|  |  | Previous Folio / Sotah Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sotah ### Folio 43a were deposited in the ark. Thus it states: And Moses sent them, a thousand of every tribe, to the war, them and Phinehas1 — 'them' refers to the Sanhedrin; 'Phinehas' was the [priest] Anointed for Battle; 'with the vessels of the sanctuary' i.e., the ark and the tablets [of the decalogue] which were in it; 'and the trumpets for the alarm' i.e., the horns.2 — A Tanna taught: Not for naught did Phinehas go to the battle [against Midian] but to exact judgment on behalf of his mother's father [Joseph]; as it is said: And the Midianites sold him into Egypt etc.3 Is this to say that Phinehas was a descendant of Joseph? But behold it is written: And Eleazar Aaron's son took him one of the daughters of Putiel to wife; [and she bare him Phinehas]!4 Is it not to be supposed, then, that he was a descendant of Jethro who fattened [pittem]5 calves for idolatry? — No; [he was a descendant] of Joseph6 who mastered [pitpet] his passion. But did not the other tribes despise him7 [saying], 'Look at this son of Puti, the son whose mother's father fattened calves for idolatry; he killed a prince in Israel!'8 But, if his mother's father was descended from Joseph, then his mother's mother was descended from Jethro; and if his mother's mother was descended from Joseph, then his mother's father was descended from Jethro. This is also proved as a conclusion from what is written: 'One of the daughters of Putiel', from which are to be inferred two [lines of ancestry].9 Draw this conclusion. MISHNAH. AND THE OFFICERS SHALL SPEAK UNTO THE PEOPLE, SAYING, WHAT MAN IS THERE THAT HATH BUILT A NEW HOUSE, AND HATH NOT DEDICATED IT? LET HIM GO AND RETURN TO HIS HOUSE — ETC.10 IT IS ALL ONE WHETHER HE BUILT A BARN FOR STRAW, A STABLE FOR CATTLE, A SHED FOR WOOD, OR A STOREHOUSE;11 IT IS ALL ONE WHETHER HE BUILT, PURCHASED, INHERITED IT OR SOMEBODY HAD GIVEN IT TO HIM AS A PRESENT.12 AND WHAT MAN IS THERE THAT HATH PLANTED A VINEYARD, AND HATH NOT USED THE FRUIT THEREOF? ETC.13 IT IS ALL ONE WHETHER HE PLANTED A VINEYARD OR PLANTED FIVE FRUIT-TREES14 AND EVEN OF FIVE SPECIES;15 IT IS ALL ONE WHETHER HE PLANTED, BENT16 OR GRAFTED IT, OR WHETHER HE PURCHASED, INHERITED OR SOMEBODY HAD GIVEN IT TO HIM AS A PRESENT. AND WHAT MAN IS THERE THAT HATH BETROTHED A WIFE? ETC.17 IT IS ALL ONE WHETHER HE HAD BETROTHED A VIRGIN OR A WIDOW, OR EVEN A CHILDLESS WIDOW WAITING FOR HER BROTHER-IN-LAW, OR EVEN IF A MAN HEARD THAT HIS BROTHER HAD DIED IN BATTLE,18 HE RETURNS HOME. ALL THESE HEAR THE PRIEST'S WORDS CONCERNING THE WAR-REGULATIONS AND RETURN HOME; BUT THEY SUPPLY WATER AND FOOD AND REPAIR THE ROADS [FOR THE ARMY]. THE FOLLOWING DO NOT RETURN HOME: HE WHO BUILT A LODGE,19 A LOGGIA OR A VERANDAH; HE WHO PLANTED FOUR FRUIT-TREES OR FIVE TREES WHICH ARE NOT FRUIT-BEARING; HE WHO TOOK BACK HIS DIVORCED WIFE. IF A HIGH PRIEST MARRIED A WIDOW, OR AN ORDINARY PRIEST MARRIED A DIVORCEE OR A HALUZAH,20 OR A LAY ISRAELITE MARRIED AN ILLEGITIMATE OR A NETHINAH,21 OR THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE MARRIED AN ILLEGITIMATE OR A NATHIN, HE DOES NOT RETURN HOME.22 R. JUDAH SAYS: ALSO HE WHO REBUILT A HOUSE UPON ITS FOUNDATIONS DOES NOT RETURN HOME. R. ELIEZER SAYS: ALSO HE WHO BUILT A BRICK-HOUSE IN SHARON23 DOES NOT RETURN HOME. THE FOLLOWING DO NOT MOVE FROM THEIR PLACE:24 HE WHO BUILT A NEW HOUSE AND DEDICATED IT, PLANTED A VINEYARD AND USED ITS FRUIT, MARRIED HIS BETROTHED, OR TOOK HOME HIS BROTHER'S CHILDLESS WIDOW; AS IT IS SAID, HE SHALL BE FREE AT HOME ONE YEAR25 — 'AT HOME,' THIS REFERS TO HIS HOUSE; 'SHALL BE' REFERS TO HIS VINEYARD; 'AND SHALL CHEER HIS WIFE' REFERS TO HIS WIFE; WHICH HE HATH TAKEN' IS TO INCLUDE HIS BROTHER'S CHILDLESS WIDOW. THESE DO NOT SUPPLY WATER AND FOOD AND REPAIR THE ROADS [FOR THE ARMY]. