Implied Question: The reason that the Tana does not state here 'Mashu'ach Milchamah be'Sha'ah she'Medaber el ha'Am Keitzad?

Precedent: As it does in Perek Eilu Ne'emarin (above, Daf 32.) 'Mikra Bikurim Keitzad'?

Answer: Is because the Sugya there comes immediately follows the introduction 'And these must be said in Lashon ha'Kodesh ... '.

Question: The question remains however, why this Perek precedes that of Eglah Arufah, seeing as the Mishnah inserts 'Mashu'ach Milchamah' at the end of the Mishnah (there)?

Answer: Because the Tana there brought forward the Parshah of Eglah Arufah, since he was speaking about Parshas ha'Melech, so he followed it with the Parshah of Eglah Arufah.

Answer (cont.): Whereas here, where the Mishnah is coming to elaborate, it first deals with Mashu'ach Milchamah since its details are few, so it deals with it quickly before getting involved in the next topic.

Question: Why does the Tana there not mention 'Parshas Mashu'ach Milchamah', like he says 'Parshas Eglah Arufah'?

Answer: It is not appropriate to refer to 'Parshas Mashu'ach Milchamah', seeing as it is not said on account of the Mitzvah of reading, but as a warning.

Yerushalmi, Suggestion #1: Why is that? Because the Torah writes "ve'Diber".

Refutation: But by K'eri'as Sh'ma too, the Torah writes "ve'Diber" (ve'Dibarta bam), yet it may be recited in any language?

Suggestion #2: So it must be because the Torah writes 'Amirah'.

Refutation: But the Torah writes 'Amirah' too, by the Parshah of Viduy Ma'aser, yet it may be said in any language?

Suggestion #3: Rebbi Chagai therefore explains that 'It says here 'Hagashah' and it says later 'Hagashah' - "ve'Nigshu ha'Kohanim b'nei Levi". Just as the Hagashah there was in Lashon ha'Kodesh, so too the Hagashah here'. (Note: according to the Korban Eidah, this suggestion belongs after (d). See M'lo ha'Ro'im.

Question: That is fine according to Rebbi Akiva who learns from extra Leshonos (such as 'Dibur and Amirah'); But according to Rebbi Yishmael, who sees extra Leshonos simply as colloquialisms, what can one say?

Suggestion #4: Rebbi Chiya bar Aba explains 'It says here 'Negishah' and it says later 'Negishah' - "ve'Nigash Moshe el ha'Arafel". Just as the Negishah there was in Lashon ha'Kodesh, so too the Negishah here'.

Conclusion: It is not logical (to say that the Pesukim are in the correct order) but that "U'Fakdu Sarei Tzeva'os be'Rosh ha'Am" precedes "ve'Nigash ha'Kohen ve'Diber el ha'Am". (See M'lo ha'Ro'im. Note: this statement refers to the next piece of Gemara there, and not to the previous Sugya).

Question: The Gemara says in Sanhedrin (Perek Kohen Gadol, Daf 19.) that 'When the Kohen Gadol comforts others all the people pass by the Aveil and the Memuneh walks beside him on the other side'.

Question (cont.): The Beraisa there says that 'When he stands in the Shurah to comfort others the S'gan and the Mashu'ach Milchamah stand on his right'.

Question (cont.): And Rav Papa extrapolates from there three things; one of them - that 'The S'gan is synonymous with the Memuneh'.

Answer: Certainly, he was the Memuneh for those things that his brothers the Kohanim appointed him ...

Proof: As we learned in the Mishnah in Yoma (Daf 29.) 'The Memuneh said to them ... '.

Answer (concl.): Min ha'Torah however, he does not have any office over and above his brothers the Kohanim, and he is merely like a superintendent and a manager whom his brothers appointed.

Explanation #1: The Yerushalmi in Perek ha'Choletz, commenting on the Gemara there 've'Chayavin Asham Taluy' extrapolates a. that a woman can become pregnant even though she is already pregnant ... at

Explanation #1 (cont.): And b. that a woman cannot become pregnant from teo men at the same time.

Explanation #2: And this argues with the Rabbanan in a Medrash, who extrapolate from the Pasuk "Vayeitzei Ish ha'Benayim mi'Ma'archos P'lishtim" by way of an acronym ('mi'Me'ah Orlos P'lishtim') that a hundred men had relations with Orpah that night.

Reconciling the Opinions: Rebbi Masnaya suggests that they do not argue; in that, until the sperm rots, a woman can become pregnant from two men at the same time, after it rots, she cannot.

Conclusion: This implies that all hundred men were his fathers, since his mother became pregnant from them all.

Question: Not like Rashi, who explains 've'Chad Na'ana'i' to mean that only one of them was his father.

Correct Explanation: Therefore the Aruch translates 'Na'ana'i' as a dog - and that a hundred men and a dog had relations with her that night. And that is also how the Medrash Rabah explains it.

Medrash: And the Medrash in Shmuel citing Rebbi Yitzchak, explains that on the night that Orpah separated from her mother-in-law, a troop consisting of a hundred men had relations with her ...

Proof: As the Pasuk writes "And he was speaking with them and the man came from among them from the ranks of the P'lishtim (mi'Ma'archos P'lishtim, which is written without a 'Chaf' - "mi'Ma'aros", the acronym of 'mi'Me'ah Orlos P'lishtim'.

Medrash (cont.): Rebbi Tanchuma says 'also one dog', as the Pasuk states "and the P'lishti said to David "Am I a dog?"

Medrash (concl.): Furthermore the Medrash, commenting on the Pasuk "And he stood for forty days" citing Rebbi B'rachyah b'Rebbi Yitzchak, says 'As a reward for the forty steps that Orpah walked with her mother, they gave her son forty days' grace'.

The Tosefta: In Perek 7 (See there) - "Ki Hash-m Elokeichem ha'Holech imachem" - This refers to the Name of Hash-m that was placed in the Aron ...

Source: As the Torah writes (in Matos) "And Moshe sent them ... ", 'This teaches us that Pinchas was the Mashu'ach Milchamah'.

Source (cont.): "And the Holy Vessels" - 'This refers to the Aron', or, as others say, 'to the Bigdei Kehunah', as the Torah writes (in Tetzaveh) "And the holy garments that belong to Aharon".

Two Aronos: According to Rebbi Yehudah ben Lakish they had two Aronos, one that went out with them to war, in which were placed the broken Luchos, as the Torah writes (in Beha'aloscha) "And they traveled from the Mountain of Hash-m ... ".

Two Aronos (cont.): Whereas the one that remained with them contained the Seifer-Torah, as the Torah writes (in Sh'lach-L'cha) "And they ascended the mountain in defiantly ... ".

One Aron: But according to the Yerushalmi, there was only one Aron.

Note: The collator of Tosfos did not find any more Tosfos on this Masechta.