Sotah 43b (מג:) — the Talmud in English

Did he say

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: (Deuteronomy 20:8

“Who is the man who is fearful

and fainthearted]]

shall go and return to his house”—

this is one who is afraid

of sins in his possession

who returns home,

And since we learn from “fainthearted” that a robber returns home, there is no need for “and has not dedicated it” to exclude one who robbed a house and does not return because he had not dedicated it; for he must return because of the robbery in his possession.

And we answer:

You may even say

that the beraita holds in accordance with

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili,

for even according to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili there is a case in which one who robbed a house goes out to war and does not return because he robbed it,

for example, if

the robber

repented and they gave him the money [

and he paid the value of the house] to the victim,

for in such a case he is not included in the category of “fainthearted,” since he has already repented. And in this situation the exclusion “and has not dedicated it” is necessary to exclude one who does not return from the ranks of the army because he had not dedicated the house.

And we challenge this:

If so,

if the case is one of a robber who repented and paid the victim for the house, why do we exclude him by means of “and has not dedicated it”? For

it would be

like a

purchaser

who returns if he has not dedicated the house he purchased

, and he should return [

that he should return] if he had not dedicated the house. And we answer:

Since initially [

from the outset]

the house came into his possession by virtue of robbery [

the house came]

as his,

even though he subsequently paid for it,

he does not

return from the war in order to dedicate it:

We learned in the Mishna:

(Deuteronomy 20:6) “And who is the man who planted a vineyard

and has not redeemed it

etc.”

The Sages taught

in a beraita:

“Who planted”—

I have derived only one who planted

and has not redeemed it, who returns from the ranks of the army; but if he

purchased, inherited, or was given

a vineyard

as a gift

and has not redeemed it,

from where

do I derive that they too are included in “planted”?

The verse states: “And who is the man who planted a vineyard”

The phrase “and who is the man” is superfluous, and thus includes even one who did not plant his own vineyard but received it from another who had planted it.

And

I have derived only

from the verse

that

a man who has

a vineyard; from where do I include

also one who has

five fruit trees

planted in the configuration of a vineyard, who returns in order to redeem them,

even

if he planted fruit trees

of different species—

that each tree was of a different species?

The verse states: “Which he planted

a vineyard”

It does not say “which vineyard he planted,” indicating that it comes to include plantings that are not a vineyard.

One might say that I include

from the word “planted” also

one who planted four fruit trees and five non-fruit trees

which do not have the status of a vineyard.

The verse states: “A vineyard,”

which excludes plantings that do not resemble a vineyard. And four plantings do not resemble a vineyard, even if the plantings are fruit trees, because the smallest vineyard consists of five vines.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: “A vineyard”

means

according to its plain meaning—

an actual vineyard; and it excludes even a planting of other fruit trees that resembles a vineyard.

The continuation of the verse says “and has not redeemed it,” although it could have said “

and

has not redeemed it,”

and the beraita derives an exclusion from this:

“And has not redeemed it”—this excludes one who bends a branch into the ground

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

and one who grafts

who inserts a young branch from one tree into a hole bored in another tree. (A Jew is permitted to graft when the branch is of the same species as the tree, even if the fruit of one is small and the fruit of the other is large. Rashi)

For plantings of this kind he does not return from the ranks of the army.

Thus far are the words of the beraita;

And we challenge this: How does the beraita exclude one who bends a branch and one who grafts by means of “and has not redeemed it”?

But did we not learn

in our Mishna that

both one who plants, one who bends a branch, and one who grafts

return in order to redeem their vineyard?

And he answers:

Rabbi Zeira said that Rav Ḥisda said: This is not difficult:

Here

in the beraita, which excludes one who grafts and one who bends a branch by means of “and has not redeemed it,” the case is

a prohibited grafting,

such as grafting one species onto another species, or prohibited bending of a branch, such as bending a branch of a tree into a vegetable and grafting it into the vegetable,

Here

in the Mishna, which includes one who grafts and one who bends a branch as included among one who plants a vineyard, the case is

permitted grafting

and permitted bending of a branch.

And we inquire about this:

This permitted grafting,

which Rav Ḥisda established as the case of the Mishna, for which one returns in order to redeem the grafting,

what are the circumstances?

If you say [

if it is said] that the case is one in which he grafted a branch of a

young [

young]

plant

onto a

young [

young] plant, which is not yet four years old and is subject to redemption,

then why does the Mishna need to include that he returns from the war in order to redeem the grafting?

It follows that he must return [

that he must return] even without the branch that he grafted,

because of the first young plant [

the plant itself], which is still young and subject to redemption.

Rather,

it must be said that the Mishna comes to include a graft in which he grafted a branch of a

young [

young plant that is subject to redemption]

plant

onto a

mature [

not subject to redemption] plant, in which case he returns from the war in order to redeem the grafting.

And we challenge this: Is this grafting indeed subject to redemption?

