Sotah 43a — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

because the Name and all its appellations ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

are placed in the Ark

that goes out with them to war.

And so it says

in the war against Midian:

“And Moses sent them, a thousand from each tribe, for the army, them and Phinehas

son of Eleazar the kohen, for the army, and the sacred vessels and the trumpets of alarm in his hand.”

And the Gemara expounds:

“Them” —

these are the Sanhedrin.

“Phinehas” —

this is the kohen mashuakh milhama.

“And the sacred vessels” —

this is the Ark and the Tablets within it.

“And the trumpets of alarm” —

these are the shofarot.

The tannai

in a beraita:

Phinehas did not go

and not his father Eleazar son of Aaron

to the war for no reason,

but in order to exact the judgment of his mother’s father —

Joseph the righteous.

As it is stated:

“And the Midianites sold him to Egypt

to Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, chief of the slaughterers.”

And we raise an objection:

Does this mean that Phinehas

son of Eleazar the kohen, his mother

was descended from Joseph?

But it is written:

“And Eleazar son of Aaron took for himself from the daughters of Putiel as a wife.”

What, is it not

and is the meaning not]

that he was descended

from his mother

from Jethro,

who was called Putiel because

he fattened calves for idolatry?

And we reject this:

No,

his mother was

from Joseph,

who was also called Putiel because

he subdued his inclination,

for he scorned it and mastered it and did not consider it.

And we raise an objection: How can it be said that his mother was from Joseph and not from Jethro,

but surely

after Phinehas killed Zimri son of Salu for having relations with Cozbi daughter of Zur,

the

tribes were humiliating him

and saying:

“Have you seen this son of Putiel, the son of one whose maternal grandfather fattened calves for idolatry—he will kill a prince of Israel?”

This indicates that Phinehas’s mother was from the family of Jethro.

And we answer:

Rather,

Phinehas’s mother was both from the family of Joseph and from the family of Jethro,

and this was in one of two ways:

if his mother’s father [

his mother’s father] was

from Joseph,

then

his mother’s mother [

his mother’s mother] was

from Jethro,

and if his mother’s mother was from Joseph,

then

his mother’s father was from Jethro.

This is also precise [

It is also precise [

also in the verse it is precise] that Phinehas’s mother was both from Jethro and from Joseph,

for it is written, “from the daughters of Putiel,”

in the plural ,

which implies two.

Conclude from it

that she was the daughter of two Putiels: of Joseph, who subdued his inclination, and of Jethro, who fattened calves.

Mishna:

Our Mishna continues with the words of the kohen mashuakh milhama.

Rather, everything that we learned in the previous Mishna, the kohen mashuakh milhama says, and another kohen announces it to the people after him in a loud voice.

But from here onward, these are matters that the kohen mashuakh milhama says and an officer announces.

“And the officers shall speak to the people, saying: Who is the man who has built a new house and has not dedicated it

let him go and return to his house, and so on.” "

“Who has built a new house”—this implies every house suitable for any dwelling at all, even if he did not build it for dwelling but for other needs,

therefore

whether one who builds a straw house

a hut for straw, or one who builds

a cattle house [

a cattle pen], or

a wood house [

a wood storehouse], or

a storehouse

to store wine, oil, and grain,

and likewise, not only one who built a house, but

whether one who builds or one who purchases

a completed house, for it is new for him,

and

likewise

whether an heir or one to whom it was given as a gift,

if he has not dedicated it, he returns to dedicate his house.

“And who is the man who has planted a vineyard and has not redeemed it, and so on.”

One who plants a vineyard: for the first three years it has the status of orla, and it is forbidden to derive benefit from its fruits. In the fourth year it is called kerem reva'i, and all the fruits must be taken up to Jerusalem, or the fruits must be redeemed with money and the money taken up to Jerusalem and eaten, as the law of maaser sheni. After the redemption, the fruits are permitted for eating anywhere. As it is written concerning kerem reva'i (Leviticus 19), “holy praises,” and they learn by gzera shava “holy” from “holy” from maaser, whose law is that of maaser sheni.

And the verse says that one who has kerem reva'i that he has not redeemed returns from the battle formations.

And not only one who planted a vineyard returns, but

whether one who plants a vineyard or one who plants five other fruit trees

so long as he planted at least five trees in a form resembling a vineyard , he must redeem and returns, since through this it becomes a vineyard, by planting two trees opposite two trees and one projecting as a tail, like this:

And even

if he planted fruit trees

of the five species,

so that each tree was of a different species, they combine.

And likewise, not only one who plants, but

whether one who plants,

or one who layers —

who bends a vine branch into the ground and brings out its end on the other side, so that it takes root there and grows as a separate vine,

or one who grafts —

who inserts a soft branch from one tree into another tree,

or one who purchases, or an heir, or one to whom it was given

a vineyard as a

gift,

and the fourth year arrived and he had not yet redeemed it, he returns to redeem his vineyard.

“And who is the man who has betrothed a woman, and so on,”

“let him go and return to his house.”

Whether one who betroths a virgin or one who betroths a widow,

and

even a waiting levirate widow

who had fallen before him for levirate marriage and had been waiting for him to perform levirate marriage with her,

and even one who heard that his brother had died in this war

and his brother’s wife requires levirate marriage with him,

he returns and comes to it

to take in his betrothed or his levirate wife.

All these hear the words of the kohen from the battle formations,

that is, all these hear the words of the kohen while they are in the battle formations,

and return from

the formation . But they are not completely exempt from the obligations of war; rather, they are obligated to engage in various tasks that the army requires, such

as

supplying

water and food

to the men of the war,

and repairing the roads.

There are those who built, or planted, or betrothed, and they do not return from the formation.

And these

are

those who do not return

from the battle formations:

A.

One who builds a gatehouse —

a small house beside the courtyard gate, in which the guard sits in the shade, and keeps the people of the public domain from looking into the courtyard,

B.

A portico —

like a corridor in front of the house ,

C.

And a balcony —

a projecting platform in front of the upper floor of the house.

All these are not suitable for any dwelling at all, and one does not return on account of them, for they are not included in “Who is the man who has built a house.”

And these are those who planted and do not return:

A.

One who plants four fruit trees,

for this does not resemble a vineyard, since the smallest of vineyards is five vines.

B.

And

one who planted

five

or more than five, but they were

non-fruit trees,

such as cedars and sycamores, which are not fruit trees,

is not included in “Who is the man who has planted a vineyard,” and he does not return.

And these are those who betrothed a woman and do not return:

A.

One who takes back his divorced wife

and betroths her does not return, for she is not new to him, and the verse is particular that she be a new wife, as it is written: “For when a man takes a new wife” (Deuteronomy 24). B. Likewise, one who betrothed a woman whom he is forbidden to marry, such as

a widow to a High kohen,

or

a divorced woman or a halutza to a common kohen,

a mamzeret or a netina to an Israelite man,

or

an Israelite woman to a mamzer or a netin,

he would not return

for her sake, for it is stated, “And who is the man who has betrothed a woman and has not taken her,” and it does not say, “and has not taken”; this implies that she must be fit to be taken.

Rabbi Judah says: Even one who builds a house on its foundation

which he had demolished and rebuilt as it had been at first

does not return,

for this is not called a “new house,” since he did not renew it by adding to it; and even for him it is not new, and it is inferior to the purchaser and the heir.

Rabbi Eliezer says: Even one who builds a brick house in Sharon (

a place whose name is Sharon, and it is in the lowland of the Land of Israel),

does not return,

because the ground there is not suitable for bricks, and it does not endure there; and he had to renew these houses twice in every seven years.

And Rabbi Eliezer holds that he is not included in “Who is the man who has built.”

There are those who do not initially go out to the campaign.

These are those who do not move from their places

at all, even to go as far as the border and return at the command of the koen; and no other work for the sake of the army is imposed upon them—not supplying food, nor repairing roads, nor anything similar to these—because they are obligated to be found in their homes.

a.

He built a house and dedicated it

and had not yet lived in it for a year,

b.

He planted a vineyard and redeemed it—

that he redeemed the fruits of a fourth-year vineyard and began to eat them, except that the entire fourth year had not yet passed for him ,

c.

One who takes his betrothed as wife,

or

one who brings in his yevama

and a year had not yet passed from the marriage or from the day of the yibbum,

all these do not go out to the campaign at all,

as it is stated

(Deuteronomy 24)

“When a man takes a new wife, he shall not go out in the army, nor shall he pass over him for any matter,

he shall be free for his house one year,

and he shall rejoice with his wife whom he has taken.”

