Sotah 43B

מעבירות שבידו!

because of sins that he has. According to this interpretation, one who stole another’s real estate should return home from war because of his guilt, which would seem to contradict the opinion of R' Eliezer ben Ya’akov.

אפילו תימא רבי יוסי הגלילי, כגון דעבד תשובה ויהב דמי. אי הכי, הוה ליה לוקח וליהדר! כיון דמעיקרא בתורת גזילה אתא לידיה ⁠— לא.

The Talmud answers: Even if you say that this ruling is in accordance with the opinion of R' Yosei HaGelili, R' Eliezer ben Ya’akov still needs to exclude one in possession of a stolen house, as in a case where one repented and gave money to the owners of the house that he stole. Although in such a case he is not considered a criminal, the house was originally stolen, and therefore he must remain among the military ranks. The Talmud challenges this: If so, i.e., he repaid the owners, he is now a legal purchaser of the house and he should return from the military ranks. The Talmud answers: Since initially it entered his possession with the status of stolen property, he does not return.

״ומי האיש אשר נטע כרם כו׳״. תנו רבנן: ״אשר נטע״⁠ — אין לי אלא נטע. לקח וירש וניתן לו במתנה, מנין ⁠— תלמוד לומר: ״ומי האיש אשר נטע״.

§ The Talmud continues its discussion of those who return from the ranks. “And what man is there that has planted a vineyard, and has not used the fruit thereof” (Deuteronomy 20:6). A baraita states: From the phrase “that has planted,” I have derived only that it applies to one who actually planted a vineyard. From where is it derived that the military exemption likewise includes one who purchased it, one who inherited it, and one to whom it was given as a gift? The verse states: “And what man is there that has planted.” By not merely stating: One that has planted, but using the expanded “what man is there that has planted,” the verse includes any of these circumstances.