Bereshit 45:5-8, 50:20 (Va-yiggash, Va-yehi) – The pawn

After Yosef revealed himself to his brothers, Bereshit 45:5-8 records that he told his brothers, "And now, do not be pained and do not be incensed with yourselves that you sold me down here, because for sustenance G-d has sent me before you…. And G-d has sent me before you to make you a remnant on earth and to preserve life, for you to be a great surviving group," (Alter, 2004, p. 261, translation). Seventeen years later, Yosef told his brothers almost the identical message, 50:20. These statements are ironic since Yosef meant that his brothers were pawns in G-d’s plan, but really he was the pawn in G-d’s plan for the Jewish people to end up in Egypt as foretold in the prophecy to Avram by the covenant of the pieces, Bereshit 15:13.

Yosef's rise to power was only one of the many inexplicable events that led to the fulfillment of the prophecy of 15:13. Others are that Lavan switched his daughters on Yaakov (see our discussion on 29:18-30, "The switch," Yaakov overtly favored Yosef (see our discussion on 37:2-14,"Parenting," the Midyanites happened to find Yosef in the pit, and the Yishmaelites happened to be going to Egypt at that time (see our discussion above on 37:25-34, 42:21, "Who sold Yosef?" All these events led Yaakov to agree to go to Egypt to see Yosef (Bereshit 45:28) even though he knew of the prophecy that Avram's descendants would suffer in a foreign land. 

The story of Yosef is the longest story in the Torah where there is no direct intervention by G-d either through miracles, communication from G-d or malakhim, and all the inexplicable events (even the dreams) could be understood in a human level. Yet, the string of so many inexplicable events and the fact that we know they are fulfilling the prophecy to Avram means that Yosef's story illustrates G-d's intervention in the story. Thus, N. Leibowitz (1976, pp. 394, 395) notes that the story of Yosef shows the "two levels on which actions are conducted:" The human, and "the hidden workings of Providence."

Even more important is that the story of Yosef shows how G-d intervenes in the world. The switching of Rahel and Lea occurred approximately 45 years before Yaakov and the family went to Egypt, and the sale of Yosef was 22 years before the family came to Egypt. Yosef even had to wait two years for the cupbearer to inform Pharaoh about his dream interpreting abilities. We see that G-d intervenes in the world in a very indirect way that can only be understood at best after many years. Perhaps this indirect and hidden method is to ensure that people still have free will to follow G-d or not.

My impression is that while G-d can intervene in the world, G-d usually does not intervene in the world, as instead the world functions according to the laws of nature. Furthermore, from the story of Yosef we see that even when G-d intervenes in the world, it is in a very indirect manner that is not self-evident. Accordingly, one should not expect G-d to do miracles that are manifest to all.

Bibliography:

Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company

Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1976, Studies in Bereshit, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.

Bereshit 33:1-16 (Va-yishlach) - My brother, my enemy?

Bereshit 33:1-5 records that Yaakov and Esav hugged, kissed and cried when they met after not having seen each other for 20 years. Prior to the meeting, Yaakov was very scared of Esav, 32:8, but Esav was apparently extremely gracious.

Bereshit Rabbah 78:9 quotes two views as to whether Esav was really being friendly during this encounter. R. Shimon b. Eliezer states that Esav kissed Yaakov with all his heart, while R. Yannai claims that Esav really attempted to bite Yaakov. The idea that Esav attempted to bite Yaakov is far from the simple sense of the text, but was Esav, who initially wanted to kill Yaakov, 27:41, genuinely gracious to Yaakov? Why did Esav not attack Yaakov when they met?

One possibility is that Esav was truly a good person. Mark Twain followed this idea and wrote (1869, p. 22) "of Esav's sublime generosity to his brother who had wronged him."

Benno Jacob (1974, p. 226) suggests that Esav did not attack Yaakov due the wound that Yaakov received from fighting the night before. According to this idea, Esav took pity on Yaakov after he saw that Yaakov was wounded. Yet, if Esav had been waiting twenty years to take revenge, it is doubtful that seeing Yaakov wounded would have stopped him from attacking Yaakov.

Elhanan Samet (2002, p. 96-100) follows the idea that Yaakov fought with Esav's guardian angel the previous night, and claims that when the angel lost to Yaakov, the angel changed Esav's attitude towards Yaakov. I cannot accept this idea since I believe that Esav fought with Yaakov and not any guardian angel, see our discussion on 32:25-31, "Who fought with Yaakov?"

Another possibility (see for example, Sarna, 1989, p. 229) is that Esav chose not to attack Yaakov since Yaakov was submissive to Esav. Yaakov bowed down to Esav seven times, 33:3, which showed that he accepted that Esav was the dominant brother. This idea is made more explicit when after Esav initially refused to accept Yaakov's gifts, Yaakov referred to the gifts as his blessing, 33:11. Also, when Yaakov's children bowed down to Esav, 33:6,7, this was a fulfillment of the blessing that was intended for Esav that Yaakov received from Yitzhak, that the sons of your mother will bow down to you, 27:29. As noted by many commentators (see for example, Sacks, 2009a, p. 226), Yaakov was giving back the blessings to Esav that he had falsely received from Yitzhak, 27:28,29.  With this idea, the reason why Esav wanted to kill Yaakov was because Yaakov had stolen the blessing, but now that Yaakov was making amends, there was no reason for Esav to try to kill him. (Note, Yaakov was not giving back the second blessing he received from Yitzhak, 28:3,4, which was the crucial blessing, see our discussion on 28:3,4 "Endogamy.") 

While I agree that Yaakov was trying to give the blessings back, I think that Esav did not attack Yaakov since he had just attacked him the night before and failed. Why did he not attack Yaakov in the morning with his four hundred men? The answer is that Esav wanted to kill Yaakov personally without it being public knowledge, so I think his generosity to Yaakov was contrived.

Whether Esav was truly a good soul or whether he still harbored hatred of Yaakov can be discerned from their conversation after Esav agreed to accept Yaakov's gifts. Esav then offered Yaakov that they should travel together, 33:12. Yaakov tried to decline the offer by claiming that his children and animals needed to walk slowly, while if Esav was with him, he would be end up being forced to walk quickly. However, Yaakov said that he would go to Seir, ostensibly to see Esav, 33:13,14.

It is not clear if Yaakov was being truthful in his response to Esav. It could be that he was lying since he was scared that Esav would attack him again if they traveled together, and he was just trying to politely get out of the offer to travel together. Furthermore, as Esav knew that Yaakov knew that he was the assailant the previous night (again see our discussion on 32:25-31, "Who fought with Yaakov?"), he would have understood that Yaakov had no intention of ever going to Seir. (In modern times, The Economist, 2011a, pp. 108, 109, writes "Chinese circumlocution is often a form of polite opacity. Chinese people don't like being too direct in turning down invitations or (as many journalists find) requests for interviews. So they will frequently reply that something is bu fang (not convenient). This does not mean reapply in a few weeks' time. It means they don't want to do it, ever.)

Or, it could be that Yaakov wanted to travel alone, possibly due to his wound from the fight in the previous night or for some other personal reason, and he did not want to bring up his wounds from the fight or the personal reasons, so he mentioned the children and the animals. With this possibility, it could be that he did intend to go to Seir, and that he went to Seir but this visit is not recorded. With this possibility, Yaakov had not initially been intending to go to Seir, but Yaakov made this offer in response to Esav's offer to travel together.

Regardless of what Yaakov meant or how Esav understood Yaakov's answer, Esav responded to Yaakov's concern about the children and animals, that Esav would leave some of his 400 men to help Yaakov travel, 33:15. Yaakov refused this offer without giving a reason. Maybe again Yaakov was worried about Esav attacking him or again he just wanted to travel alone. 

Esav made no response after Yaakov declined his offer of aid, and instead 33:16 records that he went back home. The Netziv (on 33:16) notes the difference between the parting between Yaakov and Esav and the parting between Yaakov and Lavan. Yaakov and Lavan ate together, stayed together at night and in the morning Lavan kissed and blessed Yaakov and his family, 32:54, 33:1. None of this occurred by Yaakov and Esav. Their encounter started very dramatically, but then it ended quickly with no sign of love and brotherliness. The Netziv deduces that Esav left in anger, and he explains that this anger is why Yaakov never went to Seir. The idea being that when Yaakov said that he would go to Seir, he meant it, but he just wanted to travel alone at his own pace. However, when Yaakov saw that Esav left in a hurry, he realized that his brother still hated him and it would be dangerous to go to Seir, and only then he decided not to go to Seir.

