1)

(a)In the war against Midyan, the Torah writes "Vayishlach Osam Moshe v'Es Pinchas ... ", who participated - in the capacity of - Mashu'ach Milchamah.

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

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

(d)The Torah adds - the two trumpets (i.e. Shofros) to the list of things that accompanied them into battle (see Rashash).

2)

(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 (as we will explain shortly).

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

(d)The name Putiel hints to ...

1. ... Yosef - who struggled ('she'Pitpat') with his Yetzer-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 Shelumiel ben Tzurishaday) in Yisrael!'

3)

(a)Our Mishnah discusses the things for which a soldier is sent back from the battlefront. When, prior to the battle, the officers announce that whoever has built a house must return from the battlefront, this extends to someone who has ...

1. ... built a storehouse or a stable.

2. ... merely purchased, inherited or received a gift of one.

(b)Similarly, when they announce that, whoever has planted a vineyard should return, this extends to someone who has ...

1. ... planted - any collection of fruit-trees, or ...

2. ... even merely replanted the end of an attached branch, grafted, purchased or inherited trees.

(c)To return from the battlefront, a soldier has to have planted at least 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.

4)

(a)When the officers mention someone who has betrothed a girl but not yet married her, they are referring (not specifically to a Besulah but) - even to a widow or to a Shomeres Yavam.

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

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

(d)When the Pasuk writes "Mi ha'Ish Asher Nata Kerem v'Lo Chilelo" it means - that the owner of the vineyard has not yet taken the fruit of the fourth year to Yerushalayim or the value of the fruits (after redeeming them).

5)

(a)A soldier who built a gate-house, sun-porch or step; 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 Lav - 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 simply rebuilt his house to the same specifications as the original building.

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

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

6)

(a)Our Mishnah cites the Pasuk "v'Dibru ha'Shotrim Es ha'Am Leimor 'Mi ha'Ish Asher Banah Bayis ... ". We infer from the Pasuk "v'Yasfu ha'Shotrim .. " however - that it is only from that point on (from "Mi ha'Ish ha'Yarei v'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 [translator]).

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

1. ... 'mi've'Nigash v'Ad v'Dibru Kohen Medaber v'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 v'Yasfu, Kohen Medaber v'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 v'Eilach Shoter Medaber v'Shoter Mashmi'a' - he is referring to the last "Mi ha'Ish ... " ("ha'Yarei v'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 step.

7)

(a)Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov 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 "v'Lo Chanacho" (and not "v'Lo Chanach") - that he is not sent back for a house that he stole.

(c)We refute the proof that this Tana cannot concur with Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili, who holds that "v'Rach ha'Leivav" refers to soldiers who are afraid of their sins (and who would go home anyway if they stole) - by establishing the Pasuk (of "v'Lo Chanacho") when he did Teshuvah and paid for the house.

(d)Nevertheless, a thief is different than 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 v'Lo Chanacho ... ". 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. ... "v'Lo Chile*lo*" - that it does not apply to someone who re-planted the end of an attached branch or grafted a tree.

(b)That is the opinion of the Tana Kama. Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov 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 Derashah of "v'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 (i.e. the same species).

9)

(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 Batel, and is no longer subject to Orlah and Neta Reva'i.

(b)Rebbi Yirmiyahu 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 Batel, 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 Mishnah in Orlah, which rules that a tree that grew by itself is subject to Orlah - that a fruit-tree is generally planted for its fruit.

10)

(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, each one is a potential Yavam who will perform Yibum on his own.

(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, which is not subject to Orlah. Neither is he precluded from returning because of a grafting of Isur, as we learned above - because this Tana holds that grafting fruit in vegetables is permitted (as we shall now see).

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

11)

(a)When Rav Dimi arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he quoted Rebbi Yochanan, who establishes the Beraisa which precludes someone who grafted a tree from "v'Lo Chilelo" like Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov, who just precluded all other fruit-trees from "Kerem", Likewise, the Beraisa takes "Nata" literally, and precludes someone who grafted or replanted trees from being sent back (though this is not the source quoted by the Tana of the Beraisa [even though they are permitted]. Our Mishnah, on the other hand, agrees with the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, which includes them).

12)

(a)Rav Dimi quoting Rebbi Yochanan citing Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov also ruled 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)And when Rav Dimi ... said 'Mes Tofeis Arba Amos li'Keri'as Shema', he meant - that one is forbidden to recite the Shema within four Amos of a dead person (because of "Lo'eg l'Rosh", mocking the dead, who are unable to perform Mitzvos).

13)

(a)

1. Rebbi Yitzchak Amar Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov forbids a brother to marry a step-sister who grew up among the brothers - because, he claims, people assume her to be their sister.

2. We reject it however - because, in fact, people tend to know that she is only a step-sister.

(b)Rebbi Yitzchak Amar Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov ruled that a poor man who collected a lot of Leket, Shichechah or Pe'ah and heaped it into a pile - is Chayav mid'Rabanan to separate Ma'asros from it.

14)

(a)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, Shichechah and Pe'ah in dribs and drabs, and is consequently aware what it comprises.

(b)And Rebbi Yitzchak Amar Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov said that a low vine of less than a Tefach which mixes with seeds - does not forbid the seeds because of Kilayim. This is because all species of seeds that mix with a vine (with the exception of hemp and Luf (a sort of onion), are only Asur mid'Rabanan, and Chazal did not decree in the case of such an insignificant vineyard.

(c)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.