מֵעֲבֵירוֹת שֶׁבְּיָדוֹ!

because of sins that he has. According to this interpretation, one who stole another’s real estate should return home from war because of his guilt, which would seem to contradict the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov.

אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, כְּגוֹן דַּעֲבַד תְּשׁוּבָה וִיהַב דְּמֵי. אִי הָכִי, הֲוָה לֵיהּ לוֹקֵחַ, וְלִיהֲדַר! כֵּיוָן דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא בְּתוֹרַת גְּזֵילָה אֲתָא לְיָדֵיהּ – לָא.

The Gemara answers: Even if you say that this ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov still needs to exclude one in possession of a stolen house, as in a case where one repented and gave money to the owners of the house that he stole. Although in such a case he is not considered a criminal, the house was originally stolen, and therefore he must remain among the military ranks. The Gemara challenges this: If so, i.e., he repaid the owners, he is now a legal purchaser of the house and he should return from the military ranks. The Gemara answers: Since initially it entered his possession with the status of stolen property, not return.

״וּמִי הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר נָטַע כֶּרֶם״ כו'. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אֲשֶׁר נָטַע״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא נָטַע. לָקַח וְיָרַשׁ וְנִיתַּן לוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּמִי הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר נָטַע״.

§ The Gemara continues its discussion of those who return from the ranks. “And what man is there that has planted a vineyard, and has not used the fruit thereof ” (Deuteronomy 20:6). The Sages taught: From the phrase “that has planted,” I have derived only that it applies to one who actually planted a vineyard. From where is it derived that the military exemption likewise includes one who purchased it, one who inherited it, and one to whom it was given as a gift? The verse states: “And what man is there that has planted.” By not merely stating: One that has planted, but using the expanded “what man is there that has planted,” the verse includes any of these circumstances.

״כֶּרֶם״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא כֶּרֶם. מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת חֲמִשָּׁה אִילָנֵי מַאֲכָל וַאֲפִילּוּ מִשְּׁאָר מִינִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר נָטַע״. יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה הַנּוֹטֵעַ אַרְבָּעָה אִילָנֵי מַאֲכָל, וַחֲמִשָּׁה אִילָנֵי סְרָק? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כֶּרֶם״.

From the specific term “vineyard,” I have derived only a vineyard; from where do I derive that it comes to include five fruit trees even from other species? The verse states: “That has planted,” to include different types of trees. Might I include even one who plants only four fruit trees and one who plants five or more non-fruit bearing trees? The verse states: “Vineyard.” The term excludes a quantity of trees that is too few to qualify as a vineyard, as well as trees that do not yield fruit at all.

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: ״כֶּרֶם״ כְּמַשְׁמָעוֹ. ״לֹא חִלֵּל״, ״וְלֹא חִלְּלוֹ״ – פְּרָט לְמַבְרִיךְ וּלְמַרְכִּיב. וְהָא אֲנַן תְּנַן: אֶחָד הַנּוֹטֵעַ וְאֶחָד הַמַּבְרִיךְ וְאֶחָד הַמַּרְכִּיב! אֲמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אֲמַר רַב חִסְדָּא, לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בְּהַרְכָּבַת אִיסּוּר, כָּאן בְּהַרְכָּבַת הֶיתֵּר.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: The word “vineyard” is to be understood as it indicates, and it is referring only to a grape vineyard. And since the verse does not state merely: “And has not used the fruit,” but rather: “And has not used the fruit thereof,” it excludes one who layers the vine or branch and one who grafts different trees onto one another. The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna: He is released if he is one who plants, or if he is one who layers, or if he is one who grafts trees? Rabbi Zeira said that Rav Ḥisda said: This is not difficult. Here, in the case where one does not return from the ranks, the man has performed forbidden grafting; there, in the case where one does return from the ranks, he has performed permitted grafting.