This refusal by Yaakov to accept Esav's assistance is another example of the flipping of the blessings of Yitzhak, only now by the blessing that Esav received. After Yaakov tricked Yitzhak, Esav begged Yitzhak for a blessing, 27:34, and then Yitzhak blessed Esav that while Yaakov would be the dominant brother, still Esav would be able to break off from his yoke, 27:40. Now, this blessing was being fulfilled in the opposite manner. Yaakov had bowed down to Esav, but Yaakov was breaking from Esav's yoke by wanting to travel by himself without Esav and Esav's men.

In any event, we can return to the question was Esav truly a good person? One could claim yes, that Esav forgave Yaakov for stealing the blessings, he was offering Yaakov to travel together and to help Yaakov, and he only got angry when he perceived that Yaakov was lying to him. However, since I think that Esav attacked Yaakov in the middle of the night to kill him (see our discussion on Bereshit 32:25-31, "Who fought with Yaakov?") his graciousness upon meeting Yaakov was false, and his anger when Yaakov rebuffed his offer to travel together indicated his true feelings towards Yaakov. Esav should have known that Yaakov would be wary of traveling with him and/ or under escort of his men, and if Esav had really changed or was a good soul, then when Yaakov rebuffed him, he should have accepted Yaakov's reluctance and just said something like "ok, we will be expecting you" and then left in a pleasant manner (good wishes/ mutual blessings/ handshakes/ kisses/ hugs). However, his leaving in a huff indicates that Esav was not a sublime fellow, but at most was temporarily touched by Yaakov bowing down to him.

Bibliography:

Jacob, Benno (1869-1945), 1974, The first book of the bible: Genesis, commentary abridged, edited and translated by Earnest I. Jacob and Walter Jacob, New York: Ktav Publishing House.

Sacks, Jonathan, 2009, Covenant and Conversation: Genesis: The Book of Beginnings, Jerusalem: Maggid Books.

Samet, Elhanan, 2002, Studies in the Weekly Parsha, Hebrew, Jerusalem: Hemed.

Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1989, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Twain, Mark, (1869, first edition), 1966, The Innocents Abroad, New York: The New American Library.

Bereshit 9:12-17 (Noah) – A rainbow?

9:12-17 record that the sign of the covenant between G-d and Noah is the keshet, and keshet is translated as a rainbow based on Yechezkel 1:28. The symbolism of the rainbow accords nicely with the timing of the covenant with Noah since just as the rainbow shows hope after the storm, so too Noah should have been hopeful to re-start the world.

Was the rainbow just created at the time of the flood? Ibn Ezra (on 9:13) argues yes, based on the word natati (9:13). Radak (on 9:13) explains that according to this approach after the flood G-d made the sun stronger that it would cause a rainbow. On the other hand, the Mishnah (Pirkei Avot 5:9) records that the rainbow was created during the twilight of the eve of the first Shabbat. Similarly, Rabbenu Saadiah Gaon (on 9:13) and the Ramban (on 9:12) argue that the rainbow always existed and only after the flood was its appearance to be taken as an ot, sign, of the covenant. (Does Radak suggest an in-between approach that it existed before the flood but did not exist during the year of the flood?) The text here supports the Ibn Ezra, but it is hard to argue that the physical properties of the sun and water changed from before the flood to after the flood.

Another question is the purpose of the rainbow. It is commonly understood that the rainbow informs a person that really G-d should have destroyed the world but G-d did not do so since G-d had promised not to. With this idea, the rainbow is for people to realize that they are misbehaving. However, 9:15 states that rainbow was for G-d to remember.

The language of G-d remembering is also not clear since we believe that G-d does not forget. Instead, the word remembering in reference to G-d is traditionally understood as a way of expressing the idea, in human terms that G-d is acting after ignoring something but in this case what was G-d ignoring?

Cassuto (1964, pp. 138,139) notes two other difficulties with the sign of the rainbow. One, 9:13,14,16, all record that the keshet was to be in the clouds, but rainbows are in the sky not in the clouds. Two, how can the rainbow remind G-d to not wipe out the world, if the rainbow appears after the storm is over?

