Sotah 43b — the Talmud in English

But he said

Rabbi Yosei the Galilean: (Deuteronomy 20:8

“Who is the man who is fearful]]

and fainthearted

let him go and return to his house”—

this is one who is afraid ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

of sins that are in his possession

who returns to his house,

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

And we answer:

Even if you say

that the beraita holds in accordance with

Rabbi Yosei the Galilean,

even according to Rabbi Yosei the Galilean there is a case in which one who robs a house goes out to war and does not return on account of having robbed it,

for example, when

the robber

repented and they gave money

[and paid the value of the house] to the robbed person,

for in such a case he is not included in the category of “fainthearted,” since he has already repented; and in this manner the exclusion of “and he has not dedicated it” is needed, to exclude one who does not return from the ranks of the army on account of not having dedicated the house.

And we challenge:

If so,

if it is speaking of a robber who repented and paid the robbed person for the house, why do they exclude him by means of “and he has not dedicated it”? But

it would be

like

one who purchases

who returns if he did not dedicate the house that he purchased

, and he should return

[he should return] if he did not dedicate the house. And we answer:

since initially

[from the beginning]

it came to him by virtue of robbery

[the house came]

to his possession,

even though afterward he paid for it,

he does not

return from the war in order to dedicate it:

We learned in the Mishna:

“And who is the man who planted a vineyard

and has not used its fruit

etc.”:

The Sages taught

in a beraita:

“That he planted”—

I have only

that one who planted and has not used its fruit returns from the ranks of the army; but if he

purchased, inherited, or it was given to him

a vineyard

as a gift

and has not used its fruit,

from where

[do I know] that they too are included in “he planted”?

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

for “and who is the man” is superfluous, to include also one who did not plant his own vineyard, but received it from another who planted it.

And

I have only

learned from the verse

but

a man who has

a vineyard—from where is there an inclusion

also of one who has

five fruit trees

planted in the form of a vineyard, who returns in order to render them permitted

even

if he planted fruit trees

of other species—

for each tree was of a different species.

The verse states: “That he planted

a vineyard”

and it does not say “that he planted a vineyard,” indicating that it comes to include also plantings that are not of a vineyard.

One might have said that I include

from “he 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, since the smallest of vineyards is five grapevines.

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,

later in the verse it says “and has not used its fruit,” and it could have said

“and

has not used its fruit,”

the beraita derives an exclusion from this:

“And has not used its fruit”—this excludes one who layers

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

and one who grafts

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

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

Thus far are the words of the beraita;

And we challenge: How does the beraita exclude one who layers and one who grafts from “and has not used its fruit”?

But did we not learn

in our Mishna that

both one who plants, and one who layers, and one who grafts

returns in order to use the fruit of his vineyard?

And he answers:

Rabbi Zeira said that Rav Ḥisda said: It is not difficult,

Here,

in the beraita that excludes one who grafts and one who layers from “and has not used its fruit,” it is speaking

of a prohibited grafting ,

such as when he grafted one species onto a species that is not its kind, and of prohibited layering, such as when he layered a branch of a tree into a vegetable and grafted it into it ,

Here,

in the Mishna that includes one who grafts and one who layers as included in one who plants a vineyard, it is speaking

of permitted grafting

and permitted layering.

And we examine it:

This permitted grafting,

which Rav Ḥisda established as the case of the Mishna, that he returns on account of using the fruit of the grafting,

what are the circumstances?

If you say

[if it is said] that it is speaking of grafting a branch of a planting

young

[immature]

onto

a planting

young

[immature], which has not yet reached four years and is liable for use of its fruit,

if so, why does the Mishna need to include that he returns from the war in order to use the fruit of the grafting?

It follows that he needs to return

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

because of the first young planting

[the planting itself], which is still young and liable for use of its fruit,

Rather,

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

young

[immature planting that is liable for use of its fruit]

onto

a planting

old

[which is not liable for use of its fruit], and he returns from the war on account of using the fruit of the grafting.

And we challenge: Is this grafting liable for use of its fruit?

But Rabbi Abbahu said: A branch

of a

young

that was entwined

[attached]

onto

a planting

old, is nullified

the

young one into the old one, and there is no law of orla in it ,

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, for this is its planting.

