Talmud su Deuteronomio 20:2

MISHNAH: The priest anointed for war¹Cf. Mishnah 7:2, Note 37. was speaking holy language when he was addressing the people, as it is said²Deut. 20:2–3.: “It shall be when you approach war, the Cohen shall come near”, that is the priest anointed for war, “shall speak to the people”, in the holy language, “and say to them: Hear, o Israel, you are approching today war against your enemies,” against your enemies but not against your brothers, not Jehudah against Simeon and not Simeon against Benjamin, for if you would fall in their hands they would have mercy on you³It is probably unintended that only tribes of the kingdom of Judea are mentioned since Mishnah 2 speaks of Judahites and Ephraimites..

HALAKHAH: “The priest anointed for war,” etc. Why⁴Why must he speak in Hebrew only? the priest anointed for war? Because it is written “he shall speak⁵Deut. 20:2.”? But about the reading of the Šema‘ it is written: “You shall speak about them,” and it may be recited in any language. But because it is written there “saying⁶Deut. 20:3.”. But for the declaration of tithes it is written “saying⁷Deut. 26:13.” and it may be recited in any language! Rebbi Ḥaggai said, it says here “to come close⁵Deut. 20:2.” and it says there, “the Levitic Cohanim shall come close⁸Deut. 21:5.;” since “coming close” there implies [recitation in] the holy language⁹Mishnah 7:2., so also “coming close” here implies [recitation in] the holy language¹⁰This is an example of an argument outside the hermeneutic rules, used quite frequently in the Babli but very sparingly in the Yerushalmi. It is not an “equal cut” since there is no transfer of meaning involved; it is what is known as הֶקֵּשׁ “tying together”. Both in the case of the priest chosen for war and the calf selected to atone for an unsolved murder case, it should be quite clear that the people involved cannot be heard unless they are reasonably close. In both cases, the note that they have to come near is somewhat redundant. Therefore, one may conclude that the additional expression was used to indicate similar circumstances, which by rabbinic authority is declared to concern the language to be used.. That follows Rebbi Aqiba who says, these are expressions of additions¹¹This refers to the ceremony for the unsolved murder case, where R. Jehudah in 7:2 states that common use of the roots אמר, ענה implies use of the holy language. That argument is acceptable only following R. Aqiba, not following R. Ismael. For the latter, the argument of R. Ḥaggai does not prove anything.. Following Rebbi Ismael who says, these are double expressions? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, it says here “to come close” and it says there, “Moses shall come close to the mist¹²Ex. 20:21; the word order is incorrect in the quote.”, since “coming close” there implies [recitation in] the holy language¹³Since Moses was deputized by the people to speak to God Who obviously spoke to them and him in Hebrew. This reference to the holy language is acceptable to R. Ismael., so also “coming close” here implies [recitation in] the holy language.

Would it not be reasonable that “the commanders should take charge at the head of the people¹⁵Deut. 20:9.” and then “the Cohen shall come close¹⁶Deut. 20:2.”? He who directs them should inform them! The text is not in the correct order¹⁷As the text stands, vv. 2–4 are said by the Cohen when the people are formed in battle order, but vv. 5–9 are said before the army units are formed, before the border is crossed.. At the border, you say that the policeman hears from the Cohen the text and communicates it to the people in any language. But at the battle order (they provide water and food and repair the roads)¹⁸End of Mishnah 5, speaking of the duties of the men freed from combat duty; a larger text must be missing here in both mss. to the effect that only warriors stood in battle order.. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked, since at the border the policeman hears from the Cohen the text and communicates it to the people in any language, should it not be the same with the battle order? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada objected, is it reasonable that “when the policemen finished talking to the people,” after that “the Cohen shall come close and speak to the people”? He said to him, since you say, the text is not in the correct order, you cannot infer anything.