Our Gemara on Amud Aleph discusses the status of Tamar’s mother, Ma’acha, and whether she was Jewish at the time of Tamar’s conception. Ma’acha was a “Captive Woman,” subject to the laws described in Devarim (21:10–14):

When you [an Israelite warrior] take the field against your enemies, and Hashem 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 [into your household] as your wife,

you shall bring her into your household, and she shall trim her hair and pare her nails.

She shall discard her captive’s garb and spend a month in your household lamenting her father and mother; after that, you may come to her, and she shall be your wife.

Then, if you no longer desire her, you must release her outright. You may not sell her for money or treat her as a slave, because you degraded her.

Our Gemara asserts that since Ma’acha was a captive woman, and Tamar was conceived prior to her mother’s conversion, Tamar was not technically considered Amnon’s sister.

Rashi and Tosafos: Dispute on the Captive Woman

The idea that the initial sexual encounter with a captive woman is permitted is subject to a dispute between Rashi and Tosafos in Kiddushin (22a, Tosafos “Shelo”). Tosafos follows the plain reading of these verses, which implies that during the fog of war, the Torah allows for a one-time sexual encounter with the woman prior to her undergoing conversion. Rashi, however, maintains that the woman is only permitted after conversion.

Tosafos challenges Rashi’s interpretation: If the first encounter is only allowed post-conversion, how does Rashi understand our Gemara’s assertion that Tamar was conceived as a gentile and thus not technically Amnon’s sister? Tosafos (ibid) explains that according to Rashi, Ma’acha was already pregnant by another man before King David captured her. Thus, Tamar was not even King David’s daughter, and the Gemara’s point about Ma’acha being a captive woman was to show that Tamar was not Jewish initially, and not a relative of Amnon.

The Gemara (Kiddushin 21b) provides the rationale for permitting the captive woman: allowing a controlled process prevents unrestrained and abusive behavior in wartime. This process requires the soldier to take responsibility and treat her with dignity, ideally leading to marriage. Tosafos maintains that the soldier is granted a one-time allowance for intimacy prior to conversion, while Rashi contends that even the initial encounter is only permitted after conversion. According to Rashi, the concession lies in permitting marriage despite doubts about the sincerity of the conversion process. Furthermore, Rashi suggests that the mere promise of future permissibility suffices to curb the soldier’s immediate desires.

Rashi and Tosafos: Managing Desires in Other Contexts

A similar psychological debate between Rashi and Tosafos appears in Kiddushin (29b), which discusses whether it is better to marry before studying Torah or to study first. Marrying first might prevent sinful distractions caused by unfulfilled desires, while studying first might allow for greater focus during the formative years of Torah learning:

Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is that one should marry a woman and afterward study Torah.

 

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: How can one do this? With a millstone hanging from his neck, i.e., with the responsibility of providing for his family weighing upon him, can he engage in Torah study? 

 

The Gemara comments: Actually this is only an apparent disagreement. Each Amora is discussing a different locale and situation: One Amora is discussing us (Babylonians) and the other Amora is discussing them (those living in Eretz Yisrael.)

 

Which ruling applies to the scholars or which location? 

According to Tosafos, in Babylonia, where scholars traveled to study and lacked financial means, Torah study preceded marriage. In Eretz Yisrael, where scholars often studied locally and were supported by their families, marriage came first.

Rashi interprets the Gemara differently, positing that Babylonian scholars married first and then traveled to study. By being married but living apart from their wives, they enjoyed the benefits of marital stability without the distractions of daily familial responsibilities. Tosafos questions how this arrangement alleviates sexual distraction, but Rashi appears consistent: just as the soldier’s awareness of eventual permissibility calms his battlefield desires, the scholar’s knowledge of having a wife, albeit distant, provides sufficient reassurance to focus on Torah study.

Psychological Perspectives of Rashi and Tosafos

This debate highlights a broader difference in Rashi’s and Tosafos’s approaches to psychological incentives. Tosafos emphasizes the need for immediate, concrete solutions to manage desires. In contrast, Rashi trusts in the power of long-term assurances to provide psychological relief. The promise of eventual gratification, according to Rashi, can be sufficient to manage present impulses, whether on the battlefield or in the beis midrash.