Sotah

TO WHAT DOES ALL THE FOREGOING APPLY? TO VOLUNTARY WARS, BUT IN THE WARS COMMANDED BY THE TORAH  ALL GO FORTH EVEN A BRIDEGROOM FROM HIS CHAMBER AND A BRIDE FROM HER CANOPY.  R. JUDAH SAYS: TO WHAT DOES ALL THE FOREGOING APPLY? TO THE WARS COMMANDED BY THE TORAH; BUT IN OBLIGATORY WARS  ALL GO FORTH, EVEN A BRIDEGROOM FROM HIS CHAMBER AND A BRIDE FROM HER CANOPY. GEMARA. What is the difference between R. Jose and R. Jose the Galilean?  — The issue between them is the transgression of a Rabbinical ordinance.  With whom does the following teaching accord: He who speaks between [donning] one phylactery and the other  has committed a transgression and returns home under the war-regulations? With whom [does it accord]? With R. Jose the Galilean. Who is the Tanna of the following: Our Rabbis taught: If he heard the sound of trumpets and was terror-stricken, or the crash of shields and was terror-stricken, or [beheld] the brandishing of swords and the urine discharged itself upon his knees, he returns home? With whom [does it accord]? Are we to say that it is with R. Akiba and not R. Jose the Galilean?  — In such a circumstance even R. Jose the Galilean admits [that he returns home], because it is written: Lest his brethren's heart melt as his heart. AND IT SHALL BE, WHEN THE OFFICERS HAVE MADE AN END etc. The phrase, BECAUSE THE BEGINNING OF FLIGHT IS FALLING should be, 'because falling is the beginning of flight'! Read [in the Mishnah]: Because falling is the beginning of flight. TO WHAT DOES ALL THE FOREGOING APPLY? TO VOLUNTARY WARS etc. R. Johanan said: [A war] which is [designated] voluntary according to the Rabbis is commanded according to R. Judah,  and [a war] which is [designated] commanded according to the Rabbis is obligatory according to R. Judah.  Raba said:  The wars waged by Joshua to conquer [Canaan] were obligatory in the opinion of all; the wars waged by the House of David for territorial expansion were voluntary in the opinion of all; where they differ is with regard to [wars] against heathens so that these should not march against them. One  calls them commanded and the other voluntary, the practical issue being that one who is engaged in the performance of a commandment is exempt from the performance of another commandment. MISHNAH. [THE DECLARATION OVER] THE HEIFER WHOSE NECK IS TO BE BROKEN MUST BE IN THE HOLY TONGUE; AS IT IS SAID, IF ONE BE FOUND SLAIN IN THE EARTH … THEN THY ELDERS AND THY JUDGES SHALL COME FORTH.  THREE USED TO GO FORTH FROM THE SUPREME COURT IN JERUSALEM; R. JUDAH SAYS: FIVE, AS IT IS STATED, THY ELDERS, I.E., TWO, 'AND THY JUDGES' I.E., TWO, AND SINCE A COURT OF JUSTICE CANNOT CONSIST OF AN EVEN NUMBER, THEY ADD ONE MORE. IF [THE CORPSE] WAS FOUND HIDDEN IN A HEAP OF STONES, OR HANGING ON A TREE, OR FLOATING UPON THE SURFACE OF THE WATER, THEY DO NOT BREAK [A HEIFER'S NECK]. BECAUSE IT IS STATED, 'IN THE EARTH' — AND NOT HIDDEN IN A HEAP OF STONES, NOR HANGING ON A TREE IN A FIELD, NOR FLOATING UPON THE SURFACE OF THE WATER. IF IT WAS FOUND NEAR TO THE FRONTIER, OR A CITY THE MAJORITY OF WHOSE INHABITANTS WERE HEATHENS, OR A CITY IN WHICH THERE IS NO COURT OF JUSTICE, THEY DO NOT BREAK [A HEIFER'S NECK]. THEY ONLY MEASURE  THE DISTANCE TO A CITY IN WHICH THERE IS A COURT OF JUSTICE. GEMARA. How does [the author of the Mishnah] prove his point?  — R. Abbahu said: This is what he intends: It is stated: And they shall answer and say  and elsewhere it is stated: And the Levites shall answer and say etc.,  as the answering mentioned in this latter passage was in the holy tongue, so here also it was in the holy tongue, and as to the procedure in the ceremony of the heifer whose neck was to be broken — IF ONE BE FOUND SLAIN IN THE EARTH … THEN THY ELDERS AND THY JUDGES SHALL COME FORTH. THREE USED TO GO FORTH FROM THE SUPREME COURT IN JERUSALEM; R. JUDAH SAYS: FIVE etc. Our  Rabbis taught: 'Then thy elders and thy judges shall come forth' — 'thy elders', i.e., two, 'and thy judges', i.e., two, and since a Court of justice cannot consist of an even number, they add one more; hence there were five. Such is the statement of R. Judah; but R. Simeon says: 'Thy elders', i.e., two, and since a Court of Justice cannot consist of an even number, they add one more; hence there were three. But for R. Simeon also it is written 'and thy judges'! — He requires that for [the teaching that they must be] the most distinguished of thy judges. And [where does] R. Judah [derive the teaching that they must be the most distinguished]? — It follows from 'thy' in 'thy elders'.  [How does] R. Simeon [meet this argument]? — If the All-Merciful had only written 'elders', I might have thought that even old men from the market-place [would suffice]; therefore the All-Merciful wrote 'thy elders'. If, further, the All-Merciful had only written 'thy elders', I might have thought that even [members of] a minor Sanhedrin  [would suffice]; therefore the All-Merciful wrote 'and thy judges' i.e., the most distinguished of thy judges. [Where does] R. Judah [derive the teaching that they must be members of the Supreme Court]? — He draws an analogy between the use of the word 'elders' here and in the phrase the elders of the Congregation;  as it there denotes the most distinguished men of the congregation so here also it denotes the most distinguished men of the congregation. If he makes a deduction, then let him deduce the whole from there and what is the necessity of 'and thy judges'!  — But the 'and' in 'and thy judges' [denotes that the phrase is to be used] for obtaining the requisite number. [How does] R. Simeon [meet this argument]?