§ Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says that the meat of stabbing was permitted in the wilderness: With regard to the limbs of the meat of stabbing that the Jewish people took with them into Eretz Yisrael, what is their halakhic status? When? If we say that the dilemma is with regard to the seven years during which they conquered the land, now, non-kosher items were permitted for them during that period, as it is written: “And it shall be, when the Lord your God shall bring you into the land that He swore to your fathers, and houses full of all good things…and you shall eat and be satisfied” (Deuteronomy 6:10–11), and Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba says that Rav says: Cuts of pig meat [kotlei daḥazirei]; is it necessary to say that the meat from the stabbing of a kosher animal was permitted? Rather, thereafter. And if you wish, say: Actually, his dilemma is with regard to the seven years during which they conquered the land, as perhaps when the forbidden food was permitted for them, it was specifically food from the spoils of gentiles, but their own forbidden food was not permitted. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

And in the opinion of our Rabbis the verse further alludes [to the law] that anything found in the houses full of all ‘good’ things [that were occupied in the conquest of Canaan] may be used, even if they contained things forbidden by the Torah such as kadli of swine, or the produce of a vineyard sown with diverse seeds, or fruits of the first three years of a tree. Even regarding cisterns, it is possible that in their construction forbidden materials were used in their coat of pitch [such as forbidden wine; hence Scripture mentioned and cisterns hewn out, which thou didst not hew to indicate that they, too, were permitted to them]. Or it may be that the cisterns are mentioned figuratively, to denote the abundance of good things, thus giving them mastery over all that was found in the Land both permissible and impermissible. Thus all forbidden articles were permitted to them except [for those that were forbidden as a result of] the prohibition of idols, as he will yet clarify, thou shalt not covet the silver or the gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee etc. Therefore, he mentions here in the next section, ye shall break down their altars, to destroy the idols and their appurtenances. But whatever else was found in the Land was permissible. This permission lasted until they consumed the spoil of their enemies. And some Rabbis say that this permission applied [only] to the seven years of [the] conquest [of the Land], and so it appears in the Gemara, in the first chapter of Tractate Chullin. Now the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] wrote in the Laws of the Kings and their Wars: “Armed soldiers, when they enter the border of the nations and loot from them, are permitted to eat n’veiloth and treifoth the flesh of swine and the like if they are hungry and do not find anything to eat except for these forbidden foods [i.e., only in the case of emergency are they permitted to eat these foods]. Similarly they may drink yayin nesech (wine dedicated to an idol). From tradition the Rabbis have learned: ‘And houses full of all good things — the necks of swine and the like.’” But this is not correct. For it is not because of danger to life or of hunger alone in time of war that [forbidden foods] were made permissible; rather, after they captured the large and wealthy cities and settled in them, was the spoil of their enemies permitted to them. And not to all armed soldiers [in any war throughout does this law apply as the Rabbi seems to hold], but only to [those who conquered] the Land which He swore to [give to] our fathers, as is explained in the subject before us. [Rabbi Moshe’s ruling that the dispensation applies to] yayin nesech is also incorrect, for all forbidden articles pertaining to idolatry — the idols themselves, their appurtenances, and their offerings — are all forbidden as it is said, thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it, for it is a doomed thing. And if the Rabbi’s intent was to permit in wartime only wine which was merely under suspicion of having been dedicated to idolatrous worship [which is a Rabbinic prohibition] — why do we need a Scriptural interpretation for this? If Scriptural prohibitions were permitted [to them], could subjects of a Rabbinic decree be forbidden?!

And in line with the simple meaning of Scripture it appears that he is prohibited from cohabiting with her at all until after he has gone through this entire procedure, this being the sense of the expression, and after that thou mayest come unto her, and be her husband. And that which Scripture stated, and thou desirest her, and thou wouldest take her to thee to wife, means that he would take her for his wife after [complying with] all these regulations which it will command. Similarly, so that I took her to be my wife [means that Pharaoh took her to his house to be his wife].

However, in the Gemara of Tractate Kiddushin the Rabbis have said that he is permitted to engage in the first cohabitation [even before the procedure prescribed in this section], this being the sense of the expression, and thou wouldest take her to thee to wife. They interpreted the expression, “And thou shalt bring her home to thy house — this teaches that he is not to coerce her during battle.” The Rabbis connected it with the verse above, and thou wouldest take her to thee to wife [stated in Verse 11] meaning, when thou shalt bring her home to thy house [Verse 12]. Thus he takes her captive in battle and brings her to his home and to his city, and he cohabits with her in order to bring his lustful heart under control, and after his first cohabitation she is prohibited to him until he follows through the entire procedure with her. This is the way of the Gemara in many places. But I have seen in the Yerushalmi of Tractate Sanhedrin: “Rabbi Yochanan sent to the Rabbis there [in Babylon], ‘You say two things in the name of Rav which are not so. You say in the name of Rav, a beautiful woman was permitted only for the first cohabitation [prior to the prescribed procedure].’ And I say neither the first cohabitation nor the second is permitted save only after [complying with] all these regulations, [for it is written], and after that thou mayest come unto her, and be her husband — after she has gone through all these prescribed deeds.” And this is the plain sense of the verse.