But did Rabbi Abbahu not say: A branch of a

plant

young

that was attached [

that was joined]

to a

plant

mature becomes nullified

the

young plant in the mature one and has no status of orla, and it also has no law of reva'i redemption. And that which is written in tractate Orla, that grafting is subject to orla, refers to a branch that was attached to a young tree that is still subject to orla,

and there is no law of use of the fruit of the fourth year in it. And what is written in tractate Orla, that grafting is liable for orla, speaks of a branch that was attached to a young tree that is still liable for orla,

For the branch becomes like the tree to which it was attached, since this is its planting.

And he answers:

Rabbi Yirmeya said: Actually,

our Mishna is speaking of grafting

a young plant into a young plant,

in which case the grafting is subject to redemption.

And as for the difficulty that even without the grafting he must return from the war in order to redeem the first planting,

it

is

speaking

for example, when he planted the first one [

when he planted the tree] for the purpose of

forming a fence [

a fence]—for example, there was a breach in the fence of his field and he planted the tree in the breach in order to close it—

and for beams—

to cut beams from it once it grows. In such a case the tree is exempt from orla and reva'i, and only the grafting is subject to redemption.

As

we learned

in tractate Orla (1:1):

One who plants for the purpose of forming a fence or for beams is exempt from orla,

and our Mishna teaches that even in this case, where only the grafting is subject to redemption, he returns from the war for the purpose of the redemption.

And we challenge this: Why, when he grafts into a planting intended for a fence and for beams, is the grafting subject to redemption?

And in what way is

the grafting of a

young plant into a

plant

mature

whose law is

that it becomes nullified

the branch becomes nullified in the mature planting, is not subject to orla, and has no law of reva'i,

and in what way is

the grafting of a

young

branch intended for fruit

into a

plant

young

intended for a fence and for beams, and exempt from orla and reva'i, in which case

the law is

that it does not become nullified

the branch does not become nullified in the planting and is subject to orla, and has the law of redemption?

And we answer: The grafting of a young plant into a mature one differs from the grafting of a young plant into a young plant that was planted for a fence and for beams:

There,

in the case of grafting a young plant into a mature one, the young plant becomes nullified in the mature planting, since even

if he changes his mind concerning it [

even if he changes his mind] about the planting,

it is not capable of having its status changed [

he cannot return and alter the status of the planting through thought], so that its status would become that of a young plant.

But

here,

in the case of grafting a young branch into a young planting that was planted for a fence and for beams, if he

changes his mind concerning it [

if he changes his mind] during the years of orla to maintain it for its fruit,

it is capable of having its status changed

his thought is effective in changing the purpose of the planting to fruit, and the planting once again becomes subject to orla and reva'i. Therefore, the young branch grafted into it is subject to orla,

And even though he has not yet changed his mind regarding raising the planting itself for its fruit, nevertheless, the branch that he grafted is intended for eating,

and his thought is effective, just as it is effective with regard to the planting itself, even though at the time of planting he did not plant it for that purpose.

As is the case [

as the law is] with

the

trees that

grew on their own,

which are subject to orla even though they were not intentionally planted for their fruit.

As we learned:

Fruit trees that

grew on their own,

even though he himself did not plant them—

are subject to orla.

And we challenge this: Why did we need to establish, in a strained manner, the case in which he returns for the redemption of the grafting as one in which he planted the planting itself for a fence and for beams?

After all, it could have been established as a case in which he planted it for eating; and as for the difficulty that in such a case he must already return for the redemption of the planting itself,

let us establish it [

it can be established]

as a vineyard belonging to two partners,

in which one of them grafted his branch into his fellow’s planting, so that the fruit of the branch would belong to him.

For

in such a case,

this one returns for his own sake

the owner of the planting returns for the redemption of his planting,

and this one returns for his own sake

and the owner of the graft returns for the redemption of his grafting.

Rav Pappa said: This indicates [

it follows from the Gemara’s question] that only when the planting belongs to one person and the grafting to another do they return from the ranks of the army in order to redeem them. But if the

vineyard belongs to two partners

and the plantings belong to both of them,

they do not return for it from the ranks of the army,

and he expresses astonishment:

And in what way is

a planting belonging to partners, which is subject to redemption, different, such that the partners do not return from the war, from

five brothers, one of whom died in the war

and left a wife without children who is subject to yibbum, as is explained in the beraita below (44a

that all of them return,

because she is awaiting yibbum from all the brothers?

And we answer:

There,

with regard to the yevama, all the brothers return from the war, because

each

one

and

one

and every

of the brothers,

“his wife” applies to him,

as perhaps she will undergo yibbum with that brother.

But

here,

with regard to a planting belonging to partners, for

each

one

and

one

and every

of the partners,

“his vineyard” does not apply

as a vineyard designated exclusively for him, since there is not even a single vine in the planting in which both of them do not have a share.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The statement in the Mishna that one who grafts and one who bends a branch return from the war in order to redeem their grafting and bending refers to

one who bends

a branch of a

tree

into a vegetable,

which involves both bending and grafting, since he bends the branch into the vegetable and grafts it into it.

In this case, only the grafted branch is subject to redemption, and not the vegetable. The Mishna teaches that he returns because of the redemption of the grafting, and the bending entails returning as well.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak establishes the Mishna according to the tanna who permits grafting one species onto another species; for otherwise, this would be prohibited grafting, and it would be excluded by “and has not redeemed it”—excluding prohibited grafting, for which one does not return.

And who is the tanna who holds that it is permitted to graft one species onto another?

This is the tanna,

for it was taught: One who bends a tree into a vegetable,

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel permits

in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Gamda of Kefar Akko, and the Sages prohibit.

When Rav Dimi came, he said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: To resolve the contradiction between our Mishna, which includes one who bends a branch and one who grafts among those who return from the ranks of the army, and the beraita, which excludes one who bends a branch and one who grafts from “and has not redeemed it,”

whose opinion is this

the beraita?

It is Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s.

And

did Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov not say there

to exclude one who plants five trees of other fruit species, who is not included in the category of one who plants a vineyard, because he derives

“vineyard” according to its plain meaning?

Here too

he holds with regard to one who bends a branch and one who grafts that he excludes them by means of

“planted,”

as he holds that it means

according to its plain meaning

only

one who plants does not

return from the war in order to redeem his vineyard, but

one who bends a branch and one who grafts do not

return.

one who bends a branch into the ground or grafts does not

return.

Since statements that Rabbi Yoḥanan transmitted in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov have been cited, the Gemara cites additional statements that Rabbi Yoḥanan transmitted in his name:

When Rav Dimi came, he said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov:

A

young

vine that is low and will always remain

less than a handbreadth high,

the Sages decreed that it

is subject to orla throughout all its years,

even after the years of orla,

because it

appears [

that it appears]

to be one year old [

one year old], and if they permit it to be eaten, people will come to eat actual orla fruit as well.

And this applies

that it is subject to orla throughout all its years only in an extremely small vineyard, arranged as

two opposite two

with one extending like a tail,

But

if there is a complete vineyard of low-growing plantings,

the entire vineyard has a reputation [

a complete vineyard has a reputation], and everyone says that so-and-so has a vineyard unlike all other vineyards. Once the years of orla have passed, everyone knows that it is mature.

When Rav Dimi came, he said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov: A corpse occupies four cubits with regard to the recitation of Shema

such that it is prohibited to recite Shema within four cubits of it,

as it is written:

(Proverbs 17:5) “He who mocks the poor blasphemes his Maker,”

for since the deceased cannot perform mitzvot, one who performs a mitzva beside him is considered to be mocking him.

Rabbi Yitzḥak said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi

Eliezer ben Yaakov: A stepdaughter

his wife’s daughter from her previous husband,

who grew up among the brothers

who grew up together with his sons from another woman,

even though she is not forbidden to them by law as a sister, since she is not their sister,

nevertheless

is forbidden to marry

them,

the brothers,

because

she appears

to be

their sister

; one who does not know her circumstances and sees that she grew up with the father’s sons will assume that she is their sister and say that a brother is marrying his sister.

The Gemara rejects this:

That is not so;

this is not the halakha, because

the matter has a public reputation

and it is known to the public that they are not brother and sister, so there is no need for concern .

It is written in the Torah: “And the Levite shall come, for he has no portion or inheritance with you.” The Sifrei expounds from this verse that specifically with regard to something in which the Levite has no portion or inheritance with you does he come and take his First Tithe.

This excludes gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the corner of the field, in which he does have a portion and inheritance with you, since they are ownerless even to poor Levites, like all other poor Israelites. He therefore does not take the First Tithe from them.

And Rabbi Yitzḥak said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov: Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the corner of the field that

a poor person gathered and collected in large quantities and

made

into a heap

on the threshing floor,

their status is that they

have been rendered subject to tithing

by rabbinic ordinance, and tithes must be separated from them, despite the fact that ordinarily tithes are not separated from gifts to the poor, because people will assume that this threshing floor was made from the produce of his own field.

Ulla said: We stated this halakha

only

with regard to

when he made this threshing floor

in the field,

for not everyone knows that he brought the produce little by little, and they assume that it grew there.

But

when the poor man made the threshing floor

in the city, the matter has a public reputation

that he brought the produce little by little, and people know that the threshing floor consists of gifts to the poor, which are exempt from tithes.

And Rabbi Yitzḥak said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov: A

vine

sapling that is less

than a handbreadth

in height does not render forbidden

the seeds

next to it

because of the prohibition of mixed species in a vineyard, since the entire prohibition with regard to other seeds, aside from hemp and arum, is rabbinic, and in the case of such a low vineyard the Sages did not issue a decree prohibiting other seeds.

And these words

apply specifically to a very small vineyard, consisting of

two opposite two and one protruding like a tail,

but

if there is

an entire vineyard

of low-growing vines,

it renders them forbidden

the vineyard renders the seeds forbidden, because since it is significant, the Sages decreed that it should prohibit the seeds .

The arrangement of the construction of burial chambers is explained in Bava Batra (100b): They would make large, roofed chambers six cubits by six cubits, and would dig deep burial niches, the length of the deceased, into the walls of the chamber all around, along every wall, and there they would place the dead. In the area outside the entrance to the chamber, they would lower the level of the ground, and that area was called the courtyard of the chamber.