Sotah 088

1:
If we carefully examine the language used by the officers addressing the massed troops in mishnah 2 (and in the Torah source [Deuteronomy 20:5-7], of course) we cannot fail to get the impression that the instruction to leave the battle field is addressed to such men as have started a significant life-cycle event but have not managed yet to complete it or enjoy its fruits – such as someone who has built his house but not yet resided in it, and so forth. In our present mishnah, however, the sages understand that language as being the last stage in an argument, that must inevitably also include all situations that are even more obvious! Thus, the officers are deemed to be releasing not just those who have not yet completed their meaningful event, but all the more so those who have!

2:
Our mishnah teaches that the officers address the troops, those who mustered for war, and release those men who answer to the mentioned criteria. However, those who have managed to start the completion of their meaningful event are not even expected to respond to the call to arms! "The following do not even enlist…"

3:
In order to better understand our mishnah let us quote the verse from the Torah [Deuteronomy 24:5] which is its origin and starting point:

The sages interpret this verse as extending to one year all the meaningful life events mentioned: the newly-wed shall 'cheer his wife' for one year, he who has built his house and dedicated it shall enjoy living in it for one year, he who has desanctified his new vineyard shall be free to enjoy it for one further year, and he who has performed the act of the 'levir' and married his deceased brother's childless widow [Yevamah] shall also be free to 'cheer her' for one year.

4:
The situations mentioned in the previous paragraph have already been explained in our explanations to mishnah 2.
.

I wrote: The Samaritans hold as sacred only the first six books of the bible…" Meir Noach asks:

What respect should a Jew show a Samaritan Torah? Does it make the hands unclean? Should a copy of a book from Neviim or Ketuvim be saved before a copy of the Samaritan Torah?

I respond:

A Jew should always act respectfully to what is sacred to another person's religion, even when denigrating it in his heart. (According to the European sages of the Middle Ages this is certainly true of those religions which are considered to be monotheistic: Islam and Christianity; Rambam, in North Africa, held Christianity to be sheer idolatry.)

However, from the continuation of the question I think that what was implied was whether these documents have any sanctity as Jewish documents. Should a Samaritan Torah scroll be considered holy writ? Should one risk one's life to save such a scroll from a conflagration? and so forth. To the best of my knowledge Samaritan scriptures are not considered to be sacred literature, holy writ – even though they are obviously 'almost' identical to our own texts and are written in the Hebrew language.

---

I used the word "amphictiony" to describe the association of the twelve tribes that make up the people of Israel. Derek Fields writes:

I was curious about the word 'amphictiony'. I can not find it in any dictionary that I own. The closest word is 'amphictyony', which is defined as a group of states having a common religious center or shrine in ancient Greece.

I respond:

Since the word is indeed borrowed from the Greek I suppose that there is more than one acceptable way to transliterate. What Derek discovered in his dictionary is correct. (In ancient Greece each city or state was expected to service the common sanctuary for one month each year.) However, the biblical scholar, Martin Noth, in his book on the history of Ancient Israel 'borrowed' this term to describe the association of twelve tribes united round a central sanctuary. I simply 'borrowed' from the borrower.