הַאי הַרְכָּבַת הֶיתֵּר הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִילֵימָא יַלְדָּה בְּיַלְדָּה, תֵּיפּוֹק לֵיהּ דְּבָעֵי מִיהֲדַר מִשּׁוּם יַלְדָּה רִאשׁוֹנָה! אֶלָּא יַלְדָּה בִּזְקֵינָה? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּהוּ: יַלְדָּה שֶׁסִּיבְּכָהּ בִּזְקֵינָה – בָּטְלָה יַלְדָּה בִּזְקֵינָה וְאֵין בָּהּ דִּין עָרְלָה!

The Gemara asks: With regard to this permitted grafting, what are the circumstances? If we say that it is a young tree grafted together with another young tree, then let him derive the halakha that one must return from the ranks due to the first young tree. One should be exempt because of his first tree, which is young, and the grafted tree is irrelevant. Rather, it is a case in which a young tree is grafted with an old tree. The Gemara objects: But didn’t Rabbi Abbahu say: With regard to a young tree that was entangled, i.e., grafted, with an old tree, the young one is negated by the old one, and the law of orla does not apply to it. Therefore, the grafted tree should likewise lose its status as a young tree, and one in this situation should not return from the ranks.

אֲמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: לְעוֹלָם יַלְדָּה בְּיַלְדָּה, וּכְגוֹן דְּנָטַע לְהַךְ קַמָּיְיתָא לִסְיָיג וּלְקוֹרוֹת, דִּתְנַן: הַנּוֹטֵעַ לִסְיָיג וּלְקוֹרוֹת – פָּטוּר מִן הָעָרְלָה.

Rabbi Yirmeya said: Actually, one returns home if he grafts a young tree with another young tree, and it is a case in which he planted this first one for a fence or for beams, so that he is exempt from battle only because of the second tree, which he grafts for fruit. As we learned in a mishna ( Orla 1:1): In a case of one who plants a tree for a fence or to yield wood for beams, the tree is exempt from the halakhot of orla .

וּמַאי שְׁנָא יַלְדָּה בִּזְקֵינָה דְּבָטְלָה, וּמַאי שְׁנָא יַלְדָּה בְּיַלְדָּה דְּלָא בָּטְלָה?

The Gemara asks: And what is different about the case of a young tree paired with an old tree such that the young tree is negated, and what is different about the case of a young tree being planted for fruit paired with a young tree planted for wood such that the fruit tree is not negated?

הָתָם אִי מִימְלִיךְ עֲלָהּ לָאו בַּת מִיהֲדַר הִיא, הָכָא אִי מִימְלִיךְ עֲלָהּ בַּת מִיהֲדַר הִיא, [דְּהָא מֵעִיקָּרָא לְפֵירֵי קַיְימָא], מִידֵי דַּהֲוָה אַעָלוּ מֵאֵילֵיהֶן, דִּתְנַן: עָלוּ מֵאֵילֵיהֶן – חַיָּיבִין בְּעָרְלָה.

The Gemara answers: There, in the case of an older tree, if one changes his mind about it and wants it to be a young tree obligated in orla , it cannot return to its previous state, as he has grafted it. Therefore, it is exempt from the halakhot of orla . Here, when a tree is planted for wood, if he changes his mind and decides to grow it for fruit, it can return to its default state of being planted for fruit, because initially it stands to be used for fruit. Therefore, it is not exempt from the halakhot of orla . This ruling is just as it is concerning trees that grew by themselves, which are subject to orla although they were not consciously planted for their fruit. As we learned in a mishna ( Orla 1:2): Fruit trees that grew by themselves are obligated in orla although the landowner did not plant them himself.

וְלוֹקְמָהּ בְּכֶרֶם שֶׁל שְׁנֵי שׁוּתָּפִין, דְּהַאי הָדַר אַדִּידֵיהּ, וְהַאי הָדַר אַדִּידֵיהּ! אָמַר רַב פַּפָּא, זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת: כֶּרֶם שֶׁל שְׁנֵי שׁוּתָּפִין – אֵין חוֹזְרִין עָלָיו מֵעַרְכֵי הַמִּלְחָמָה.