And they expound from the superfluity of the wording:

“For his house”—this is his house—

for the sake of his house which he built and dedicated;

“he shall be”—this is his vineyard—

for the expression “he shall be” comes to include another thing that shall be like his house, namely, his vineyard which he redeemed and began to eat its fruit;

“And he shall rejoice with his wife”—this is his wife—

after the marriage, during the first year;

“Whom he has taken”—to include [

it comes to include]

his yevama

whom he brought in, whose status is like that of one who takes his betrothed as wife;

all these do not move from their houses, and moreover

they do not supply

(them with) water and food, and they do not repair the roads:

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

It is written in the Torah:

“And the officers shall speak”—

one might have thought

[it is possible] that the

words

which they say, “Who is the man who has built, and so on,” are

their own

and it was not the koen who said them, but rather the officers;

when it says

afterward

(Deuteronomy 20) “And the officers shall continue

to speak to the people and say: Who is the man, and so on,”

the words of their own are stated

[it implies that they add this matter on their own to his words],

and since before this verse, concerning one who planted and concerning one who betrothed a woman, “and they shall continue” is not written, whereas here “and they shall continue” is written, it implies that the proclamation up to this verse is from the words of the mashuach milchama, and only from this verse onward do the officers add on their own.

If so,

how do I fulfill

in the verse

“And the officers shall speak”

concerning one who built, planted, or betrothed?

The verse is speaking of the words of the mashuach milchama.

How so?

How did the officers speak if it is referring to the words of the mashuach milchama?

And we explain:

The koen speaks, and an officer makes it heard

to the people .

We have found several contradictory beraitot concerning who speaks to the people and who makes it heard.

One tanna taught: The koen speaks and an officer makes it heard.

And another beraita taught: The koen speaks and a koen makes it heard.

And another beraita taught: An officer speaks and an officer makes it heard.

And we reconcile them:

Abaye said: How so?

How are all the beraitot reconciled?

They are reconciled as follows:

The words that are

from “And the koen shall approach”

the koen

until “And the officers shall speak,”

namely, “Hear, Israel, you are approaching the battle today, and so on,” until “to save you,”

the koen speaks and a koen makes it heard; the words that are

from

“And the officers shall speak”

the officers

until “And they shall continue,”

namely, “Who is the man who has built, and so on; who has planted, and so on; who has betrothed, and so on,”

the koen speaks and an officer makes it heard;

and the words that are

“from ‘And they shall continue’ onward,”

namely, “Who is the man who is fearful, and so on,”

an officer speaks and an officer makes it heard.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Who is the man who has built a new house, and so on,”

one who builds a house of straw, and so on; one who builds and one who purchases, and so on:

The Sages taught

in a beraita:

It is written in the Torah, “Who is the man

who has built.”

I have

to learn from there

only

a man

who has built,

but a man who

purchased, inherited, or was given

a house

as a gift—from where

do I know that he, too, is included in “who has built”?

The verse says: “Who is the man who has built a house,”

for “who is the man” is superfluous, to include also one who did not build his new house himself, but received it from another who built it.

And

I have

to learn from the verse

only

a man who has

a house

for residence;

from where is it derived to include

also one who has

a straw house, a cattle house, a wood house, or a storehouse

who returns if he did not dedicate them?

The verse says: “Who has built

a house”

and it does not say, “Who has built a house,” meaning that it comes to include every house

in any case

even a straw house, and so on.

One might have thought that I include

from “has built”

even one who builds a gatehouse, a colonnade, or a veranda,

which are types of construction not fit for residence;

the verse says: “a house,”

which excludes every construction that is not like a house.

Just as a house is

fit

for residence, so too, everything fit for residence

is included in “house,” such as a straw house, and so on;

but one who builds a gatehouse, a colonnade, or a veranda, which are made for passage and are not fit for dwelling in, is not included in “Who is the man who has built a house.”

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: “A house”

means

according to its plain meaning,

an actual house, intended for residence, and he excludes even a straw house, a cattle house, a wood house, and a storehouse, which are indeed fit for residence, but are not intended for this.

Further in the verse it is written, “And he did not dedicate it,” and it could have been written

“and

did not dedicate it,”

the beraita expounds from this an exclusion:

“And he did not dedicate it”

this one, and not another;

excluding a robber

who robbed a house and did not dedicate it, who does not return from the ranks of the war.

Thus far are the words of the beraita;

let us say

that the beraita which says that one who robs a house and does not dedicate it is excluded and does not return from the ranks of the war is

not in accordance with Rabbi Yose the Galilean,

who is in the Mishna below (44a).

For if

the beraita held in accordance with

Rabbi Yose the Galilean,