Previous daf

1)

(a) In the war against Midyan, the Torah writes "va'Yishlach Osam Moshe ve'es Pinchas ... ". Pinchas participated in the capacity of -Mashu'ach Milchamah.

(b) "Osam" refers to - the Sanhedrin (who did not usually go to war).

(c) The "K'lei ha'Kodesh" comprised - the Aron and the Luchos.

(d) The two silver trumpets also accompanied them into battle (see Rashash)?

(a) Pinchas was chosen as Mashu'ach Milchamah - in order to avenge the sale of his ancestor Yosef, whom the Midyanim sold to Egypt.

(b) Elazar, Pinchas father, married a daughter of Putiel. Even though Putiel refers to Yisro, it can also refer to Yosef - because in fact, Elazar married a granddaughter of Yisro, one of whose parents was a descendant of Yisro, the other, a descendant of Yosef (see d 2.).

(c) We prove this from the Lashon "mi'Benos *Putiel*" - written with an extra 'Yud', suggesting that "Putiel" has two implications.

(d) The name Putiel (by way of acronym) hints to ...

1. ... Yosef - who struggled ('she'Pitpat') with his Yeitzer-ha'Ra.
2. ... Yisro - because the tribes were mocking Pinchas saying 'Have you seen this 'ben Puti', whose mother's father fattened calves for idolatry; and he has the gall to slay a prince (Zimri - alias Sh'lumiel ben Tzurishaday) in Yisrael!'

(a) When, prior to the battle, the officers would announce that whoever had built a house should return from the battlefront, this was not confined to someone who had ...

1. ... built a *house* - but extended to a storehouse or a stable.
2. ... *built* a house - but extended to someone who had purchased, inherited or received a gift of a house.

(b) Similarly, when they announced that, whoever had planted a vineyard should return, this was not confined to someone who had ...

1. ... planted *a vineyard* - but extended to any collection of fruit-trees.
2. ... *planted* a vineyard - but extended to replanting the end of an attached branch, grafting, purchasing or inheriting trees.

(c) To return from the battlefront, a soldier had to have planted ... five trees - because that is what constitutes a vineyard.

(d) This applies - even if each of the five trees produces a different species of fruit.

(a) When they referred to someone who had betrothed a girl but not yet married her, they were not referring specifically to a Besulah - but even to a widow or to a Shomeres Yavam.

(b) A soldier would have to return from the battlefront when his brother fell - if he left no children, necessitating the Mitzvah of Yibum.

(c) After being ordered to leave the front lines - the above soldiers would join the supply units and repair the roads.

(d) When the Pasuk writes "Mi ha'Ish ... *ve'Lo Chilelo*" - it means that the owner of the vineyard had not yet taken the fruit of the fourth year to Yerushalayim or the value of the fruits (after redeeming).

(a) A soldier who built a gate-house, sun-porch or stoep; a soldier who planted four fruit-trees or even five non fruit-bearing trees; a soldier who betrothed his divorcee, or who is betrothed to a woman who is forbidden to him with a La'av - does not respond to the officers' announcement, but remains at the battlefront.

(b) When Rebbi Yehudah says 'Af ha'Boneh Bayis al Mechono Lo Hayah Chozer' - he means someone who rebuilt his house to the same specifications as the original building.

(c) According to Rebbi Eliezer, a soldier who had built a new brick house in Sharon and had not yet consecrated it did not return from the battlefront - because, due to the poor quality of the earth from which the bricks were constructed) the house would not last (but had to be demolished and rebuilt twice every seven years).

(d) A soldier who had built a new house and had just consecrated it, one who had planted a vineyard and had already either eaten the fruit of the fourth year in Yerushalayim or redeemed it, and one who was just married (and are all still within the year) - do not even need to take the trouble to join the troops in the first place.

(a) Our Mishnah cited the Pasuk "ve'Dibru ha'Shotrim es ha'Am Leimor 'Mi ha'Ish Asher Banah Bayis ... ". We infer from the Pasuk "*ve'Yasfu* ha'Shotrim .. " however - that it is only from that point on (from "Mi ha'Ish ha'Yarei ve'Rach ha'Leivav ... ") that the officers actually announce something new.

(b) So we interpret the previous Pasuk - to mean that the officers announce aloud what the Mashu'ach Milchamah has stated quietly (much like a Meturgeman).

(c) Abaye concludes 'mi've'Nigash ve'Ad ve'Dibru Kohen Medaber ve'Kohen Mashmi'a; mi've'Dibru Ad ve'Yasfu, Kohen Medaber ve'Shoter Mashmi'a; mi've'Yasfu ve'Eilach Shoter Medaber ve'Shoter Mashmi'a'. When he says ...

1. ... 'mi've'Nigash ve'Ad ve'Dibru Kohen Medaber ve'Kohen Mashmi'a' - he is referring to the first announcement of the Mashu'ach Milchamah (the words of encouragement that he gave them before crossing the border, as we discussed on the previous Daf).
2. ... 'mi've'Dibru Ad ve'Yasfu, Kohen Medaber ve'Shoter Mashmi'a' - he is referring to the first three 'Mi ha'Ish ... " (regarding a house, a vineyard and a wife).
3. ... 'mi've'Yasfu ve'Eilach Shoter Medaber ve'Shoter Mashmi'a' - he is referring to the last "Mi ha'Ish ... " ("ha'Yarei ve'Rach ha'Leivav").

(d) The Tana of the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Mi *ha'Ish* Asher Banah Bayis" - that the same applies to someone who purchased, inherited or received a gift of a house.
2. ... "Mi ha'Ish *Asher Banah* Bayis" - that it also extends to someone who purchased a store-house or a stable.
3. ... "Bayis" - that it must nevertheless be considered a house of sorts, to preclude a gate-house, sun-porch or stoep.

(a) Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov learns from the word "Bayis" - that it is only a soldier who built a *house* who is sent from the front line, but none of the other cases listed above.

(b) The Tana learns from the fact that the Torah writes "ve'Lo Chanacho" (and not "ve'Lo Chanach") - that he is not sent back for stolen house.

(c) We refute the proof that this Tana cannot hold like Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, who holds that "ve'Rach ha'Leivav" refers to soldiers who are afraid of their sins (and who would go home anyway is they stole) - by establishing the Pasuk (of "ve'Lo Chanacho") when he did Teshuvah and paid for it.

(d) The thief differs from a regular purchaser (whom we included earlier) - inasmuch as the house came into his possession by way of Isur.

8)

(a) "u'Mi ha'Ish Asher Nata Kerem ve'Lo Chanacho ... ". The Tana of the Beraisa learns from ...

1. ... "u'Mi ha'Ish" - that the same applies to someone who purchased, inherited or received a gift of a vineyard.
2. ... "Asher Nata" - that it also extends to other fruit-trees.
3. ... "Kerem" - that it does not apply to four fruit-trees or to five non-fruit-bearing trees.
4. ... "ve'Lo Chile*lo*" (rather than "ve'Lo Chilel") - that it does not apply to someone who re-planted the end of an attached branch or grafted a tree.

(b) This is the opinion of the Tana Kama. Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov learns from "Kerem" - that the Din is confined to someone who planted a vineyard, but not to any other tree.

(c) We reconcile the above D'rashah of "ve'Lo Chile*lo*" with the Tana of our Mishnah, who includes someone who replanted the end of attached branches of a vine or who grafted his vineyard - by establishing the former in the case of a forbidden graft (i.e. two different species), and the latter, by one that is permitted.

(d) What constitutes a permissible grafting is - grafting a branch of tree into a tree of the same species.

(a) If both the tree and the branch in the previous case, are young, then the soldier will be obligated to return from the battlefront anyway. The problem with establishing it by a young branch in an old tree is the statement of Rebbi Avahu - that a young branch grafted into an old tree becomes Bateil, and is no longer subject to Orlah and Neta Reva'i.

(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah manages to establish it even by a young branch grafted into a young tree - when he planted the first tree (not for eating purposes, but) in order to block a gap in the fence or for firewood (which the Mishnah in Orlah exempts from Orlah).

(c) Even though a young branch grafted into an old tree becomes Bateil, a young branch in a young tree does not - because although he designated the young tree for the above-mentioned purposes, he is able to change his mind, in which case, the tree will become subject to Orlah (which is not the case by an old tree) because a tree is initially grown for its fruit (the source of the previous Halachah).

(d) We prove from the case in the Mishnah in Orlah of a tree that grew by itself, which is subject to Orlah - that a fruit-tree is generally planted for its fruit.

(a) Rav Papa extrapolates from the fact that we did not resolve our previous problem (regarding grafting a young branch in a young tree) when they belonged to two different owners, each of whom must now return for his part of the tree - that partners of a house or a vineyard do not return from the battlefront.

(b) This is different than one of five brothers who dies, leaving four Yevamin, all of whom return from the battlefront - because there, the Yevamah is potentially the wife of each one.

(c) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak resolves the problem (regarding grafting a young branch in a young tree) by establishing our Mishnah which permits him to return from the battlefront in the case of someone who grafted the branch of a tree in a vegetable - for which he would not have had to return from the battlefront, because vegetables are not subject to Orlah.

(d) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel quoting Rebbi Yehudah ben Gamda permits grafting the branch of a tree in a vegetable. The Chachamim forbid it.

12)

(a) Rav Dimi quoting Rebbi Yochanan citing Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov rules that low vines that will never grow to a height of more than a Tefach - remain Chayav because of Orlah throughout their lifespan.

(b) This Din is confined to a vineyard consisting of four trees with a fifth one protruding like a tail (a minimum size vineyard), which is not so well known, and which people will therefore believe to be less than four years old - but such trees in a full size vineyard, which everyone knows is more than four years old, are permitted.

(c) When, quoting the same partnership, he said 'Meis Tofes Arba Amos li'Keri'as Sh'ma' - he meant that one is forbidden to recite the Sh'ma within four Amos of a dead person (because of "Lo'eg le'Rosh", mocking the dead, who are unable to perform Mitzvos).

(d) We reject the statement of Rebbi Yitzchak Amar Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, forbidding a brother to marry a step-sister who grew up among the brothers (because people assume her to be their sister) - because, in fact, people tend to know that she is only a step-sister.

(a) Rebbi Yitzchak Amar Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov ruled that a poor man who collected a lot of Leket, Shikchah or Pe'ah and heaped it into a pile - is Chayav mi'de'Rabbanan to separate Ma'asros from it.

(b) Ula restricts this Halachah to where the poor man piled up the Leket in the field, since no-one knows under what circumstances he piled it up - but not when he piled it up in the city, where everyone saw him bringing in his Leket, Shikchah and Pe'ah in dribs and drabs, and consequently know what it comprises.

(c) And Rebbi Yitzchak Amar Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov said that a low vine of less than a Tefach which mixes with seeds - does not forbid the seeds because of Kil'ayim. This is because all species of seeds that mix with a vine (with the exception of kanvas and Luf (a sort of onion), are only Asur mi'de'Rabbanan, and Chazal did not decree in the case of such an insignificant vineyard.

(d) He confines this leniency to a small vineyard of five vines (as we explained above). It does not apply to a large vineyard - where Chazal did decree on account of its significance.