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: 'And the officers shall speak' — it is possible to think that this refers to their own words;26 but when it states: And the officers shall speak further,27 behold this is to be understood as their own words; so how am I to explain 'And the officers shall speak'? Scripture alludes to the words of the priest Anointed for Battle. So what was the procedure? A priest speaks [the words] and an officer proclaims them [to the army]. One [authority] taught: A priest speaks [the words] and an officer proclaims them; another taught: A priest speaks [the words] and a priest proclaims them; while yet another taught: An officer speaks [the words] and an officer proclaims them! — Abaye said: What, then, was the procedure? From 'when ye draw nigh' down to 'and the officers shall speak'28 a priest speaks and a priest proclaims. From 'and the officers shall speakš down to 'and the officers shall speak further'29 a priest speaks and an officer proclaims. From 'and the officers shall speak' onwards an officer speaks and an officer proclaims. WHAT MAN IS THERE THAT HATH BUILT A NEW HOUSE? etc. Our Rabbis taught: 'That hath built' — I have here only the case where he built; whence is it [that the law applies also to a case where] he purchased, inherited or somebody gave it to him as a present? There is a text to state, What man is there that hath built a house.30 I have here only the case of a house; whence is it that it includes a barn for straw, a stable for cattle, a shed for wood and a storehouse? There is a text to state 'that hath built' — i.e., whatever [structure be erected]. It is possible to imagine that I am also to include one who built a lodge, loggia or verandah; there is a text to state 'a house' — as 'house' implies a place suitable for habitation so every [building for which exemption may be claimed must be] suitable for habitation. R. Eliezer b. Jacob says: [The word] 'house' [is to be interpreted] according to its usual definition; [and the fact that Scripture does not read] 'and hath not dedicated' but and hath not dedicated it31 is to exclude a robber.32 Is this to say that [this teaching] is not in agreement with that of R. Jose the Galilean?33 For if it agreed with R. Jose the Galilean, behold he has said: Fainthearted34 i.e., he who is afraid To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Num. XXXI, 6. [Shofaroth (pl. of Shofar) — i.e., the instruments which were called in those days Shofaroth and not by the biblical term hazozeroth; v. Shab. 36a (Strashun).] Gen. XXXVII, 36. Ex. VI, 25. Putiel is explained as 'one who fattened (calves) for a god'. Identified with Putiel. Phinehas. Viz., Zimri (Num. XXV. 7ff). Consequently Phinehas was considered by his contemporaries to have descended from Jethro. V. Sanh. 82b. The name Putiel is spelt with a yod which is usually the sign of the plural. Hence both the explanations given are possible, viz., Putiel can be identified either with Joseph or Jethro. Deut. XX, 5. For wine, oil, produce etc. So long as it was new to him, he was exempt from service. Ibid. 6. The minimum number to warrant exemption. May be included in the requisite number of plantings. The vine so that the end is embedded in the soil and brings forth a new shoot. Deut. XX, 7. Leaving no offspring, and it is his duty to marry the widow. Lit., 'house of the gate'. V. Glos. V. p. 119, n. 5. Because these are illegal marriages. A place in Palestine which is very sandy; so a house built there does not last long. To join the army and then claim exemption. Deut. XXIV, 5. I.e., spoken by the officers and not by the priest. Deut. XX, 8. The addition of 'further' is the basis of the deduction. I.e., the exhortation in Deut. XX, 3ff. Ibid. 5-7. This is understood as: whatever man built a new house, the present owner of it is exempt. The suffix is superfluous. A man who steals a new house is not exempt. Who exempts a sinner; v. supra p. 222. Deut. XX, 8. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference ### Sotah 43b because of the transgressions he had committed!1 — You may even say that it agrees with R. Jose the Galilean, as, e.g., when the man had repented and restored the monetary value. But in that event he becomes the purchaser, and as such returns home! — Since it originally came into his possession as the result of robbery, he does not [return home]. AND WHAT MAN IS THERE THAT HATH PLANTED A VINEYARD? etc. Our Rabbis taught: 'That hath planted' — I have here only the case where he planted; whence is it [that the law applies also to a case where] he purchased, inherited or somebody gave it to him as a present? There is a text to state, And what man is there that hath planted a vineyard. I have here only the case of a vineyard; whence is it that it includes five fruit-trees and even of other kinds [of plantings]? There is a text to state 'that hath planted'. It is possible to think that I am also to include one who planted four fruit-trees or five trees which are not fruit-bearing; therefore there is a text to state 'a vineyard'. R. Eliezer says: [The word] 'vineyard' [is to be interpreted] according to its usual definition; [and the fact that Scripture does not read] 'one hath not used the fruit' but 'and hath not used the fruit thereof is to exclude one who bends or grafts [the vine]. But we have the teaching: IT IS ALL ONE WHETHER HE PLANTED, BENT OR GRAFTED IT! — R. Zera said in the name of R. Hisda: There is no contradiction, the latter referring to a permitted grafting and the former to a prohibited grafting.2 What is an instance of this permitted grafting? If I say a young shoot on a young shoot, it follows that he ought to return home on account of [planting] the first young shoot! It must therefore be [grafting] a young shoot on an old stem. But R. Abbahu has said: If he grafted a young shoot on an old stem, the young shoot is annulled by the old stem and the law of 'orlah 3 does not apply to it! — R. Jeremiah said: It certainly refers to a young shoot on a young shoot, and [the case of a permitted grafting is where], e.g., he planted the first [stem] for a hedge or for timber; as we have learnt: He who plants for a hedge or for timber is exempt from the law of 'orlah.4 What is the distinction that a young shoot is annulled [when grafted] on an old stem5 but not [when grafted] on a young shoot?6 — In the former case if he reconsiders his intention with regard to it, it is incapable of retraction;7 but in the latter case if he reconsiders his intention with regard to it, it is capable of retraction8 since it is then analogous to [plants which] grow of themselves;9 for we have learnt: When they grow of themselves they are liable to 'orlah. But let him explain [the Mishnah10 as dealing with] the case of a vineyard belonging to two partners, where each returns home on account of his own [grafting]!11 — R. Papa declared: This is to say that in the case of a vineyard belonging to two partners, the war-regulations do not apply to it.12 Why, then, is it different with five brothers, one of whom dies in battle,13 that they all return home? — In the latter illustration we apply the words 'his wife' to each one of them;14 but in the other we cannot apply the words 'his vineyard' to each one of them.15 R. Nahman b. Isaac said: [The Mishnah deals with the] case where he grafted16 a tree into vegetables, and this accords with the view of the teacher responsible for the following teaching: If one bends17 a tree into vegetables — Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel allows it in the name of R. Judah b. Gamda of Kefar Acco,18 but the Sages forbid it. When R. Dimi came [from Palestine to Babylon] he reported in the name of R. Johanan, Whose teaching is it?19 It is that of R. Eliezer b. Jacob. Did not R. Eliezer b. Jacob declare above, The word 'vineyard' [is to be interpreted] according to its usual definition? So here also 'planted' [is to be interpreted] according to its usual definition; hence if he planted he does [return home], but if he bends or grafts he does not.20 When R. Dimi came he reported that R. Johanan said in the name of R. Eliezer b. Jacob: A young shoot less than a handbreadth in height is liable for 'orlah so long as it appears to be a year old;21 but this only applies where