In trying to figure out what the case of harkavas heter is that permits someone to return home from war, the gemara has the hava mina to say that we are talking about a case of yalda b'yalda. The gemara goes on to say that this cannot be the case because in this situation the person would be exempt from war anyway because of the host tree- the tree that the branch is being attached to.
1. What is it about that tree that permits a person to return from battle. Does a single fruit bearing tree fall into the catergory of "nata kerem" to the point that it exempts a person from battle.
2. If it does exempt a person from battle why does the gemara only point to that tree as the reason why the person would be sent home anyway. What about the tree from which you are taking the branch. Why would you not be sent home because of that one?
Thanks.
Ari, USA
1. No. One requires five fruit trees, as stated in the Gemara. The Gemara is merely saying that a Harkavas Heter counts as one tree. Five Harkavos will get an exemption.
2. The Gemara gives various answers to the possible case of Harkavas Heter. In each answer, it is the Harkavah that makes the creation of the tree (see the Gemara again at length).
All the best,
Yaakov Montrose
Thanks.
I think my question may not have been clear enough.
My question is on what basis is the gemara saying that the case of yalda b'yalda is not the case of hakavas heter because you are already exempt because of the host tree. What is it about the host tree that exempts a person from battle?
Thanks.
Why shouldn't the planting of the first tree exempt someone from battle without needing a planting of a second tree? [It seems to me that you though that yalda b'yalda refers to a new tree with an old tree. That is not the case, but rather it is being markiv a new tree with a similarly already existing new tree (less than three years old), as is clear from Rashi (DH "Ee Neima).]
All the best,
Yaakov Montrose