with a Canaanite maidservant is a halakhic novelty, as a Jew is generally prohibited from engaging in intercourse with a gentile, and in light of this novelty, it is no different in the case of priests and no different in the case of an Israelite?

או דילמא שאני כהנים הואיל וריבה בהן הכתוב מצות יתירות רב אמר מותר ושמואל אמר אסור

Or perhaps the case of priests is different from Israelites, since the Torah includes additional mitzvot for them, which do not apply to all Jews. Therefore, it is prohibited for a priest to engage in sexual intercourse with a Canaanite maidservant, despite the fact she is permitted to a non-priest. The amora’im disagreed with regard to this issue. Rav said: It is permitted for the master to provide him with a Canaanite maidservant, and Shmuel said it is prohibited.

אמר ליה רב נחמן לרב ענן כי הויתו בי מר שמואל באיסקומדרי איטלליתו מאי טעמא לא תימרו ליה מהא וחכמים אומרים אין עבד עברי כהן נרצע מפני שנעשה בעל מום

Rav Naḥman said to Rav Anan: When you were studying in the house of Mar Shmuel did you play with tokens [iskumadri]? Didn’t you take your studies seriously? What is the reason that you do not say a proof to him from that which we learned: And the Rabbis say: A Hebrew slave who is a priest is not pierced at all because piercing renders him blemished.

ואם תאמר אין רבו מוסר לו שפחה כנענית תיפוק לי דבעינא אהבתי את אדני את אשתי ואת בני וליכא תו לא מידי

Rav Naḥman explains the proof: And if you say that if his master cannot provide him with a Canaanite maidservant, it is not even relevant to suggest that a slave of priestly lineage could be pierced, as the fact that he cannot be pierced could be derived from another point, as I require the slave to say: “I love my master, my wife, and my children” (Exodus 21:5), and that declaration cannot be issued by a priest if his master may not provide him with a Canaanite maidservant. And nothing more can be answered to this proof. The reason given by the Rabbis proves that a Canaanite maidservant can be provided even to a priest.

איבעיא להו כהן מהו ביפת תואר חידוש הוא לא שנא כהן ולא שנא ישראל או דילמא שאני כהנים הואיל וריבה בהן מצות יתרות רב אמר מותר ושמואל אמר אסור

Similarly, a dilemma was raised before them: 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.

בביאה ראשונה דכולי עלמא לא פליגי דשרי דלא דברה תורה אלא כנגד יצר הרע

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.

כי פליגי בביאה שניה רב אמר מותר ושמואל אמר אסור רב אמר מותר הואיל ואישתריא אישתרי ושמואל אמר אסור דהא הויא לה גיורת וגיורת לכהן לא חזיא

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.

איכא דאמרי בביאה שניה כולי עלמא לא פליגי דאסירא דהויא לה גיורת כי פליגי בביאה ראשונה רב אמר מותר דהא לא דברה תורה אלא כנגד יצר הרע ושמואל אמר אסור כל היכא דקרינא ביה והבאתה אל תוך ביתך קרינא ביה וראית בשביה כל היכא דלא קרינא ביה והבאתה אל תוך ביתך לא קרינא ביה וראית בשביה

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.

תנו רבנן וראית בשביה בשעת שביה אשת ואפילו אשת איש יפת תואר לא דברה תורה אלא כנגד יצר הרע מוטב שיאכלו ישראל בשר

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