there are two plants with two other plants parallel to them and one in front.22 Should, however, the entire vineyard [consist of such shoots], then it is talked about.23 When R. Dimi came he reported that R. Johanan said in the name of R. Eliezer b. Jacob: A dead body affects four cubits with respect to the recital of the shema',24 as it is said: Whoso mocketh the poor reproacheth his Maker.25 R. Isaac declared that R. Johanan said in the name of R. Eliezer b. Jacob: A step-daughter reared with her [step-] brothers is forbidden to marry one of them because she appears to be their sister. But this is not so since the relationship is generally known.26 R. Isaac also declared that R. Johanan said in the name of R. Eliezer b. Jacob: If gleanings, forgotten sheaves and the corner of the field27 are gathered into a barn, they become subject to the tithe.28 'Ulla said: He only intended this to refer to a rural district, but in the city the fact [that the owner is a poor man who collected the produce from the fields of others] is generally known. R. Isaac also declared that R. Johanan said in the name of R. Eliezer b. Jacob: A shoot which is less than a handbreadth in height does not make the seeds forfeit;29 but this only applies when there are two plants with two other plants parallel to them and one in front. Should, however, the entire vineyard [consist of such shoots] it does make [the seeds] forfeit. R. Isaac also declared that R. Johanan said in the name of R. Eliezer b. Jacob: - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Consequently a robber may return home. Two different species. Lit., 'circumcision', the Law of Lev. XIX, 23 forbidding the enjoyment of the fruit of a tree during the first three years of growth. Since this regulation does not apply to a young shoot grafted on an old stem, it is not regarded as a new planting. And similarly he would not have to return on account of it. And its fruit is not subject to 'orlah. [Since it has been stated that one returns on account of a young shoot grafted on to another which has been planted for timber.] An old stem can never become young again, consequently the young shoot grafted to it becomes annulled. The planter can change his mind within the first three years, and determine the purpose of the young shoot, originally grafted for timber, to be for fruit, so that it becomes itself subject to 'orlah. And at the time of their plantation there was no definite purpose in the mind of the planter whether it was for fruit or timber. Which rules that one returns on account of grafting. [Instead of the far-fetched circumstance where the first young shoot was planted for timber.] Lit., 'they do not return on account of it from the army'. The partners do not have exemption for a new planting or grafting which belongs to them jointly, so that the Mishnah cannot deal with such a case. Leaving no offspring so that his wife is due to marry one of his brothers. Since it is not determined which one will marry her. Because it belongs to them jointly. [So Rashi. Rabina is answering the question in the Mishnah exempting one who grafts, cur. edd: 'bent'.] [Tosef. Kil. I, has 'grafts'.] [Being a permissible grafting it exempts the owner.] Viz., the statement above: is to exclude one who bends or grafts (the vine). [Even in a permissible case of bending or grafting.] Because if he uses its fruit, it might seem to others that he was doing what was forbidden. Five plants so arranged are considered a vineyard, to which all agree that the law of 'orlah applies, v. Ber. 35a. It is generally known that the vineyard has this peculiarity, and he may use the fruit. It may not be recited within the four cubits. Prov. XVII, 5. To perform a precept near a corpse is to deride it, since it is denied the privilege. That they have neither father or mother in common. V. Lev. XIX, 9f. and Deut. XXIV, 19. Because people may think that it is the produce of the man's field. Under the law forbidding mixture; v. Deut. XXII, 9. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |