Sotah 43a (מג.) — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

because the Name and all its appellations

are placed in the Ark

that goes out with them to war.

And so it says

in the war against Midian:

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

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

And the Gemara interprets:

“Them” —

these are the Sanhedrin.

“Phinehas” —

this is the anointed priest for war.

“And the sacred vessels” —

this is the Ark and the Tablets in it.

“And the trumpets for sounding the alarm” —

these are the shofarot.

The tanna

in a beraita taught:

“Phinehas did not go for nothing

and not his father, Eleazar son of Aaron,

to the war,

but rather to exact the judgment of his mother’s father

—Joseph the righteous.

As it is stated:

“And the Midianites sold him into Egypt

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

And we challenge this:

Does this mean that Phinehas,

son of Eleazar the koen, was descended on his mother’s side

from Joseph?

But it is written:

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

What, is it not [

meaning, is the intention not]

that he was descended

on his mother’s side

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,

meaning that he treated it contemptuously and overcame it, giving it no consideration.

And we challenge this: How can it be said that his mother was descended from Joseph and not from Jethro?

But surely,

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

the

tribes were disparaging him

and saying:

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

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

And we resolve this:

Rather,

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

And this could have been in either of two ways:

If his maternal grandfather [

that is, his mother’s father] was

from Joseph,

then

his maternal grandmother [

that is, his mother’s mother] was

from Jethro;

and if his maternal grandmother was from Joseph,

then

his maternal grandfather was from Jethro.

This is also precise [

the verse is likewise exact] in stating that Phinehas’s mother was descended both from Jethro and from Joseph,

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

and the plural expression

indicates two,

two are implied.

Conclude from this that she was the daughter of two Putiels: Joseph, who

subdued his inclination, and Jethro, who fattened calves.

Mishna:

Our Mishna continues with the words of the anointed priest for war.

However, everything taught in the previous Mishna is said by the anointed priest for war, while another koen proclaims it afterward to the people in a loud voice.

From this point onward, by contrast, the statements are said by the anointed priest for war, while an officer proclaims them.

“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 any house suitable for some form of dwelling, even if he did not build it for residence but for other purposes, therefore

one who builds a straw house

a hut for straw, or one who builds

a cattle house [

a cowshed], or

a wood house [

a wood storehouse], or

a storehouse

for storing wine, oil, and grain,

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

one who builds and one who purchases

a completed house, since it is new for him,

and likewise

one who inherits and one to whom it was given as a gift,

if he has not dedicated it, 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 has the status of orla during its first three years, and it is forbidden to derive benefit from its produce. In the fourth year it is called kerem reva’i, and all the produce must be brought to Jerusalem, or the produce may be redeemed with money and the money brought to Jerusalem and eaten there, according to the laws of ma’aser sheni. After the redemption, the produce is permitted for consumption anywhere. As it is written concerning kerem reva’i: “Holy praises,” and by means of a gzera shava, “holy,” “holy,” it is derived from ma’aser, whose law is that of ma’aser sheni.

The verse states 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

one who plants a vineyard and one who plants five other fruit trees,

provided that he planted at least five trees in a configuration resembling a vineyard.

He must redeem the produce and returns, since through this the planting becomes a vineyard: he plants two trees opposite two trees, with one extending as the tail.

And even if he planted fruit trees from the five species,

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

And likewise, not only one who planted, but

whether one who plants,

or one who layers—

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

or one who grafts—

he inserts a tender branch from one tree into another tree—

or one who purchases, or one who inherits, or one to whom it was given

a vineyard as

a gift,

and the fourth year arrived and he had not yet redeemed its produce, 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 levirate widow

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

and even if he heard that his brother had died in this war

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

he returns and goes

to marry his betrothed or his levirate wife.

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

meaning, all these hear the koen’s words while they are in the battle formations,

and return from

the battle line.

However, they are not entirely exempt from the obligations of the war. Rather, they must perform various tasks needed by the army, such

as supplying water and food

to the men of the army and repairing the roads.

There are some who built, planted, or betrothed, but do not return from the battle line.

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, where the watchman sits in the shade,

and which keeps people in the public domain from looking into the courtyard;

b.

a portico—

something like a passageway in front of the house;

c.

and a balcony— a gallery in front of the upper story of the house. All these are not suitable for any form of dwelling, and one does not return on account of them, since they are not included in “Who is the man who has built a house.”

And these are those who planted but do not return:

a.

One who plants four fruit trees,

for this does not resemble a vineyard, since the minimum number of vines in a vineyard is five. b.

One who planted

five

or more than five, but they were

non-fruit-bearing 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 does not return.

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

a.

One who remarries his divorced wife

and betrothed her does not return on her account, since she is not new to him, and the verse requires that she be a new wife, as it is written: “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 Priest,

or

a divorcee or a ḥalutza to an ordinary koen,

a mamzeret or a netina to an Israelite,

or

an Israelite woman to a mamzer or a netin,

does not return

for her sake. This is as it is stated: “And who is the man who has betrothed a woman and has not taken her,” but it does not say, “who has not taken”; this indicates that she must be fit to be taken in marriage.

or

a divorced woman or a woman released through ḥalitza to an ordinary cohen,

a mamzeret or a woman of Gibeonite lineage to an Israelite,

or

an Israelite woman to a mamzer or a man of Gibeonite lineage,

does not return

for her sake, as it is stated: “Who has betrothed a woman and has not taken her,” rather than “has not taken”; this implies that she must be fit to be taken in marriage.

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 Yehuda says: Even one who builds a house on its foundations

which he had demolished and rebuilt as it had originally been,

does not return,

because 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 his case is inferior to that of one who purchased or inherited a house.

Rabbi Eliezer says: Even one who builds a house of bricks in the Sharon (

a place called the Sharon, which is in the lowlands of Eretz Yisrael),

does not return,

because the soil there is unsuitable for bricks, and such a house does not endure there; he would have had to rebuild these houses twice every seven years.

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

There are some who do not initially go out to the campaign:

These do not move from their places

at all—even to go as far as the border and return at the instruction of the kohen—and they are not assigned any other task for the sake of the army, neither supplying food nor repairing roads, nor anything similar, because they are obligated to remain in their homes.

a.

One who built a house and dedicated it

but had not yet lived in it for a year;

b.

One who planted a vineyard and redeemed it—

who redeemed the fruit of a fourth-year vineyard and began eating it, but the entire fourth year had not yet elapsed ,

c.

One who marries his betrothed,

or

one who takes his yevama in levirate marriage,

but a year had not yet elapsed from the marriage or from the day of the levirate marriage,

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 with the army, nor shall he pass over him for any matter;

he shall be free for his house for one year,

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

And they expound the superfluous wording:

“For his house”—this is his house—

for the sake of the house that he built and dedicated;

“shall be”—this is his vineyard—

the wording “shall be” comes to include another matter that is like his house, namely, his vineyard, which he redeemed and began eating 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

to include]

his yevama,

whom he took in levirate marriage, whose status is like that of one who marries his betrothed.

All these do not move from their homes, and they are not even

provided

with water and food, nor do they repair the roads:

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

It is written in the Torah:

“And the officers shall speak”—

one might have thought

that these

words

that they say, “Who is the man who has built, etc.,” are

their own

and that it was not the kohen 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, etc.,’”

the words are explicitly said to be their own

meaning that it indicates that they add this statement on their own to the words of the kohen],

And since before this verse, concerning one who planted a vineyard and concerning one who betrothed a woman, the word “continue” is not written, whereas here “continue” is written, it follows that the statement up to this verse is the words of the kohen, and only from this verse onward do the officers add words of their own.

If so,

how do I understand

in the verse

“And the officers shall speak”

with regard to one who built, planted, or betrothed?

The verse is speaking of the words of the anointed for war.

How so?

How did the officers speak if the reference is to the words of the anointed for war?

And we explain:

The kohen speaks, and an officer announces

to the people.

We find several contradictory baraitot concerning who speaks to the people and who announces.

One baraita teaches: The kohen speaks, and an officer announces.

And another baraita teaches: The kohen speaks, and a kohen announces.

And another baraita teaches: An officer speaks, and an officer announces.

And we resolve:

Abaye said: How so?

How can all the baraitot be reconciled?

They are reconciled as follows:

The words from

“and the kohen shall approach”

through

“and the officers shall speak”

—namely, “Hear, O Israel, you are approaching the battle today, etc.,” until “to save you”—

the kohen speaks and a kohen announces.

The words from

“and the officers shall speak”

through

“and they shall continue”

—namely, “Who is the man who has built, etc., who has planted, etc., who has betrothed, etc.”—

the kohen speaks and an officer announces.

And the words from

“and they shall continue” onward,

namely, “Who is the man who is fearful, etc.”—

an officer speaks and an officer announces.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Who is the man who has built a new house, etc.,”

whether one who built a house of straw, etc.; whether one who built or one who purchased, etc.

The Sages taught

in a baraita:

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

who has built.”

I have derived

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 states: “Who is the man who has built a house,”

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

And

I have derived

from the verse

only

a man who has a

house

for dwelling;

from where do I include

one who has

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

who returns if he has not dedicated them?

The verse states: “Who has built

a house”

and it does not say, “who has built a house”; this indicates that it comes to include every kind of house

in any case,

even a straw house, etc.

One might have thought that I include

from the word “built”

even one who builds a gatehouse, a portico, or a balcony,

which are types of construction unfit for dwelling,

The verse states: “A house,”

which excludes any construction that is not like a house.

Just as a house is

fit

for dwelling, so too, anything fit for dwelling

is included within the category of a house, such as a straw house, etc.

But one who builds a gatehouse, a portico, or a balcony, which are made for passage and are not fit for dwelling, 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 dwelling, and even a straw house, a cattle house, a wood house, or a storehouse is excluded, for although they are fit for dwelling, they are not intended for that purpose.

The continuation of the verse reads, “And he has not dedicated it,” and it could have read "

“and he

has not dedicated it,”

The baraita derives an exclusion from this:

“And he has not dedicated it”

applies to this one and not to another;

to exclude a robber

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

This concludes the baraita;

let us say

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

not in accordance with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili,

who appears in the Mishna below (44a).

For if

the baraita held in accordance with

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili,