Sotah Daf 43 - Three Exempt From War
Summary
- The text explains that Israel goes to war with the presence of the Divine represented by the *aron* containing the *luchot*, proves that the *aron* accompanies war from the campaign against Midian with Pinchas and the Sanhedrin present, and addresses why Pinchas is chosen and his maternal lineage from both Yosef and Yitro. It delineates who returns from the battlefront for a new house, newly planted vineyard, or betrothal, clarifies the roles of the *mashuach milchamah* and the officers in the battlefield proclamations, and defines what structures and plantings qualify for exemption, including detailed derashot on “mi ha’ish,” “asher banah,” and “asher nata.” It excludes forbidden or invalid cases (e.g., theft, illicit marriages, or prohibited grafts), contrasts partner-owned vineyards with the *yevamah* case, and concludes with a ruling of Rabbi Yochanan in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov regarding tiny trees and a continuing appearance of *orlah*.
- The *mashuach milchamah* assures the troops that “כי ה’ אלהיכם ההלך עמכם להלחם לכם,” meaning the Divine accompaniment is manifest because the Divine Names reside in the *aron* that goes with them. Maharsha writes that only the *luchot* are in the *aron*, but their text contains Divine Names such as “אלהיך” and “אל,” so the expression remains accurate. The prooftext from the Midian war reads “וישלח אותם משה... ואת פנחס... וכלי הקודש וחצצרות התרועה בידו,” which the text expounds as including the Sanhedrin (from the doubled word *otam*), Pinchas as the *mashuach milchamah*, the *aron* with the *luchot* as “כלי הקדש,” and the sounding instruments, with Maharsha noting the naming shift between *chatzotzrot* and *shofarot* reflected in Shabbat’s record of terms changing over time.
- The text states that Pinchas goes to Midian to avenge Yosef because Midianites sold Yosef to Egypt. The verse “מבנות פוטיאל” is explained either as Yitro, “שפיטם עגלים לעבודת כוכבים,” or Yosef, “שפטפט ביצרו,” and the resolution is that both are true on his mother’s side, supported by the מלא spelling with a yud indicating dual lineage. The Ayon Yaakov adds that poetic justice is served when a tool to fell the forest comes from the forest itself, and the Be’er Sheva observes that the tribes’ disparagement of Pinchas fixates on a weak lineage point while ignoring his strength as a descendant of Yosef.
- The Mishnah states that “מי האיש אשר בנה בית חדש ולא חנכו ילך וישוב לביתו,” applying not only to a residence but also to storage houses for straw, cattle, wood, and stores, and it includes one who built, purchased, inherited, or received as a gift. It rules similarly for “אשר נטע כרם” by including one who planted, layered, grafted, purchased, inherited, or received as a gift, and for “אשר ארש אשה ולא לקחה” by including a betrothed virgin or widow and even a “שומרת יבם,” with the novelty that a report of a brother’s death in war suffices to return despite lower evidentiary standards in wartime. Those who return still supply water and food and maintain roads, while those in illicit marriages (e.g., an *almana* to a *kohen gadol*, a *gerusha* or *chalutza* to a *kohen hedyot*, a mamzeret or netinah to a Yisrael, or the inverse) do not return because such unions are not “אשה חדשה.”
- The text states that those who already inaugurated their house, redeemed their fourth-year fruit (“נטע כרם וחיללו”), or married their betrothed or performed *yibbum* are fully exempt for a year based on “נקי יהיה לביתו שנה אחת... ושימח את אשתו אשר לקח,” with derashot mapping “לביתו” to the house, “יהיה” to the vineyard, “אשתו” to the wife, and “אשר לקח” to include the *yevamah*. The Sefer HaChinuch says the groom may not depart even for non-military matters that year, whereas Minchat Chinuch is medayek from the Rambam that only war is restricted, and the Rambam in Sefer HaMitzvot suggests avoiding a year-long business trip, with Chatam Sofer allowing travel for Torah.
- The verse “ודברו השוטרים” is read as the officers broadcasting the *mashuach milchamah*’s words, while “ויספו השוטרים” introduces their own additions. Abaye reconciles three baraitot by dividing the speech: from “ונגש” through “ודברו,” the *kohen* speaks and makes heard; from “ודברו” through “ויספו,” the *kohen* speaks and the officer makes heard; from “ויספו” onward, the officer both speaks and makes heard, including “מי האיש הירא ורך הלבב.”
- The derashah “מי האיש” expands “אשר בנה” to include a purchaser, heir, or recipient of a gift, and “אשר בנה” includes non-residential storehouses, while “בית” limits inclusion to something “ראוי לדירה,” excluding a *beit sha’ar*, *achsadra*, or *mirpeset*. The Yerushalmi adds that a structure smaller than four by four *amot* is not *ra’ui le’dira*. Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov says “בית כמשמעו,” limiting it to a residence, and “לא חנך ולא חנכו” excludes a thief from exemption. The text resolves the thief case with Rabbi Yossi HaGelili’s view on “מי האיש הירא ורך הלבב” by positing that the thief repented and paid, so he is not exempt as a sinner, yet he still is not exempt for the house since it first came to his hand through theft.
- The derashah “מי האיש” expands “אשר נטע” to a purchaser, heir, or recipient, and placing “נטע” before “כרם” includes five fruit trees of other species, while “כרם” excludes four fruit trees or any number of non-fruit trees. Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov says “כרם כמשמעו,” restricting it to an actual vineyard, and “לא חילל ולא חיללו” excludes one who layers or grafts. The Mishnah’s inclusion of one who layers or grafts is reconciled by distinguishing prohibited grafts (kilayim), which do not exempt, from permitted grafts, which do; the case of permitted graft is set as grafting a young tree onto a young tree where the first was planted for fencing or timber and thus initially not subject to *orlah*, and when one later intends it for fruit via grafting it becomes subject to *orlah*, avoiding nullification seen in a young tree grafted onto an old one.
- Rav Pappa infers that a vineyard owned by two partners does not generate an exemption because one cannot call each portion “כרמו” for an individual, unlike the *yevamah* case where each brother can be called “אשתו” since any may perform *yibbum*. Another resolution posits a graft of a tree onto a vegetable where, per Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Gamda of Kefar Akko, this is permitted, though the Sages forbid it, and if permitted it creates the exemption.
- Rav Dimi says in the name of Rabbi Yochanan quoting Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov that a diminutive young tree less than one tefach tall remains subject to *orlah* for all its years because it always appears as if in its initial state, with this applying in the arrangement of five trees “שתים כנגד אחת ויוצא זנב,” while in a full vineyard such appearance is publicly recognized as species-typical and does not mislead.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions