Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

In Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 191), the Rambam writes that this mitzvah only applies in a milchemet hareshut, but not in a milchemet mitzvah. Accordingly, there are commentaries who maintain that this phrase should be placed at the conclusion of the previous chapter and not at the beginning of this chapter.
However, other authorities maintain that there is no need to alter the texts. In this matter, as in the issue of offering a peaceful settlement (see commentary Chapter 6, Halachah 1), the Rambam changed his opinion from that stated in Sefer HaMitzvot.
The Or Sameach brings support for the opinion that a meshuach milchamah is appointed even in a milchemet mitzvah by citing the appointment of Pinchas to that position in the war against Midian (see Numbers 31:7 and Sotah 43a).

This appointment is included by the Sefer HaMitzvot (loc. cit.) and the Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 526) as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

See Halachot 2 and 3.

The unique oil made by Moses described in Chapter 1, Halachah 7.

Literally, “the one anointed for the war.”
Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 4:1 states that the oil of anointment was entombed together with the ark by King Josiah. Accordingly, during the latter years of the first Temple and throughout the subsequent generations, this mitzvah could no longer be fulfilled. Though Josephus and the Sefer Chashmonim state that Judah, the Macabee, served in this position, from a Halachic perspective, we must consider that merely an honorary title (Minchat Chinuch 107).

The primary function of the meshuach milchamah was to speak to the nation and inspire them before the war. In order to enhance his standing among the people and cause his words to be appreciated, he was given the honor of anointment (Sefer HaChinuch 107)

The Ra’avad notes that this statement is not appropriate in a milchemet mitzvah for, as explained in Halachah 4, in a war of that nature, no one is freed from army service.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that in Halachah 3, this proclamation is repeated. Accordingly, he explains that first, the meshuach milchamah would mention the need for these individuals to return in general terms, telling them to heed the proclamations he would make later. Afterwards, at the battlefront, he would make the statements mentioned in Halachah 3. This interpretation concurs with the statement in Sotah 42b: “At the border, he announces: ‘Listen to what will be said at the battlefield.’”
The Radbaz notes the difficulties mentioned by both the Ra’avad and the Kessef Mishneh. He mentions that he discovered a manuscript of the Mishneh Torah with a different version. That text reads:
Once, at border, as the army is leaving before they assume battle positions: [At that time,] he tells the nation: “Is there a man who is afraid or faint-hearted?...” When [these individuals] hear his words, they should retreat from the battlefront....
See the following halachah.

See the following halachah.

As Deuteronomy 20:2 states: “When you approach the battle, the priest shall step forward and speak to the people.”

Sotah 42a comments that the address must be made in the holy tongue. As mentioned above, the following statements were made even in a milchemet mitzvah.

Shema Yisrael in Hebrew. With this expression, the priest implies that even if the Jews possessed only the merit of reciting the Shema, it would be sufficient to warrant victory (ibid.).

Use of the latter term reminds the soldiers that their adversaries will not show them mercy (ibid.).

The Torah mentions four commands because an army would generally employ four techniques to intimidate its foes: They raised a clamor with their shields, sounded trumpets, shouted, and had their horses neigh (Sotah 42b).

Implying that, in contrast to the gentiles who rely on physical strength, we rely on God’s power.
Sefer HaMitzvot (loc. cit.) relates that the meshuach milchamah would add inspiring words of his own to further motivate the army.

The following statements are only made in a milchemet hareshut.

The deferments granted these individuals are discussed in Halachot 5-14 of this chapter.

Deuteronomy 20:5 says: “The officers shall then speak to the people and say: ‘Is there a man?...’” Sotah 43a explains that the officer did not make these statements himself, but rather, repeated those made by the priest.

See Halachah 15.

As Deuteronomy 20:8 states: “The officers shall then continue speaking to the people: ‘Is there a man?...’”

Deuteronomy 20:9 concludes the passage describing the mobilization of the army: “When the officers have finished speaking to the people, they shall appoint commanding officers at the head of the people.”
Sotah 44a mentions that high ranking officers were also placed at the rear of the camp to prevent flight.

The translation of keshilin as “axes” is taken from Psalms 74:6.

Sotah 44a relates that officers of this rank were also placed in the front lines of the troops to lift up all those who fall and encourage them to continue the battle. See Kessef Mishneh.

Hewing down this one individual will prevent panic from spreading throughout the troops.

Sotah 44b cites I Samuel 4:17: “And Israel fled before the Philistines and there was a great slaughter among the people” and (31:1): “The men of Israel fled before the Philistines and were felled as corpses” to illustrate this principle.

No deferments are granted. There are certain opinions which maintain that Levites and priests are exempted from military service based on the Rambam’s statements in Hilchot Shemitah 13:12: “[The Levites] were separated from the manner of the world. Thus, they do not wage war as the rest of Israel.”
However, most authorities explain that those statements only apply to the war to conquer Eretz Yisrael from the Canaanites. In other wars, the priests and Levites served in the army. They quote Halachah 8 of this chapter and Halachah 4 of the next as support of this view. I Chronicles 12:27 notes that 4,600 Levites were numbered among the troops who came to David at Hebron.

The phrase used by the Rambam is quoted from the Mishnah (Sotah, ibid.). It. is borrowed from Joel 1:16) and employed in a different context.
The Radbaz questions the mention of women. What part do they have in a war? Furthermore, Nazir 59a explains that the prohibition (Deuteronomy 22:5) “No male article shall be on a woman,” applies to wearing arms. Accordingly, he explains that the women would help in the preparation of food and perform other supportive functions, but would not take part in the actual fighting.

As mentioned in Halachah 3, a person who builds a new home is deferred from military service. Deuteronomy 20:5 states: “Is there a man who has built a new house and has not begun to live in it? Let him go home, lest he die in the war and another man live in it.”
By nature, a person who built a home, planted a vineyard, or consecrated a woman, thinks about these matters. In battle, he may be overcome by fear and worry that he will not benefit from his efforts. Hence, the Torah granted him a deferment in a milchemet hareshut (Ramban, Deuteronomy 20:4).

Sotah 43a explains that since the verse employs the verb “build,” any building which is fit to dwell in causes its builder to be deferred.

Sotah (ibid.) relates that this concept is derived from the use of the word “man” in the above-mentioned verse. Had the verse stated: “Is there any among you who has built a new house?”, the basic concept would have been understood. Adding the word “man” was used to infer these additions.

This term is placed in parentheses, because according to the standard printed text of Sotah 43a, mentions this as a structure for which a person receives a deferment. A Rabbinic source to the contrary has not been found. Hence, many have deemed it a printing error.

Rashi, Sotah (43a), explains that this refers to a watchman’s booth outside a courtyard.

A room with four walls, but no roof. This structure was common in Greek and Roman architecture and was frequently, employed in Eretz Yisrael in Talmudic times.

A house of this size is not fit to dwell in. Similarly, the other structures mentioned in this clause are not fit to dwell in.

The verse states “and has not begun to live in it.” The words “in it” imply that the house must be one’s own (Sotah, ibid.).

As Deuteronomy 20:6 states: “Is there a man who has planted a vineyard and has not yet redeemed its first crop? Let him go home, lest he die in war and another man redeem it.”

The word “planted” in the above verse includes plants of any species, not only a grapevine.

Rashi (Sotah, ibid.) maintains that the five trees must be planted in the manner depicted below. However, the Tosefta (Sotah 7:11) differs, allowing the trees to be planted far apart, even in five different cities. The Lecheni Mishneh presumes that the Rambam does not accept Rashi’s view. Were he also to follow that opinion, it would have been necessary for him to elaborate.

One of the ways of expanding a vineyard was to cut off a shoot of a vine and bury it in the ground until it grew roots and emerged as an independent plant.

Grafting an existing vine on the stem of another.

These techniques of expanding one’s vineyard will only cause an individual to be deferred from army service if the resulting vines are considered as entirely new plants. Under those circumstances, they will be governed by the prohibitions of orlah. Hence, no benefit can be derived from their produce for the first three years of their new growth. This is necessary for the verse speaks about "redeeming one's vineyard," i.e., bringing the worth of the fruit to Jerusalem to be eaten there. Hilchot Ma’aser Sheni 10:14-18 discusses when a graft or a planting is considered an independent plant and when not.

As explained in the previous halachah, these means of acquisition can be implied from the use of the word “man” in the above-mentioned verse (Sotah 43b).

This is too small a number to be called a “vineyard.”

Trees that do not bear fruit also cannot be called a vineyard.

The Kessef Mishneh states that there is no Talmudic source for this statement, but that it is inferred from the law regarding a stolen house in the previous halachah.

Neither of the partners conceives of the vineyard as his own. Hence, neither is deferred. See Sotah 43b, Kessef Mishneh, Lechem Mishneh.

Deuteronomy 20:17 states: "Is there a man who has consecrated a woman and not married her? Let him go home, lest he die in the war and another man marry her."
Similarly, Deuteronomy 24:5 relates: "When a man takes a new wife, he shall not enter military service."
According to Torah law, marriage is a two-staged process. In the first stage, referred to as kiddushin, a man consecrates a woman as his wife. From this time onward, she may not marry another man without divorce. Sexual relations with other men are considered adultery and are punishable by death. Nevertheless, the bride and groom are not permitted to live as man and wife.
The second stage of marriage, nissuin, involves the consummation of the marriage and the beginning of the couple's life together.

Whether this is to be the first or second marriage for either of the parties involved, as long as the couple have never been married to each other, the woman is considered “a new wife” and a deferment is granted.

When a man dies without children, his widow is obligated to marry one of his brothers (yibbum) or be freed from that obligation through the chalitzah ceremony (see Deuteronomy 25:5-10). From the time of the deceased’s passing, a halachic relationship exists between his brothers and his widow. Hence, they are deferred from military service.

For each of them has the potential to marry their brother’s childless widow. Even if their brother is killed in the midst of the war, they are granted deferments.

A deferment is not granted to a man who consecrates a wife during wartime (Jerusalem Talmud, Sotah 8:6). Nevertheless, in these circumstances, the fact the kiddushin were given before the war began makes it clear that the groom did not use marriage as an excuse to free himself from military duty. Hence, the deferment is granted.
The commentaries question how King David went out to fight the Philistines after marrying Michal, daughter of King Saul (see I Samuel, Chapter 18). They explain that David had already been anointed as king by Samuel. Hence, his status differed from others and he was not bound by this mitzvah.

This circumstance is excluded by the Torah’s use of the expression “a new wife” in Deuteronomy 24:5 (Sotah 44a).

Sotah (ibid.) explains that the Torah would not grant a deferment for a forbidden marriage.

Leviticus 21:14 mentions the prohibition against a High Priest marrying a widow.

The prohibition against a priest marrying a divorcee is mentioned in Leviticus 21:7.
The Sages forbade a priest from marrying a woman who underwent chalitzah because the latter ritual resembles divorce (Kiddushin 78a, Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 17:7).

The term mamzer refers to a child born from an adulterous or incestuous relationship. Deuteronomy 23:3 prohibits the marriage of a mamzer to a native born Israelite.

The term natin and natinah refer to male and female Gibeonites respectively. As mentioned above, the Gibeonites were a Canaanite nation who converted to Judaism. Despite their conversion, Joshua and later, David, forbade their marriage into the Jewish people (see Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 12:22-23).

In all aspects excepting the prohibition against their marriage to a native-born Israelite, a mamzer and a natin are considered as Jews and hence, bound by all the Torah’s mitzvot. Hence, they are also obligated to serve in the army and will not receive a deferment for a forbidden marriage. Nevertheless, although such individuals are required to serve, Kiddushin 76b relates that the soldiers of the House of David all had the highest pedigree of lineage. Anyone with blemished lineage was excused from service.

As described in Halachah 3.

These supportive functions are necessary for the army, yet do not involve the same danger as actual combat.

In contrast to the individuals previously mentioned who were required to present themselves at the army camp and perform supportive functions for the army.

See the following halachah. As mentioned in Halachah 4, these leniencies only apply to a milchemet hareshut. In contrast, in a milchemet mitzvah, “the entire [nation] must go out [to war], even a groom from his chamber, and a bride from her pavilion.”

In contrast, to one who has built a home, but has not had the opportunity to dedicate it.

This refers to nissuin, the second stage of the marriage relationship, in contrast to Kiddushin.

In the first three years after a vineyard is planted, its produce is orlah and may not be eaten. In the fourth year, the produce is considered neta reva’i and must be eaten in Jerusalem. Alternatively, it may be redeemed and the money used to purchase food to be eaten in Jerusalem.

The Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 214) and the Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 582) count the obligation to remain free of all duties as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
The Sefer HaChinuch explains that this mitzvah was instituted to develop love and harmony between a man and his wife. Every two individuals possess different natures and tendencies. To overcome these differences, the Torah commands that a man and wife spend their first year together in close company, each one adopting his behavior to the other’s habits and nuances. In this manner, they will become familiar with each other and their love will grow.

Sotah 43a explains that though the verse only mentions a bride and groom explicitly, the acquisition of a house and the first benefits derived from a vineyard can also be inferred.

The Ramban (Deuieronomy 24:5) maintains that this prohibition is incumbent on the representatives of the community or the army. They are forbidden from conscripting a groom for any services. Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi differs, explaining that the prohibition against leaving home is incumbent on the groom himself. This appears to be the Rambam’s perspective (Lechem Mishneh).

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 311) and the Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 581) count this prohibition as one of the Torah’s 613 mitzvot.

This clause is quoted from Sotah 44a. In Sefer HaMitzvot, the Rambam explains that though the Talmud mentions two prohibitions, that that expression is used for greater emphasis without necessarily implying that the two should be counted as two separate mitzvot. The Ramban disagrees and maintains that the above principle only applies when the two prohibitions are directed at the same individual. In this case, one prohibition is incumbent upon the army, and one on the community. Hence, they should be counted as two separate mitzvot.

For the entire year.

And no deferment is granted.

Thus, he is still eligible for a deferment. Furthermore, even if twelve months have passed, but the tenants have not paid their rent, the owner may still be deferred (Lechem Mishneh).

Or hires someone else for this purpose.

Hence, his one-year deferment begins at that time.

Hence he is deferred from military service accordingly.

A deferment is granted only for a building or planting that is a mitzvah. In Eretz Yisrael, these activities are intrinsic to the mitzvah of settling Eretz Yisrael. In the Diaspora, they are not associated with any mitzvah (Jerusalem Talmud, Sotah 8:4).
The commentaries question the Rambam’s inclusion of this halachah. As explained in the commentary to Halachah 5:9, in contrast to the Ramban, the Rambam does not count the settlement of Eretz Yisrael as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
They explain that though he does not count the settlement of the land as an independent mitzvah, it is an integral part of the fulfillment of other mitzvot (see Sefer HaMitzvot, positive commandment 153). Hence, there is an element of mitzvah involved in building a home there.

Sotah 44a cites two interpretations of this phrase: Rabbi Akiva’s, as quoted by the Rambam and Rabbi Yossi ‘s, who defines it as referring to a person who is afraid of battle lest he suffer harm as retribution for his sins. The Sifri quotes a different opinion for Rabbi Yossi, explaining that the verse refers to a man over the age of forty whose strength has already begun to wane.

Such a person is excused from serving in the army, as the verse continues: “Let him go home lest he demoralize the hearts of his brethren as his own.” Sotah 44a explains that all the deferments mentioned above are granted so that many will leave the battlefront and thus, a faint-hearted person will not be embarrassed to depart.
A cowardly person should not try to muster false courage. The Tosefta (Sotah 7:14) states that anyone who is entitled to a deferment and does not leave the battlefront will ultimately die in the war and cause many of his brethren to fall with him.

Sotah 42a states: Our foes rely on the power of flesh and blood and we rely on the power of God.

I.e., be willing even to encounter danger. The phrase is borrowed from Judges 12:3.

Lest his preoccupation with them prevent him from fighting with all his heart. Vayikra Rabbah 25:2 states: “Whoever goes out to war and does not concentrate his thoughts on the battle will be killed.”

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 58) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 525) count this prohibition as one of the Torah’s 613 mitzvot. The Ramban and the Ra’avad differ, explaining that the Torah’s words should be interpreted as assurances of success and not as commands.

The failure of one soldier to fight valiantly can endanger the entire people: Firstly, often the defense of a strategic position depends on a single individual. Furthermore, panic and fear spread easily. The cowardice of one person can engender fear in the hearts of all his colleagues.

The Bible mentions many instances of wars in which the Jews were granted miraculous success. In the war against Midian, not one man was slain (Numbers 31:49). Similarly, in Joshua’s wars to conquer Eretz Yisrael, the Jews suffered minimal, if any, casualties.

These assurances were given King David by Avigail. At the same time, she also foresaw that he would be appointed king over Israel.

In Hilchot Teshuvah 8:3, the Rambam describes the world to come: “Since there will be no death associated with this life... it is called ‘the bond of life’.... This is the reward which no other reward can surpass. It is the ultimate good.”