And he answers:

Rabbi Yirmeya said: Actually,

our Mishna is speaking of grafting

a young one into a young one,

in which case the grafting is liable for use of its fruit,

and as for what is difficult—that even without the grafting he must return from the war in order to use the fruit of the first planting—

from

what he

says,

for example, he planted this first one

[that he planted the tree] for the purpose of

a fence

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

and for beams—

to cut beams from it when it grows. In such a case the tree is exempt from orla and reva'i, and only the grafting is liable for use of its fruit.

As in

we learned

in tractate Orla (1:1):

One who plants for a fence and for beams is exempt from orla,

and our Mishna teaches that even in such a case, in which only the grafting is liable for use of its fruit, he returns from the war on account of using the fruit.

And we challenge: Why, when he grafted onto a planting intended for a fence and for beams, is the grafting liable for use of its fruit?

And what is different

about grafting a branch

young onto

a planting

old,

where the law is

that it is nullified

the branch to the old planting, and it is not liable for orla, and there is no law of fourth-year produce,

and what is different

about grafting a branch

young

intended for fruit

onto

a planting

young

intended for a fence and for beams and exempt from orla and reva'i, where the law is

that

it is not nullified

the branch to the planting and it is liable for orla, and there is a law of use of its fruit.

And we answer: Grafting a young one into an old one differs from grafting a young one into a young one that was planted for a fence and for beams:

There,

in grafting a young one into an old one, the young one is nullified to the old planting, since even

if he changes his mind concerning it

[even if he changes his mind] about the planting,

it is not subject to changing his mind

[he cannot return and change the law of the planting through thought], so that its law should be that of a young planting.

But

here,

in grafting a young branch into a young planting that he 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 fruit,

it is subject to changing his mind

his thought is effective to change the purpose of the planting to fruit, and again the planting becomes liable for orla and reva'i. Therefore the law of the young one into which they graft is that it is liable for orla,

and even though he has not yet changed his mind from his thought of growing the planting itself for 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 this purpose.

Just as is the case

[as is the law] with

the

trees that

grew by themselves,

which are liable for orla even though they were not planted intentionally for fruit.

As we learned:

Fruit trees that

grew by themselves,

even though he himself did not plant them—

are liable for orla.

And we challenge: Why did we need to establish the case in which he returns on account of using the fruit of the grafting in a forced manner, as one who planted the planting itself for a fence and for beams?

Could it not be established with one who planted for eating, and as for what is difficult—that in such a case he must already return on account of using the fruit of the planting itself—

let us establish it

[it can be established]

with a vineyard belonging to two partners,

in which one of them grafted his branch into his fellow’s planting, so that the fruits of the branch would be his.

For

in this manner,

this one returns for his own sake

the owner of the planting returns on account of using the fruit of his planting,

and this one returns for his own sake

and the owner of the grafting returns on account of using the fruit of his grafting.

Rav Pappa said: This indicates

[it emerges from the Gemara’s challenge] that only when the planting belongs to one and the grafting belongs to the other do they return from the ranks of the army in order to use the fruit. But if it is

a vineyard belonging to two partners

whose plantings belong to both of them,

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

and he wonders:

And what is different

about a planting belonging to partners that is liable for use of its fruit, but 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 liable for levirate marriage, as is explained in the beraita below (44a),

that all of them return,

because she is awaiting levirate marriage from all the brothers.

And we answer:

There,

with the woman awaiting levirate marriage, all the brothers return from the war, because

each

of

and every

one

and every

of the brothers,

“his wife” can be applied to him,

for perhaps she will undergo levirate marriage with that brother,

but

here,

with a planting belonging to partners, for

each

of

and every

one

and every

of the partners,

“his vineyard” cannot be applied to him

as one belonging exclusively to him, for there is not even one grapevine in the planting in which they do not both have a share .

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: What the Mishna teaches, that one who grafts and one who layers returns from the war on account of using the fruit of his grafting and his layering, is speaking

of one who layers

a branch of

an

tree into a vegetable,

for this involves both layering and grafting, by bending the branch into the vegetable and grafting it into it,

and in this case only the grafted branch is liable for use of its fruit, but not the vegetable; and with this the Mishna teaches that he returns on account of using the fruit of the grafting, and the layering returns.

And Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak establishes the Mishna according to the tannaitic authority who permits grafting one species onto a species that is not its kind; for if not, this is prohibited grafting, and it is excluded by “and has not used its fruit”—excluding prohibited grafting, for which he does not return.

And

who is the tannaitic authority who holds that it is permitted to graft one species onto a species that is not its kind?

This tanna is,

as it was taught: One who layers a tree into a vegetable,

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel permits

in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Gamda, a man of Kfar Akko, and the Sages prohibit.

When Rav Dimi came, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: To resolve the contradiction between our Mishna, which includes one who layers and one who grafts among those who return from the ranks of the army, and the beraita, which excludes one who layers and one who grafts from “and has not used its fruit,”

whose author is

the beraita,

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.

It is Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.

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, also regarding one who layers and one who grafts, that he excludes them from

“he planted,”

for he holds that the intention is

according to its plain meaning ,

that only

one who plants does

return from the war in order to use the fruit of his vineyard, but

one who layers and one who grafts do not

return.

Since words that Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov have been brought, the Gemara brings additional statements that Rabbi Yoḥanan transmitted in his name:

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

A grapevine

young

that is low, and will always be

less than a handbreadth high,

the Sages decreed that it

is liable for orla throughout all its years,

even after the years of orla,

because

it appears

[it is seen]

as a one-year-old

[as 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 liable for orla throughout all its years only in a very small vineyard, arranged as

two opposite two

and one extending as a tail ,

But

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

the entire vineyard has a public reputation

[a complete vineyard has a public reputation], and everyone says that so-and-so has a vineyard unlike all vineyards; and after the years of orla have passed, everyone knows that it is old.

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

for it is forbidden to recite the Shema within four cubits of it,

as it is written:

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

for since the dead person cannot fulfill mitzvot, one who fulfills a mitzva beside him is considered to be mocking him .

Rabbi Yitzhak said that Rabbi Yohanan 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 on account of being a sister, since she is not their sister,

nevertheless

is forbidden to marry

them,

the brothers,

because

she appears

as one who appears

as their sister

as their sister; for one who does not know her and sees that she grew up with the sons of the father assumes that she is their sister, and says that a brother is marrying his sister.

And the Gemara rejects:

That is not so,

the halakha is not so, because

the matter has a public reputation

the matter has a public reputation, and it is known to the public that they are not brother and sister; therefore, there is no room for concern.

It is written in the Torah, “And the Levite shall come, for he has no portion or inheritance with you.” The Sifrei derives from this verse that specifically with regard to something in which the Levite has no portion or inheritance, he comes and takes his first tithe.

“They are excluded”—leket, shikheha, and peah, for he has a portion and inheritance with you, since they are ownerless even to poor Levites, like the other poor of Israel. With these, he does not take first tithe.

And Rabbi Yitzhak said that Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov: Leket, shikheha, and peah that

the poor person gathered and collected many of them together and

made them

into a pile

on the threshing floor,

their law is that they

were rendered liable for tithe

by rabbinic ordinance, and one must separate tithes from them, even though ordinarily one does not separate tithes from the gifts of the poor, because people assume that he made this threshing floor from the produce of his field.

Ulla said: We said this

this halakha was stated

only

when he made this threshing floor

in the field,

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

But

when the poor person made the threshing floor

in the city, the matter has a public reputation

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

And Rabbi Yitzhak said that Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov: A

vine

young and lower

in its height

than a handbreadth does not sanctify

does not prohibit

the seeds

adjacent to it on account of kil’ei ha-kerem, since the entire prohibition with other seeds, except for hemp and arum, is rabbinic, and with regard to such a low vineyard the Sages did not decree upon other seeds to prohibit them.

And these words

refer specifically to an extremely small vineyard, which is made of

two opposite two and one extending as a tail,

but

if there is

an entire vineyard

of low-growing plantings,

it sanctifies

the vineyard prohibits the seeds, because since it is significant, the Sages decreed upon it that it should prohibit the seeds.

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