The Gemara asks: Why is there a need to establish the mishna as discussing a case where one planted the first tree for a fence or for beams? But let the mishna be established as referring to a vineyard belonging to two partners, where the two trees involved in the grafting were co-owned by partners, and both trees were young. As in this case this one man returns due to his tree and that other man returns due to his tree. Rav Pappa says: Since the Gemara avoids the scenario of the vineyard belonging to partners in favor of discussing a case where one planted the first tree for a fence or for beams, that is to say if there is a vineyard belonging to two partners, evidently they do not return for the vineyard from the ranks of soldiers waging war.

וּמַאי שְׁנָא מֵחֲמִשָּׁה אַחִין וּמֵת אֶחָד מֵהֶן בַּמִּלְחָמָה דְּכוּלָּן חוֹזְרִין? הָתָם כָּל חַד וְחַד קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ ״אִשְׁתּוֹ״, הָכָא כָּל חַד וְחַד לָא קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ ״כַּרְמוֹ״.

The Gemara asks: And in what way is the case of partners different from the following case: If there are five brothers and one of them dies in the war, the halakha is that they all return. Just as each brother returns because of his shared responsibility to perform levirate marriage or ḥalitza for the widow, each partner should return for his share in the young tree that was grafted. The Gemara answers: There, each and every one is considered one who must return for his wife, as any of them could readily marry her. However, here, each and every one is not considered one who must return for his vineyard because it does not belong exclusively to either of them.

רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אֲמַר: בְּמַבְרִיךְ אִילָן בְּיָרָק. וְהַאי תַּנָּא הוּא, דְּתַנְיָא: הַמַּבְרִיךְ אִילָן בְּיָרָק – רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מַתִּיר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן גַּמְדָּא אִישׁ כְּפַר עַכּוֹ, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִין.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: In accordance with the baraita mentioned above, one does not normally return for a grafted or layered tree. However, the mishna states that one does return for a grafted or layered tree in a case where one layers a tree and grafts it with a vegetable plant. And that ruling is in accordance with this tanna , Rabbi Yehuda ben Gamda, as cited in a baraita . As it is taught in a baraita ( Tosefta , Kilayim 1:12): With regard to one who layers a tree and grafts it with a vegetable plant, the tanna’im engaged in a dispute concerning whether this kind of breeding is permitted. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, speaking in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Gamda of the village of Akko, permits one to do so, and the Rabbis prohibit it. Therefore, one would return from the ranks for a tree grafted to a vegetable plant, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Gamda, although he would not return for the vegetable itself.

כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אֲמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב הִיא. לָא אֲמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב הָתָם ״כֶּרֶם״ כְּמַשְׁמָעוֹ? הָכָא נַמִי ״נָטַע״ כְּמַשְׁמָעוֹ, נוֹטֵעַ – אִין, מַבְרִיךְ וּמַרְכִּיב – לָא.

The Gemara offers another alternative resolution to the contradiction over whether one returns for a grafted tree. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: In accordance with whose opinion is this statement, which says that one does not return for a grafted tree? It is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. He explains: Didn’t Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov say there in the baraita cited earlier: The word vineyard is to be understood as it indicates, i.e., that the exemption is only for a grape vineyard? Here too, the word planted is to be understood as it indicates; with regard to one who plants, yes, he does return, but one who grafts or layers a tree does not return.

כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אֲמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב: יַלְדָּה פְּחוּתָה מִטֶּפַח – חַיֶּיבֶת בְּעָרְלָה כָּל שְׁנוֹתֶיהָ, דְּמִתְחַזְּיָא כְּבַת שַׁתָּא. וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי שְׁתַּיִם כְּנֶגֶד שְׁתַּיִם וְאַחַת יוֹצְאָה זָנָב, אֲבָל כּוּלֵּיהּ כֶּרֶם – קָלָא אִית לֵיהּ.

§ After citing Rabbi Yoḥanan’s interpretation of the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, the Gemara cites a string of other rulings that Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov: The Sages decreed that if there is a young grapevine less than one handbreadth tall, is obligated in orla all its years, even after the three years mandated by the Torah, because it appears like a vine of one year. The Sages were concerned that if they permitted one to eat from such a vine, people would also eat true orla . And this prohibition applies to a very small section of two grapevines opposite two grapevines and one more vine emerging and growing between them, in the formation of a tail. But if the entire vineyard grows so short, it generates publicity, and people know that the vines are old enough to no longer be subject to orla .

כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב: מֵת תּוֹפֵס אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת לִקְרִיאַת שְׁמַע, דִּכְתִיב: ״לֹעֵג לָרָשׁ חֵרֵף עֹשֵׂהוּ״.

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov: A corpse occupies four cubits with regard to the exemption from the recitation of Shema , so that it is prohibited to recite Shema within this space, as it is written in the verse: “Whoever mocks the poor blasphemes his Maker” (Proverbs 17:5). Because the deceased cannot perform mitzvot, one who performs a mitzva in front of them is considered to be mocking them.

אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב: חוֹרַגְתָּא הַגְּדֵילָה בֵּין הָאַחִין – אֲסוּרָה לִינָּשֵׂא לָאַחִין, דְּמִתְחַזְּיָא כִּי אַחְתַּיְיהוּ. וְלָא הִיא, קָלָא אִית לֵיהּ לְמִילְּתָא.

Rabbi Yitzḥak says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov: With regard to a man’s stepdaughter who grows up among the brothers from a different marriage, she is eligible to be married to them in principle, because they are not actually her siblings. Nevertheless, she is prohibited to be married to the brothers, because she appears as though she is their sister. The Gemara comments: And that is not so; such a marriage is not prohibited because the matter generates publicity, and the public knows that they are not truly related.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב: לֶקֶט שִׁכְחָה וּפֵאָה שֶׁעֲשָׂאָן בַּגּוֹרֶן – הוּקְבְּעוּ לְמַעֲשֵׂר. אֲמַר עוּלָּא: לָא אֲמָרַן אֶלָּא בַּשָּׂדֶה, אֲבָל בָּעִיר – קָלָא אִית לֵיהּ לְמִלְּתָא.

And Rabbi Yitzḥak says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov: With regard to gleanings (Leviticus 19:9, 23:22), forgotten sheaves (Deuteronomy 24:19), or produce in the corner of the field which is given to the poor [ pe’a ] (Leviticus 19:9, 23:22), three obligatory agricultural gifts that must be given to the poor, if one gathered them into the threshing floor, the produce was thereby rendered obligated for tithes. Although one does not take tithes from produce for the poor, onlookers are likely to presume that this is his own produce. Ulla said: We stated this halakha only when the granary is in the field, but in the city, the matter generates publicity. People see that the produce was gathered in small quantities from different places, and they know that this produce is for the poor. In that case, one need not separate tithes.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב: יַלְדָּה הַפְּחוּתָה מִטֶּפַח – אֵינָהּ מְקַדֶּשֶׁת אֶת הַזְּרָעִים. וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי שְׁתַּיִם כְּנֶגֶד שְׁתַּיִם וְאַחַת יוֹצְאָה זָנָב, אֲבָל כּוּלֵּי כֶּרֶם – מַקְדִּישׁ.

And Rabbi Yitzḥak says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov: If there is a young grapevine less than one handbreadth tall, it does not render the seeds that are planted next to it forbidden. Normally, diverse kinds of produce may not be planted in close proximity, but this vine is too small to qualify as a prohibited vineyard. The Gemara limits the scope of this statement: And this statement applies to a very small section of two grapevines opposite two grapevines and one more vine emerging and growing between them, in formation of a tail. But if the entire vineyard grows so short, a vine of this size does render the other seeds planted at its side forbidden.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב:

And Rabbi Yitzḥak says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov: