The Harriet B. Sitt edition, an audio series of the Talmud Bavli (Babylonian Talmud). Masechet Sotah (Tractate Sotah) has been dedicated by our good friends and talmid (student), Mr. Jaime and Dina Dahan, Hashem yishmerem veyachiyem, for the success of their children, and especially lirefu'ah shelemah (for a complete recovery) Moshe ben Dinah, and ule'ilui nishmat (for the elevation of the soul) Yosef ben Sarinah, David ben Fridah, Me'ir ben Zoharah, Moshe ben Feiga Rut, Sarah bat Ester, Feiga Rut bat Ester, and Ester bat Yocheved. Ru'ach Hashem tenichem beGan Eden (May Hashem's spirit place them in Eden), amen. Tizku lemitzvot (may you merit mitzvot). Daf Mem-Gimel Amud Alef (Page 43, column A). Today's daf (page) is being studied ule'ilui nishmat marat zekenati (my honored grandmother) Yafah bat Sarah (Yafah, daughter of Sarah), umor zekeni (and my honored grandfather) Yosef ben Sarah (Yosef, son of Sarah), and Rabbi Avraham ben Ester (Abraham, son of Esther). Ru'ach Hashem tenichem beGan Eden, amen. Today's daf is being studied lirefu'ah shelemah Sarah Ruchamah bat Rachel, Sarah bat Rachel, and Moshe ben Dinah. El na refa na lahem, El na refa na lahem, El na refa na lahem, refu'at hanefesh urefu'at haguf, refu'atam keheref ayin tavo, vechen yehi ratzon venomar amen.
We begin today's daf on Mem-Bet Amud Bet (Page 42, column B), and we are starting at the bottom of the amud (column). The Mishnah quoted what the kohen meshu'ach milchamah (anointed priest for war) used to say when they made the announcement to the people as they went out to war. The Mishnah quotes, “Ve'atem i atem ken ki Hashem Elohechem haholech immachem lehillachem lachem” (But you are not to do so, for Hashem your God goes with you to fight for you).
So the Gemara says, “Vechol kach lamah,” which means, what does it mean when it says, “Hashem Elohechem holech immachem”? Rashi says the question is like this. Look at Rashi at the bottom: “Vechol kach lamah omer lahem umai havtachah (promise) zo shehivtichan”—what is this guarantee that the kohen, the kohen meshu'ach, says, “Ki Hashem Elohechem immachem”? That would be enough. “Umai halichah zo demashma holech mamash?” It sounds like God is actually walking with the people in the war. How is God walking in the war?
So the Gemara says, “Mipenei sheHashem vechol kinnuyav munachim ba'aron” (Because Hashem and all His names are placed in the Ark), because they used to take the aron (Ark) to war. In the aron were the luchot (tablets), and on the luchot were the shemot (names) of HaKadosh Baruch Hu (the Holy One, blessed be He). Rashi says, “Hayotze immahem bamilchamah,” that the aron used to go out to war with them, so it had the shemot hakedoshim, Havayah, Elokim—different names of God—and therefore the name of God was going out into the war, “munachim immahem.”
The Gemara says, “Vechen hu omer,” as the pasuk (verse) says, “Vayishlach otam Moshe elef lamateh latzava” (Moses sent them, a thousand from each tribe, to the army). When Moshe Rabbeinu (Moses our teacher) sent them to the war against Midyan (Midian), he sent elef lamateh, 1,000 soldiers per tribe, “latzava otam ve'et Pinechas” (Phinehas). So the Gemara asks about this pasuk: “Otam”—who is “otam”? “Elu Sanhedrin (High Court).” When it says he sent them, that refers to the Sanhedrin. The mefarshim say, how do you know that “otam” is the Sanhedrin? Because the pasuk says, “Vayishlach otam Moshe elef lamateh latzava otam”; it says “otam” twice. From the fact that it says “otam” twice, we know that the Sanhedrin were keneged kol Kelal Yisrael, equal to all the Jewish people. So when it says “otam,” it means the Jewish people, and “otam” means the Sanhedrin, which is equal to all the Jewish people. They were sent out to war.
“Pinechas, zeh meshu'ach milchamah” (Phinehas—this is the anointed priest for war). Who was the meshu'ach milchamah in that war? Pinechas. “Uchlei hakodesh, zeh aron veluchot shebo” (The sacred vessels: the Ark and the tablets in it). “Uchlei hakodesh” was the aron that used to go out to fight the wars, which means the aron used to go out even in a milchemet mitzvah (obligatory war). This was a milchemet mitzvah, and the aron used to go out. “Vachatzotzerot hateru'ah,” the trumpets; “elu hashofarot,” this refers to the shofarot. So what do we see from here? The Aron HaKodesh with the shemot hakedoshim used to go out to war with the Jewish people.
The Gemara says, “Tana: Lo lechinnam halach Pinechas lamilchamah” (Phinehas did not go to war for nothing). In that war against Midyan, who went? Pinechas. So the question is, why not Yehoshua bin Nun (Joshua son of Nun), or why not Elazar (Eleazar)? How come Pinechas was sent to fight this war? He wasn't the general. Why was he sent? “Ela lipara din avi immo”—in order to make a judgment with his paternal grandfather, “avi immo.” Actually, it's his maternal grandfather—maternal grandfather—as it says, “Vehamidyanim machru oto el Mitzrayim” (The Midianites sold him to Egypt).
It says about Yosef HaTzaddik (Joseph the righteous) that the Midyanim sold Yosef to Mitzrayim (Egypt). Now the assumption is that Pinechas came from Yosef on his mother's side, so he wanted to take a nekamah, a revenge: “You, Midyanim, when Yosef was sold to you, Yosef was probably crying to them, ‘Don't sell me to the Mitzrayim; return me to my father,’ but they didn't...” Yosef.
“Lemeimra dePinchas miYosef atei?” You tell me that Pinchas comes from Yosef? “Vehaktiv: Ve'Elazar ben Aharon (Aaron) lakach lo mibenot Putiel lo le'ishah.” It says that Elazar, the son of Aharon, took one of the daughters of Putiel for a wife. “Mai lav de'atei miYitro (Jethro)?” We know that Pinchas was the son of Elazar (Eleazar): “Pinchas ben Elazar ben Aharon HaKohen.” Elazar married one of the daughters of Putiel. “Mai lav de'atei miYitro shepitem agalim la'avodat kochavim?” Who is Putiel? The reason he calls him Putiel is that Elazar married one of the daughters of Putiel. Who is Putiel? The one who fattened calves for avodah zarah (idolatry). Who fattened calves for avodah zarah? Yitro, because we know Yitro worshipped avodah zarah. That means Elazar, the father of Pinchas, married into Yitro's family. So therefore, that means that y- that Pinchas's Pinchas's maternal grandfather was from Yitro, not from Yosef!
So the Gemara says, “Lo, miYosef,” it's from Yosef, “shepitpet beyitzro.” When it says Putiel, Putiel doesn't mean the one who fattened calves for avodah zarah. “Pitpet”—Rashi says “zilzel.” It was referring to Yosef. Yosef was “mezalzel vechavash oto,” meaning he belittled his yetzer hara (evil inclination) and conquered it. Therefore, we can say that when it says Elazar married one of the benot Putiel, it is not “Yitro shepitem agalim,” but “Yosef shepitpet beyitzro”: he mistreated his yetzer hara and conquered it. Therefore, Pinchas came from Yosef.
The Gemara says, what do you mean? “Vahalo shevatim mevazim oto.” We know that after Pinchas killed Zimri ben Salu (Zimri son of Salu), the tribes started to belittle and berate Pinchas: “Re'item ben Puti zeh? Ben shepitem avi imo agalim la'avodat kochavim, yaharog nesi miYisrael?” They said, “Look at this man here! Is he worthy? The one whose grandfather worshipped avodah zarah—is he going to kill Zimri ben Salu, a tribal leader?” The Jewish people felt that Pinchas was not leshem Shamayim (for the sake of Heaven). They felt that when he killed Zimri, who was he to kill Zimri for committing an aveirah? He comes from a family of ovdei avodah zarah (idol worshippers), and who was that? Yitro! So you see from this Gemara that really the paternal, or the maternal grandfather of Yitro was Yitro, of Pinchas was Yitro. It wasn't Yosef!
So the Gemara says, “Ela, i avu de'ima miYosef, ima de'ima miYitro,” which means he came from both. If you're going to say his maternal grandfather—that's avu de'ima—his maternal grandfather came from Yosef; “ima de'ima miYitro,” so we'll say his maternal grandmother came from Yitro. Or the opposite: “Ve'i ima de'ima miYosef,” if his maternal grandmother came from Yosef, “avu de'ima miYitro,” so his maternal grandfather came from Yitro. Which means he really came from both: Yitro and Yosef. On his mother's side, his mother's mother maybe was from Yitro, and his father's mother... and his mother's father, I'm sorry, was from Yosef, or the opposite. The point is that on his mother's side he can come from both Yitro and Yosef.
“Dayka nami dechtiv mibenot Putiel, tartei mashma, shema minah.” It says that Elazar, the father of Pinchas, took from the daughters of Putiel. It could have said Put'el. From the fact that it says Putiel, that's a leshon rabim (plural expression). So it implies two Putiels: Putiel number one, the one who was mefatpet beyitzro, which is Yosef; and the one who was mefatem agalim la'avodah zarah, which is Yitro. So ein hachi nami, according to the maskana (conclusion) of the Gemara, Pinchas came from Yitro and Yosef. Therefore, he went to take revenge when he went to fight against Midyan for what they did to his grandfather Yosef: the Midyanim sold him to Mitzrayim. Pinchas went in order to settle the score for what they did to his father. The Gemara is just proving that Pinchas descended from Yosef as well as Yitro.
The Mishnah begins: “Ve'dibru hashoterim el ha'am lemor,” and the officers speak to the people and say, “Mi ha'ish asher banah bayit chadash velo chanacho yelech veyashuv leveito.” Anyone who built a new house and had not yet inaugurated it is able to go back from the war. So the Gemara's Mishnah says, “Echad haboneh beit hateven,” even if he builds a house in order to keep the straw; “beit habakar,” a corral in order to keep the animals; “beit ha'etzim,” in order to keep the wood; “Beit ha'otzarot,” a storage place in order to keep the yayin (wine). Rashi says, “shemen utvu'ah,” the wheat or the oil. “Echad haboneh,” not only if he built it, but “ve'echad haloke'ach,” if he buys it, it's also a new house. “Ve'echad hayoresh,” or he inherited a new house; “ve'echad shenatan lo matanah,” or somebody gave him a new house as a gift.
“Umi ha'ish asher nata kerem,” these are again the exemptions of people who do not have to go to war. Somebody planted a vineyard, a kerem (vineyard), “velo chilelo,” and he did not yet make it permissible to use its fruit. What does that mean? We know that when a person plants a field, for the first three years he's not allowed to eat from the fruit; that's called orlah. The fourth year is called neta revai. In the fourth year, he has to take the fruit and either make a pidyon (redemption) and take the money to Yerushalayim (Jerusalem), or take the fruit itself and bring it to Yerushalayim. Therefore, “mi ha'ish asher nata kerem velo chilelo” means he has not yet reached the fourth year, when he can benefit from and eat the fruit. As long as you cannot benefit from the fruit that you planted, you're exempt from the war.
“Echad hanote'a kerem,” whether he plants a vineyard, “ve'echad hanote'a chamishah ilanei ma'achal,” or plants any grouping of five food trees, five fruit trees, “va'afilu mechameshet haminim,” even if they're from five different species, they're mitztaref—they combine. Even if they're five different fruits, they combine. Rashi says, “Chamishah ilanei ma'achal devehachi havei kerem”: when the Torah says a kerem, it has to be a minimum size: “Shtayim keneged shtayim ve'achat yotz'ah zanav kazeh.” Rashi gives us the picture. If you look at Rashi, you see two parallel to two, and then one coming out like a tail. That's what a kerem is. So as long as you have five fruit trees in that pattern, even if they're made up of five different species, it doesn't matter; it's a kerem. And as long as it's not yet the fourth year, the soldier is exempt and goes back from the war.
“Echad hanote'a,” whether he planted, “ve'echad hamavrich.” What is mavrich? Sometimes a person has a plant, takes the top of it, bends it over, and places the top of the tree into the ground. That causes it to sprout again. Then he cuts the middle, and now he has two trees. Again, he takes the tree, which is soft, bends it over into the ground, so the head of the tree is now in the ground. It takes root again, and then he cuts it; now he has two trees. That's called mavrich. “Ve'echad hamarkiv”—markiv means grafting. Grafting means you take a tree, make a hole in it, a nekev, and then take a branch from another tree and put it inside, and wrap them together, so now the two trees become one. That's called grafting. So even if the trees are grafted, that is an exemption from the war.
“Ve'echad haloke'ach,” or whether he buys a field; “ve'echad hayoresh,” or inherits a field; “ve'echad shenatan lo matanah,” or even receives it as a gift. “Umi ha'ish asher eras ishah,” or a person who got engaged. “Echad hame'ares et habetulah ve'echad hame'ares et ha'almanah,” whether he got engaged to a betulah or an almanah, “afilu shomeret yavam”—even, let's say, he is a man whose brother died without children, so he's a shomeret yavam, waiting to fulfill the mitzvah of yibum (levirate marriage) with his brother's wife. Therefore, he goes back as well. “Va'afilu shama shemet achiv bamilchamah,” even if he heard that his brother died in the war, and therefore he has to go back in order to fulfill the mitzvah of yibum, “chozer uva lo,” he returns from the war.
Now, “kol elu shom'in”—all these people we're talking about over here; you have to take out the word “ve'elu”—“shom'in divrei kohen,” they hear the words of the kohen when he announces these exemptions, “ma'archei milchamah,” which gives the rules of the war, and they go back. However, “umispakin mayim umazon,” they can't go back home. They have to go back and give out water and provisions to the army. That means they still have to work, but not as soldiers. They work in the mess hall, giving out food and things like that. “Umetaknin et haderachim,” and they also have to fix the roads. So you see, it's an exemption from war, but not a total exemption where they're able to go home.
“Ve'elu she'einam chozrim,” and the following people don't even have to go back. The people we just discussed have to go to the border, to the sefar, as we said. They go to the border, the kohen makes the announcement of all the exemptions, and then they go back home. The following people the Mishnah will list don't even have to go to the border; they don't even have to go out to war at all. They're exempt in totality.
“Haboneh beit sha'ar,” a person builds a structure called a beit sha'ar, which means with a gate; “Achsadrah,” an open area, like a roof without a ma'akeh, without a ledge; “umirpeset,” a porch he built. “Hanote'a...” I'm sorry, I'm reading; I'm going again. “Ve'elu she'einam chozrim.” Forgive me, I correct myself: these people do not go back, which means they have to go and fight the war. They do not go back home; they have no exemption.
“Haboneh beit sha'ar”—if a person builds a beit sha'ar. What is a beit sha'ar? These items are not really houses. A beit sha'ar is a small little house in front of the courtyard, where the shomer hapetach sits. It's just a small little house; it's really not considered a permanent structure. “Achsadrah,” as I told you, is a roof without a ma'akeh. “Mirpeset” is a porch. These are not considered houses, so they are not exempt from war. “Hanote'a arba'ah ilanei ma'achal,” or he plants only four trees; “chamishah ilanei srak,” or he plants five trees, but they're not fruit trees.
“Hamachzir et gerushato,” or a person gets married to his gerushah again. That's not a new marriage; he was divorced and took back his first wife. “Almanah lekohen gadol,” a forbidden marriage, such as an almanah to a kohen gadol (High Priest); “gerushah vachalutzah lekohen hedyot,” a gerushah or chalutzah (woman released from levirate bond) to a kohen hedyot (ordinary priest), which is also a forbidden marriage; “mamzeret venetinah leYisrael,” a mamzeret (female mamzer) and a netinah (Netinah), as we know these people are forbidden to marry a Yisrael; “bat Yisrael lemamzer,” or a daughter of Yisrael to a mamzer, “velenatin”—she does not go back from the war, because these are not considered legal exemptions.
Rabbi Yehudah (Rabbi Judah) says, “Af haboneh bayit al mechono lo hayah chozer.” Even if a person took apart his house, as Rashi says, “setaro,” he demolished his house, “uvena'o bemidah rishonah,” and rebuilt it with exactly the same measurements as the first house, “eino chozer, delav chadash hu, ho'il velo chidesh lehosif alav.” He did not add anything to the structure. “Ve'afilu etzlo eino chadash vegara miloke'ach veyoresh”—even for him it is not new, and it is worse than buying or inheriting a house. If a man buys a new house, even though it's not new, to him it's new; or if he inherits a house, to him it's new. But this house is not new; he already had the house and just rebuilt it. It's the same structure; he didn't even add any rooms. Therefore, he is not exempt from the war.
Rabbi Eliezer says, “Af haboneh bayit levenim baSharon lo hayah chozer.” Sharon (Sharon) is the name of a place. Rashi says, “Makom hu sheshmo Sharon, ve'ein hakarka yafah lilvenim, velo havei davar kayama, shepa'amayim tzarich lechadshah besheva shanim.” The land isn't suitable for brick homes, and the house won't last. It needs to be rebuilt twice every seven years. Therefore, that's not considered a legitimate house, because it keeps getting destroyed; the land isn't suitable for those structures. “Lo hayah chozer.”
“Ve'elu she'ein zazin mimekoman”—this is what I meant to tell you earlier. The following people don't even move from their homes; they don't have to go out to war at all. Until now, we discussed people who go out to war, receive an exemption, and have to go home and fix the roads and give food to the people. The second group has to fight. The third group doesn't even have to go out at all; they don't need to be exempted. They're exempt from the beginning. Who are they?
“Bana bayit vechanacho”: he built a house and inaugurated it, but he's within the first year, which means the shanah rishonah (first year); he is exempt. Rashi says, “Velo dar bo adayin shanah,” he has not yet lived in the house for a year. “Nata kerem vechillelo”: he planted a vineyard, and it is still the fourth year. So as long as it's within the fourth year, you have the mitzvah of chillul, meaning that throughout that year you can take the fruits up to Yerushalayim and eat them. Once you're in the fourth year, there's a total exemption.
“Hanoseh et arusato”: if he gets married. The first case was that he only got engaged; in this case, he actually got married and consummated it. “Hakones et yibimto,” he actually took the yevamah (levirate widow) as his wife, as it says, “Naki yihyeh leveito shanah achat” (He shall be free for his house for one year). “Bishvil beito”—this means “leveito,” “bishvil beito.” The Gemara says, “Leveito, zeh beito”: for his house means when he built his house and did not live in it for one year, he has a total exemption.
“Yihyeh”—when the pasuk says “naki yihyeh,” what does “yihyeh” mean? “Zeh karmo,” this refers to his vineyard. Rashi says, “Ribbuya hu, hosif lecha havayah acheret lihyot kazeh.” That means—let's look at the text they're bringing down. Why does “yihyeh” teach me about his vineyard? Oh, because the pasuk could have said “naki hu.” The fact that it says “yihyeh” includes another exemption. What is it? Not only if he did not inaugurate his house, but if he did not inaugurate his kerem. That means he has one year to enjoy the fourth-year fruits of the vineyard. That's what “Naki yihyeh leveito” means: his house. “Yihyeh” refers to his vineyard, for which he also has a one-year exemption. “Vesimach et ishto,” and he will make his wife happy; “zo ishto,” that's his wife, which means nesuin (marriage). “Asher lakach”—that he took. “Lehavi et yivamto,” this includes another wife: even the yevamah he married. “Ein maspikin mayim umazon,” they don't even have to supply food, “ve'ein metaknin et haderachim,” they don't even have to fix the roads. They have a total exemption.
So let's review very quickly. Basically, the Mishnah says there are three groups of people who have a discussion with the kohen meshu'ach milchamah. The first group has a partial exemption. They're ptor, exempt from fighting, but they still have to do public service. These are people who got engaged, someone who's building a house but has not finished it, or someone in the first three years after planting a tree, a field, a vineyard, and things like that. All those people have a partial exemption.
However, if he marries be'isur, in a forbidden manner, or he doesn't plant a full-fledged kerem, or he builds a structure that isn't a house, like a shed or a porch, he has no exemption; he must go out to fight. But once the house is built and he hasn't lived in it for a year, he has a full exemption; he doesn't have to do anything. He doesn't even have to go out to war at all. Or he gets married, or takes a yevamah, or things like that, or he's in the fourth year of his kerem: he is totally exempt.
The Gemara says, “Tanu rabanan”—we have a braita. The braita will analyze what exactly is said there. “Vedibru hashoterim.” It says the officers were the ones who spoke to the soldiers before they went out to war. “Yachol devarim shel atzman?” Would they say their own things? Do the shotrim have their own script and read their own words? “Keshehu omer veyasfu hashoterim,” it says that the officers add. “Harei devarim shel atzman amur,” which implies that they add to what the kohen says. So that means they must be saying their own things, and then they add; they must be adding to what the kohen said.
“Ha mah ani mekayem vedibru hashoterim?” What does “Vedibru hashoterim” mean? “Bedivrei mashuach milchamah hakatuv medaber”: the officers repeat to the soldiers what the anointed priest for war said. So, basically, the Gemara is going to say there are three situations. “Ha keitzad? Kohen medaber veshoter mashmi'a”: initially the kohen speaks and gives them certain words, and the shotrim go around to the soldiers and voice exactly what the kohen meshu'ach milchamah said.
It comes out that the kohen meshu'ach milchamah says his own words, and then the officers go around and publicize his words to the people. Then it will say that the kohen meshu'ach milchamah says words that the shoter goes around to publicize, and then “Veyasfu hashoterim”: they say their own words. The Gemara will explain that now. “Tanya chada,” we have one braita that says, “Kohen medaber veshoter mashmi'a”: the kohen speaks, and the shoter goes around to publicize the words. “Vetanya idach, kohen medaber vechohen mashmi'a”: the kohen himself speaks, and the kohen goes around and publicizes his own words. “Vetanya idach, shoter medaber veshoter mashmi'a”: the shoter himself speaks, and the shoter himself publicizes the words. How do we make all these statements fit? “Amar Abaye (Abaye), ha keitzad?” The Gemara says, “Bi-venigash ve'ad vedibru, kohen medaber vechohen mashmi'a.”
Now I'd like you to go back in your books. You should have a paragraph of the pesukim of the kohen meshu'ach milchamah. It's in Devarim (Deuteronomy), chaf, pesukim alef to tet. The pasuk says: “Ki teitzei lamilchamah al oyevecha” (When you go out to war against your enemies), “vera'ita sus varechev am rav mimcha lo tira mehem ki Hashem Elohecha immach, hama'alcha me'eretz Mitzrayim.” “Vehayah,” and it will be, “kekorvachem el hamilchamah.” Now, “Venigash hakohen vediber el ha'am”: the kohen goes and speaks to the people. What does he say? “Ve'amar aleihem”—I'm reading the pesukim—“Shema Yisrael” (Hear, Israel), “atem kreivim hayom lamilchamah al oyveichem. Al yerach levavchem, al tir'u ve'al tachpezu ve'al ta'artzu mipnehem.” Don't be scared; don't be afraid, don't panic, and don't be terrified of them, as we learned on yesterday's daf. “Ki Hashem Eloheichem haholech immachem lehilachem lachem im oyveichem lehoshi'a etchem,” because Hashem is going to help you, fight, and beat the enemies. The kohen himself says that, and he himself publicizes it. That's only his item; nobody else says that.
Then what happens? “Kohen medaber.” “Mi-vediberu ad veyasfu”—from the next pesukim, which say, “Ve'dibru hashoterim el ha'am,” the kohanim say: “Kohen medaber veshoter mashmi'a.” After the kohen says it, the shoter goes around and publicizes it. What does the pasuk say? “Vedibru hashoterim el ha'am lemor, mi ha'ish asher banah bayit chadash velo chanacho”—who built a new house and hasn't yet inaugurated it—“yelech veyashov leveito pen yamut bamilchamah,” because we don't want him to die in the war and have somebody else inaugurate it instead of him.
“Umi ha'ish asher nata kerem velo chillelo, yelech veyashov leveito pen yamut bamilchamah ve'ish acher yechallelenu.” “Umi ha'ish asher erash ishah velo lekachah, yelech veyashov leveito pen yamut bamilchamah ve'ish acher yikachenah.” So the kohen says it, and the shoter is mashmi'a, makes it heard.
Then the Gemara says, “Mi-veyasfu va'eilach”—from the word “veyasfu,” where the pasuk says, “Veyasfu hashoterim ledaber el ha'am ve'ameru, mi ha'ish hayare verach halevav” (fearful and fainthearted)—whoever is scared because of transgressions he committed—“yelech veyashov leveito velo yimas et levav echav kilevavo,” he should not soften his brothers' hearts like his own. What is that? “Shoter medaber veshoter mashmi'a.”
So basically, rabbotai, you have three different stages of the speech made at the milchamah (war). First, the opening statement of “Shema Yisrael,” made by the kohen. He says it and broadcasts it, we'll say, to the whole nation. Then you have the exemptions, said by the kohen and then repeated and broadcast to the people by the shotrim. Then you have the statement, “Mi ha'ish hayare verach halevav,” that whoever is scared of any sins he committed can also go back home. That's said by the shotrim and broadcast by the shotrim as well.
Now the Gemara discusses the exemption for building a new house. “Mi ha'ish asher banah bayit chadash”—who is the person who built a new house? “Tanu rabanan: Asher banah.” “Ein li ella asher banah”: that only talks about where he built it. “Lakach veyarash,” or he bought it or inherited it; “venitan lo bematanah minayin,” or he got it as a gift—how do you know he's also exempt? “Talmud lomar: Mi ha'ish asher banah bayit.” Because it says “ha'ish”; it could have said “mi asher banah bayit.” The fact that it says “mi ha'ish” is a ribbui (inclusion), teaching that anybody who got it as a gift, bought it, or received it as an inheritance is included.
“Ein li ella bayit”: that only teaches me a house. “Minayin lerabbot beit hateven uveit habakar uveit ha'etzim”—how do we know that it includes a house built for straw, not for living in, for animals, or for wood? “O beit ha'otzarot,” or to store wine, oil, or grain. “Talmud lomar: Asher banah mikol makom.” The pasuk says, “Mi ha'ish asher banah.” If it says “asher banah,” it means he built anything, any type of structure.
Could I include even someone who builds a beit sha'ar, an achsadrah, or a mirpeset? “Yachol she'ani marbeh af haboneh beit sha'ar achsadrah umarpeset”—maybe any structure, even a beit sha'ar, a little hut for the security guard, or an achsadrah, a roof without a parapet, or a mirpeset, a porch? “Talmud lomar: Bayit.” It has to be a house. “Mah bayit hara'ui lidirah af kol hara'ui lidirah”: just as a house has to be fit for dwelling, so too any type of structure has to be fit for dwelling.
Now let's read Rashi. Rashi is in the second column: “Mi ha'ish ribuyahu dematzi lemichtav.” The pasuk could have said “mi asher banah,” and since it doesn't say “asher bayit banah,” the fact that it says “asher banah bayit” means you read it this way: when it says “banah,” “mikol makom,” any type of house, whether beit hateven, beit habakar, and things like that. “Asher banah.” But it says “bayit.” What does bayit mean? It has to be a structure, as opposed to a temporary structure, like an achsadrah or mirpeset. It has to be at least ra'ui for dwelling; it has to be fit for people to live in. Rashi says, “Vehai dechtiv bayit lemi'utei beit sha'ar achsadrah umarpeset she'einam asuyim lidrisat regel”—they're walkways, “velo re'uyim ladur bahem,” but you cannot live in those areas. Rashi says a beit sha'ar is, “Beit kenisat sha'ar hachatzer lehistofef sham shomer hapetach.” That's the area, a little hut or room at the entrance of the house, where the shomer hapetach, the guard, sits.
The Gemara continues: “Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov omer, bayit kemashma'o.” When it says “bayit” in the pasuk, he says it has to be mamash a house, and there are none of the other exemptions. It has to be a regular house, not a beit hateven or beit otzarot; you're not exempt. It has to be a regular house. He learns that from the word “bayit.”
It says, “Lo chanach,” “mi ha'ish asher banah bayit velo chanacho.” So the Gemara asks, “Lo chanach, velo chanacho?” What is “chanacho”? He did not inaugurate it. “Perat legazlan”: this excludes somebody who stole the house. If he stole the house, he's not exempt from going out to war. Only if a person owns it is he exempt; if he stole it, he's not exempt.
The Gemara asks who says this—“Neima delo keRabbi Yose HaGelili.” Let's say this last teaching, that someone who steals a house is not exempt, which we learn from the pasuk “chanacho,” is not according to Rabbi Yose HaGelili. If it's Rabbi Yose HaGelili, he says, “Verach halevav, zeh hamit'yareh me'averot shebeyado,” which is already an exemption, because it says, “Mi ha'ish hayare verach halevav.” Rabbi Yose HaGelili says the person is afraid because of transgressions. So obviously, if someone stole a house, he's exempt because of the transgression he has committed. Why do you need another exemption from the word “chanacho”? He's already exempted by the words “yare verach halevav.”
So the Gemara says that the statement exempting a stolen house from “chanacho” cannot be going according to Rabbi Yose HaGelili. The Gemara says, “Afilu teima Rabbi Yose HaGelili.” It could even be according to Rabbi Yose: “Kegon de'avad teshuvah.” The man stole the house and made teshuvah. How did he make teshuvah? “Veyahiv damei”—he paid the money. “I hachi, hava leih loke'ach, velihadar.” If that's the case, it's as if he bought it, and we know that if a man buys a new house, he's exempt. “Keivan dime'ikara betorat gezeilah (theft) ata leyadeih, lo.” But since it initially came into his hand through theft, no.
So that is the din of the Gemara: a stolen house, even if he pays for it afterward, is not considered as if he bought it. A man who buys a house from the start has a house that's new to him and is exempt. Mah she'ein ken: when he stole it and pays for it, it's too late. Once he stole it, he's not exempt. The pasuk says “chanacho”; even though there's no transgression remaining in his possession because he made teshuvah, he's still not exempt from the war. Such a house is not exempt, even though he pays for it, because initially it came into his hand through theft.
“Umi ha'ish asher nata kerem,” and who's the person who planted a vineyard? “Tanu rabanan: Asher nata.” “Ein li ella nata”: that's only talking about someone who planted a vineyard. “Lakach,” let's say he bought a vineyard; “yarash,” he inherited it; “venitan lo bematanah,” he got it as a gift. “Minayin”—how do you know he's exempt as well? “Talmud lomar: Umi ha'ish asher nata kerem.” The fact that it says “ha'ish”—it could just have said “umi asher nata kerem”—is coming to include those cases.
“Ein li ella kerem”: maybe that's only talking about a vineyard, grapes. “Minayin lerabot chamishah ilanei ma'achal,” how do we know it's talking about any five food trees, “va'afilu mishe'ar minim,” even if they're from different species? “Talmud lomar: Asher nata.” The fact that it says “asher nata,” whoever planted, and not “asher kerem nata,” means “nata” includes other cases. Could I include someone who plants four fruit trees, or five non-fruit trees? “Talmud lomar: Kerem.” It has to be like a kerem, and just as a vineyard has at least five trees, so too the minimum is five fruit-bearing trees, as we said.
The Gemara says, “Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov omer, kerem kemashma'o.” He says no: just as he said “bayit” is “bayit kemashma'o,” he says “kerem” is also “kemashma'o,” meaning only a vineyard is an exemption, no other type of trees. Now the pasuk says “lo chilel” and “velo chilelo”; the pasuk says “velo chilelo,” and he did not yet make the fruit permissible, meaning it had not yet reached the fourth year, when he had a chance to make pidyon on the fruit.
The Gemara says this is coming to limit the case: “Chilelo”—this one; he didn't make chillul on this one, excluding a different type. “Perat lamavrich velamarkiv”: the braita is telling us that somebody who is mavrich, meaning he took a tree that was already there and put its top into the ground, or markiv, grafting, is not exempt from the war. “Chilelo” refers to this tree, as opposed to another tree that will not exempt him. Which tree is that? A mavrich or a markiv.
The Gemara says, what are you talking about? “Vehanan tenan: Echad hanotei'a ve'echad hamavrich ve'echad hamarkiv.” Our Mishnah said the opposite: a mavrich (layering a branch) and a markiv (grafting) are exempt! So we have a contradiction between the braita and the Mishnah. Rabbi Zeira says in the name of Rav Chisda (Rav Hisda), “Lo kashya.” Here we're talking about grafting that is prohibited; there we're talking about permitted grafting. What does it mean to graft in a prohibited way? You graft two different species; it's forbidden to graft two different species. That's not considered planting, and therefore it doesn't give an exemption. When do we say that he has an exemption? When he grafted min bemino, when he grafted two like species, which is permitted. That grafting is considered planting, and therefore it exempts him from the war.
The Gemara says, wait: “Hai harkavat heter heichi damei?” (How is this case of permitted grafting possible?) Give me the case where he grafted in a permitted way. “Ileima yaldah beyaldah”—when it says yaldah, it means a tree in its first three years. If he grafted one yaldah into another yaldah, “tipok lei deba'i mehadar mishum yaldah rishonah.” Forget about the grafting; he's exempt anyway because of the first tree. The first tree is a young tree within three years, and we said that until he makes chillul he's exempt. So why say he's exempt because he grafted? Even if he didn't graft, he's exempt because of the first tree.
“Ela yaldah bizkeinah.” It must be talking about where he grafted a young tree into an old tree. The assumption is that since he grafted the young tree into the old tree, the chiddush (novel point) is that it's permitted grafting, and he's exempt. The Gemara says, what do you mean? Why would he be exempt? “Veha amar Rabbi Abbahu (Rabbi Abbahu): Yaldah shesibchah bizkeinah, batlah yaldah bizkeinah, ve'ein bah din orlah.” When you graft a young tree into an old tree, it takes on the law of an old tree. Therefore, even though you grafted it with a young tree, there's no din orlah; it's an old tree. Orlah is finished, neta revai is finished, and therefore you're not going to be exempt. So that cannot be the case either: if you graft a young tree into an old tree, it has the din of an old tree, and orlah and neta revai are finished. So what's the case of “harkavat heter”?
Rabbi Yirmeyah says, “Le'olam yaldah beyaldah.” I'll tell you: it's talking about two young trees. You grafted one young tree into another young tree. We said, what do you mean? You're already exempt because of the first tree, since it's within three years. “Uchegon denat'ah lehach kama'ita lesiyag ulekorot.” When do we say that a tree is subject to the laws of orlah and neta revai? Only when you're planting it la'achilah, to eat the fruit. Here we're talking about a man who planted a tree by a fence, let's say, where there was a hole in the fence. He planted the tree there so it would grow and block the breach, or he planted it to use its wood. In that case there's no din of orlah, so a tree like that would normally not exempt him from the war.
“Detnan: Hanotei'a lesiyag ulekorot, patur min ha'orlah.” Let's say a person plants a tree to make a fence or for lumber; he's exempt from orlah. So what did he do? He took a yaldah, a tree that's exempt from orlah, so such a tree would not exempt him from the war. But then he took another yaldah and grafted it into that tree. When he grafts the fruit tree into the tree for lumber or the tree for the fence, that's considered permitted grafting, so the grafting will exempt him. The first yaldah doesn't exempt him, because there's no orlah or neta revai in that case. You're exempt until you benefit from the fruit, but since this tree isn't subject to orlah, there's no din at all. So what exempts him? The grafting. They took a yaldah and put it into the tree he planted for the fence; the chiddush is that the grafting exempts him.
The Gemara says, what do you mean? “Umai shena yaldah bizkeinah debatlah, umai shena yaldah beyaldah dela batlah?” You just told me that when you put a yaldah into a zkeinah (old tree), we treat it like a zkeinah. So in this case too, when you put the fruit tree into this tree—which is also a fruit tree, but you planted it for the fence—it should have the din of the tree you grafted it into. It should have the din of a tree planted for a fence, and therefore be patur from orlah, and you shouldn't be exempt from the war.
The Gemara says, “Hatam, ei mamlich alah, lav bat mehadari.” With a zkeinah (old tree), you can't change your mind. It is what it is; it's an old tree, past four years, and there's no way to make an old tree into a young tree. Therefore, when you put the young tree into the old tree, the old tree overpowers it, and it has the din of a zkeinah. “Hacha, ei mamlich alah, bat mehadaru.” But in this case, if he changed his mind—let's say he initially planted the tree to make a fence, and then after he planted it he changed his mind and decided he wanted to use the fruit—you can change your mind in such a case. Since you can change your mind, it can now become chayav in orlah. So when you put a fruit tree into that tree, it's not going to be batel. Since “bat mehadaru,” you can change it, so it takes on the din of “deha mei'ikara lepeiri ka'ei nami,” meaning initially it has fruit; you just didn't have kavanah (intention) for the fruit.
Look at Rashi. Rashi says, “Hatam,” in the first column: “Hatam gabei zekenah lav bat imluchei hi,” meaning you cannot change your mind, “lachzor velihyot yaldah,” you can't make a zkeinah into a yaldah, “al shum machashavah.” But if it's a planted tree—“neta'ah lesiyag”—if you change your mind within the first three years, “im mamlich aleha betoch shalosh shanim, lekayemah lepeirot,” it's chayav in orlah, and its status changes. Therefore, “yaldah deka markiv begavah la'achilah chayavet be'orlah”: when you graft a fruit tree meant for eating into it, it's chayav in orlah. Even though you didn't change your mind about the first tree, “ha miha la'achilah hu,” it is already standing for eating. The thought regarding the grafting also helps the tree that you're grafting into. Why? Even initially, if you had thought to make it a fruit tree for eating, it would have worked. The thought helps even though at the time of planting you didn't plant it for eating. And the Gemara brings this point.
So that's the Gemara's inyan (matter): when you put something into a zkeinah, you can't change a zkeinah; it is what it is. Mah she'ein ken, when you put a yaldah into a yaldah—but the original tree was planted not for eating, but for wood—normally it's patur from orlah. But since you could have changed your intention, and it is a fruit tree after all, when you graft into that tree it's as if you changed the intention to make it a fruit tree. Therefore, you're exempt from the war, because now it's chayav in orlah.
The Gemara says, “Midi dehavah a'alu mei'eiheilen,” like a case where you have a tree that grew by itself, with no machashavah at all. “Detnan: Alu mei'eiheilen chayavin be'orlah.” If it grows by itself, it's chayav in orlah. Why? Because it's ra'ui, fit for that, so it's chayav. It won't be worse than that. Even though when they planted it there was no kavanah, still it works.
The Gemara asks: why give a case where you took one tree and grafted it into another tree, in a case where the first tree was planted for wood and is therefore patur, so you're chayav to go to war, and the grafting exempts you? “Velukmah becherem shel shenei shutafim (partners)”: let's talk about a vineyard that belongs to two partners, “vehay hadar adideih vehay hadar adideih,” and each one goes back for his own item. What does that mean? Look at Rashi at the bottom: “Velukmah becherem shel shenei shutafin.” Why do you need that difficult case, where it was planted for a fence or for lumber and then you want to change it through grafting? “Lukmah”—here is a simple case: “Benote'ah la'achilah,” you planted it for eating. The problem is that he's exempt because of the first young tree. Rashi says the case is that the planting belongs to Reuven (Reuben), “veShimon (Simeon) ba vehirkiv,” and Shimon came and grafted it, “lihyot peirot harkavah shelo.” Shimon isn't exempt because of Reuven's first tree; it isn't his tree. But the grafting he made is his. That's the case. Shimon is chayav to go to war because the first tree isn't his, but once he grafted into it, he'll be exempt because of the grafting. Why not say that case?
The Gemara says, “Zot omeret,” and therefore, “dehay hadar adideih”: Reuven will be exempt because of the planting, and Shimon will be exempt because of the grafting. Rav Pappa (Rav Pappa) says, “Zot omeret kerem shel shenei shutafin (partners) ein chozrin aleha mima'archei hamilchamah.” You see from here that the Gemara didn't bring this case because when they're partners in a tree, partners are not exempt. Therefore, the man who grafted into Reuven's tree, since there's a partnership in that tree, has no exemption. That's why the Gemara didn't give that case.
“Umai shena mechamishah achin umet echad mehem bamilchamah” (What is the difference between five brothers when one of them dies in the war?), what's the difference from a case where you have, let's say, five brothers, they all went out to war, and one died in the war, “dekulan chozrin,” and all the other four brothers go back? Because they're all potentially able to fulfill the mitzvah of yibum with their sister-in-law. So that's a partnership there. You see that the partnership of yibum exempts the brothers. Why doesn't the partnership in the plantings exempt the planter and the one who grafted?
“Hatam kol chad vechad karinan beih ishto; hacha kol chad vechad lo karinan beih karmo.” In the case of yibum, each brother is potentially considered to have her as a wife. The Torah says you go back for your wife; each one is potentially called her husband, because potentially he's going to marry her. Mah she'ein ken, in a partnership case, it isn't called his kerem; it's a partnership, and therefore there is no exemption for a partnership. Mah she'ein ken, with yibum, each one can consider that woman his wife for the purpose of the exemption.
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak (Rav Nachman son of Isaac) says that he'll give you the case the Mishnah stated, where a person grafts and goes back. What's the case? “B'markiv ilan b'yarak”: he grafted a tree with a vegetable. Rashi says, “Hai d'katani matnitin markiv chozer b'markiv ilan b'yarak d'lo ba'al mehader mishum kama.” With vegetables you don't go back; that's not considered a tree. So from the vegetable's standpoint you're not going to go back. That's why, even though it's within the first three years, when you grafted it into the tree, the grafting is what makes you exempt.
Rashi says, “Mishum kama, ve'im tomar min b'she'eino mino.” What do you mean? That kind of grafting is prohibited, because it's a vegetable and a fruit. “Ve'im ata l'harkavat isur”—if you're talking about prohibited grafting, “mai shna hani d'lo perat lamavrich u'markiv, hai tanna hu d'amar mutar.” This tanna holds that grafting one species with another in a vegetable is permitted. So it's heter b'heter (permitted with permitted), a vegetable with a fruit. From the vegetable you're not patur, because that's not considered a planting. So from that standpoint you have to go to war. Once you grafted it, then you're patur (exemption).
“V'hai tanna hu detanya: Hamavrich ilan b'yarak, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel matir”—Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says it's permitted, and therefore he's exempt—“mishum Rabbi Yehudah ben Gamda ish Kefar Akko,” in the name of Rabbi Yehudah ben Gamda of Kefar Akko, “veChachamim osrim.”
The Gemara says, “Ki ata Rav Dimi (Rav Dimi),” when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, “amar Rabbi Yochanan (Rabbi Yochanan).” Rabbi Yochanan said, “Ha mani?” Who is the author of the braita—the braita that said a mavrich and a markiv goes to war, contrary to our Mishnah, which said a markiv and a mavrich is patur from the war? “Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov hi.” That means, “Lo amar Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov hatam kerem kemashma'o, hacha nami neta kemashma'o, notei'a in, mavrich u'markiv lo.” Just as Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov said earlier in the Mishnah that when it says “kerem,” it means only a vineyard, so too when it says “neta,” he takes it literally: only when you plant, excluding grafting and layering. So he would be the author of the braita.
So it comes out that we have two answers to the braita. The braita said you do not go back for grafting. Either I can tell you it's Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, who says you only go back for neti'ah mamash (actual planting), just as he understands “kerem” to mean an actual vineyard; or, as the Gemara answered earlier, it was talking about prohibited grafting. Since you did something prohibited, you're not going to go back. And the Mishnah, I'll tell you, is talking about either permitted grafting, heter b'heter, two cases where it's permitted: a yaldah into a yaldah. What's the case? You took a regular fruit tree that you planted for fruit and grafted it into a tree planted for wood, which normally wouldn't be exempt, but through the grafting it will exempt you. Or I can tell you that the case is a kerem shel shnei shutafin, a vineyard of two partners. The chiddush is that Reuven is patur because of the planting of his tree, and Shimon is patur when he makes the grafting into Reuven's tree. That's another case of permitted grafting that exempts him.
The Gemara says, “Ulo? Ki ata Rav Dimi amar Rabbi Yochanan mishum Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov: Yaldah pechutah mi'tefach.” You have a tree that's very short; it doesn't grow much, doesn't grow more than a tefach (handbreadth). “Chayevet be'orlah kol shnoteha.” Even after the third year, its fruits are still forbidden. Why? Lich'orah, after the third year it should be permitted. You know why? “D'mitchazya k'bat shata,” because of mar'it ayin. The tree is very small, so people will think it's only one year old. They'll see him eating the fruit and say, “What do you mean? The man is eating fruit of orlah!” Therefore, because of mar'it ayin, a small tree that doesn't grow more than a tefach is chayev in orlah throughout its existence.
“V'hanei milei shtayim k'neged shtayim v'achat yotzei yotzeh zanav.” That's only talking about a kerem with two trees opposite two trees and one projecting like a tail, like the picture in Rashi on the first amud: two against two, and a fifth one coming out. “Aval kulei kerem, kala it leh.” If the whole kerem is a short, miniature kerem of one tefach, everybody knows about it. It has so many trees that people know it's really an older vineyard or field; the trees just grow small, so nobody will worry about mar'it ayin. You only worry about mar'it ayin with a small number of trees, where there's no voice and nobody knows about it. But if there's a whole vineyard of trees like that, short or small, everybody knows it's really an older field; the trees just grow short. Therefore, there's a kol, and you don't have to worry about mar'it ayin.
“Kahada detanya: Amar Rabbi Yochanan mishum Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, met tofes arba amot le-Kri'at Shema (recitation of the Shema).” God forbid, if there's a met (dead person), you're not allowed to read Kri'at Shema within four amot of the met, as it says, “Lo'eg larash cheref osehu.” God forbid, you're making fun of the dead, as if you're saying, “You can't read Kri'at Shema, but I can.” Therefore, you're causing him, God forbid, to have complaints against God, “cheref osehu.” So you're not allowed to read Kri'at Shema within four amot of a met.
Rabbi Yitzchak says in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, “Churgeta.” Churgeta is a stepdaughter: a woman gets married and brings a daughter into her marriage. “Hagedelah bein ha'achim”—she grows up among the brothers. She enters a marriage, and the man she marries has sons from another woman. Technically, they're not related: her daughter and her husband's sons are not related. But if she grows up in the same house with them, “asurah linase la'achim,” she is forbidden to marry the brothers. Why? “Demitchehazya ke'achateyhu,” she looks like their sister. Nobody knows that she's a stepdaughter, a daughter from another marriage. Therefore, if they live together in the house, they cannot marry, because people will think they're marrying their sister. “Velo hi,” the Gemara says, that's not so: “Kala it leh lemilta.” There's a public awareness about such a thing. Everybody knows when someone gets married that these children are from one marriage and those children from another, and therefore it is permitted.
Rabbi Yitzchak also says in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, “Leket, shikchah ufe'ah.” Let's say the poor collect their entitlements, called leket, shikchah ufe'ah. The law is that the poor are patur from ma'asrot. Leket, shikchah ufe'ah is patur from ma'aser. So they collected it. “She'asa'an begoren”: let's say they made a pile and piled them all together. Normally, halachah, the law, says when a person takes produce from the field and makes a pile, once he makes the pile he's chayav to give ma'asrot; “hukbe'u lema'aser.” The chiddush here is that even leket, shikchah ufe'ah—now that they made it into a pile, people will think it's regular produce and say, “He has to give tithes on it.” Therefore, because of mar'it ayin, you have to give ma'aser even on leket, shikchah ufe'ah once you make it into a pile!
Ulla (Ulla) says, “Lo amaran ela basadeh,” that's only talking about when you're doing it in the field. “Aval ba'ir,” but in the city, “kala it leh lemilta”—there's a public awareness. What is the public awareness? Let's read Rashi. Rashi says, “Lo amaran ela basadeh shelo yade'u hakol shenichnesu me'at me'at”: in the field, not everybody knows that they brought in leket, shikchah ufe'ah a little at a time. “Vesevurin shegadlu sham,” so people think it grew there and they made a pile. “Aval ba'ir kol shechenav ra'u shekinas al yad al yad.” In the city, they see the poor person bring in a little at a time, and therefore they know it's leket, shikchah ufe'ah. Eventually he puts it into a pile, but they know it came from leket, shikchah ufe'ah. “Patur min hama'aser.”
And how do you know leket and shikchah are patur from ma'aser? “Kidekatni beSifrei (Sifrei): Uva haLevi (Levite) ki ein lo chelek venachalah immach.” The Levi comes and takes a chelek, a piece of the action, because he does not have a chelek. “Bidvar she'ein lo bo chelek venachalah immach hu ba venotel ma'aser rishon shelo; yatza leket, shikchah ufe'ah sheyesh lo chelek venachalah immach, she'af ha'aniyim Leviyim hem mufkarim keshe'ar aniyei Yisrael.” The Levite only takes a share of ma'aser from property in which he has no share. But property in which he has a share, he doesn't take. Which property does he have a share in? Leket, shikchah ufe'ah. How does a Levite have a share? If a Levite is poor, he can take leket, shikchah ufe'ah. So it says, “Ki ein lo chelek”: he only takes ma'aser on property in which he has no share. But property to which he has shayachut, like leket, shikchah ufe'ah, which he can take because he's a Levi, he can take. Therefore, there is no obligation of ma'aser on that matter.
Baruch Hashem le'olam, amen ve'amen.