While Cassuto suggests answers to his questions, I doubt the word keshet here means rainbow. I believe that after the flood, G-d put in the clouds (atmosphere?) a mechanism to stop the rains at some point, a type of automatic shut-off system. The language of G-d remembering is in reference to the system that the system that G-d set up would act to stop the world from being flooded. This action would occur after the rains had begun, which from the system's point of view would be ignored until the rains reached a certain "danger" point, and then the new system would stop or slow down the rains.

With this idea, the word, ot, sign, does not mean a sign that people will see on a regular basis but it is a sign that the covenant is being fulfilled and is not mere words. Thus, G-d established the system to stop the rains from flooding the world, and this indicates that the promise of the covenant of 9:8-11 is being fulfilled. This would be similar to the ot by circumcision, 17:11, that it is not for a person to always look at this sign, but when parents circumcise their sons, then they have demonstrated their commitment to the covenant. This demonstration is the ot of the covenant.

When is the Jewish New Year?

Rav Zevin (1888-1978, 1956, p. 33) discusses whether Rosh Hashanah is really the Jewish New Year. He notes that in the Torah the holiday is referred to as the 1st day of the 7th month, which clearly means that that it is not the New Year. Ezra and Nehemiah also used this dating, see Nehemiah 7:72. (Also Megillat Esther 3:7 refers to Nisan, as the first month.) Furthermore even in the time of the Talmud, Rabbi Yehoshua (Rosh Hashanah 11a) maintained that the world was created in Nisan, which would mean that the 1st of Nisan is really the Jewish New Year. Zevin also notes that in the prayers of Rosh Hashanah there is barely any reference (he notes one verse) to the day as marking the New Year, as the day is usually referred to as a day of remembrance. Zevin concludes that notwithstanding all these points, it is accepted that Rosh Hashanah is the New Year, as the name itself attests to.

Shemot 12:2 explicitly states that the month of Pesach (Nisan) is the first month of the year, and all of the dates in the Torah follow this system. This implies that the year begins in the spring. However, Shemot 23:16, 34:22, record that the holiday of the gathering (Sukkot) was at the end of the year, which implies that the year begins in the fall. Also, Devarim 31:10 records that the law of hakhel is to be done at the end of the every seven years, in the shemitta year in the holiday of Sukkot. This phrase “end of every seven years” also implies that Sukkot marks the end of the year. However, this dating of hakhel is problematic even if Rosh Hashanah is the beginning of the year. If Rosh Hashanah is the beginning of the year, then Sukkot, which is 15 days later, is in the beginning of the shemitta year and not the end of the seven years. Rashi (on Devarim 31:10) explains that Devarim 31:10 refers to Sukkot in the 8th year since that would be the end of the shemitta cycle. Furthermore, he explains that 31:10 refers to the 8th year as the shemitta year since some laws of shemitta still applied. Yet, 31:10 records that hakhel was to be in the shemitta year, and the 8th year is no longer the shemitta year.

Ibn Ezra (on Shemot 12:2 and Vayikra 25:9) tries to prove that the year begins in Tishrei in an argument he had with a Karaite, Yehuda HaParsi. One proof is that the blowing of the shofar for the yovel year occurs on Yom Kippur, Vayikra 25:9. Presumably the blowing of the shofar announces the start of the yovel year, and thus the year begins in Tishrei. A 2nd proof is that if the New Year is in Nisan, then hakhel should be by Pesach in the beginning of the year instead of waiting until the middle of the year. A third proof is from Shemot 23:16, 34:22 which we mentioned above. A fourth proof is from Vayikra 25:11, which records the prohibitions of working the land in the yovel year, and first records that one cannot plant before recording the prohibition of harvesting. In Israel planting is done in the fall and harvesting in the spring, so if the New Year was in the spring, then the text should have first recorded harvesting and then planting. Furthermore Ibn Ezra claims that if the New Year was in Nissan, then it should have been forbidden to plant in the 6th year as well since one could not harvest in the 7th year. Yet, the Torah only forbids planting in the 7th year. (I think this is the proof.)

In his comments on Vayikra 25:20, Ibn Ezra disputes a proof from the Sadducees that the year begins in Nisan. Vayikra 25:20 records that “the people will ask what can we eat in the 7th year, can we not harvest our crops?” The Sadducees argued that the words “our crops” implies that that the people planted the crops in the fall, as otherwise they would not be called “our” and this planting could only be done if the shemitta year started in Nisan since then the planting was done in the fall of the 6th year. Ibn Ezra responded that our crops could be what grew naturally, as in 25:12 (although 25:12 does not use the word ours). Furthermore, Ibn Ezra notes that Vayikra 25:21 records that the crops of the 6th year would last for three years, but according to the Sadducees during yovel it would have to last four years: the 7th year would be the shemitta year, the 8th year would be yovel, and only in the 9th year could one plant crops but as the planting season was in the fall the crops would not be available until the 10th year. Thus the harvest of the 6th year would have had to last four years but the Torah only stated that the produce would last 3 years. (However, Rashi on 25:22 notes that even when the year begins in Tishrei it is possible that the crops of the 6th year would need to last 4 years.)

Notwithstanding the arguments of Ibn Ezra, I think the text supports Rabbi Yehoshua that the year starts in Nisan, as implied by Shemot 12:2. Shemot 23:16 and 34:22 can be understood as simply referring to the end of the agricultural year, not the calendar year. Sukkot is the celebration of the complete harvest since after Sukkot there is no more harvest and this signaled whether the agricultural year was successful or not. It would be similar to a business that does all of its business in the summer, so for the business the end of the summer is considered the end of the year.

Devarim 31:10, which records “the end of every seven years in the shemitta year” would mean that hakhel was to be done at 6 years and seven months in the 7 year cycle, which is close to the end of the cycle. I do not understand why Ibn Ezra thought it is problematic to read hakhel in the middle of the year. If the New Year is in Nisan, this allows hakhel to be both in the shemitta year itself and at the end of the 7-year cycle, as stated in Devarim 31:10. (See our discussion in our commentary on Devarim 31:10, "Hakhel, shemitta, sukkot and the new year.")

Ibn Ezra’s proof from the fact that the prohibition of seeding is recorded before the prohibition of harvesting is not convincing since the verse (Vayikra 25:11) does not show the order of the year but follows the order of field work, first one plants and then one harvests. Also, I do not see why planting should have been forbidden in the 6th year just because it was forbidden to harvest in the 7th year, as according to the Torah one can eat the crops that grow in the 7th year, Vayikra 25:7 .

I think Vayikra 25:21 recorded that the crops of the 6th year would last 3 years because really the yovel year was also the shemitta year, so there was no double years of no planting and no harvesting, see our discussion on Vayikra 25:8-11, " From yovel to yovel: 49 or 50 years?" http://lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2015/05/vayikra-258-11-behar-from-yovel-to.html In addition, even if one maintains that the yovel year was separate from the shemitta year as Rashi pointed out (on 25:22), 25:21 can be understood as only referring to the shemitta year and not to the yovel year,.

Furthermore, Vayikra 25:22 supports the idea that the New Year is Nisan since it records that the people would plant in the 8th year and in the 9th year the new crop would be ready. If shemitta started in Tishrei, so then already in the summer of the 8th year one could eat of the planting from the fall of the 8th year. (Bulah, 1992, on 25:21, explains that if the year starts in Tishrei, then for 2/3 of the 8th year there would be no produce and that the full harvest would not be until the 9th year.) It is simpler to understand that the year starts in Nisan, which means there would be no harvest (other than from natural growth) in the 8th year because one could not plant in the 7th year. The fall planting in the 8th year would then be available in the 9th year.

With regard to the blowing of the shofar for the yovel year, I believe it was blown in the seventh month of the 49th year to announce the upcoming yovel year, which would begin five months later in Nissan, see our discussion on Vayikra 25:9,10, "Shofar blowing, Yom Kippur and the yovel year." This would allow people time to prepare for the yovel year and be similar to the idea that the shofar on Rosh Hashanah announces that Yom Kippur is coming, see our discussion on Vayikra 23:23-25, "Rosh Hashanah," http://lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2009/05/vayikra-2323-26-emor-rosh-hashanah.html

Devarim 20:2-8 (Shoftim) - Draft exemptions

20:3,4 record that before going to war, the priest is to announce that the people should not fear the enemy since G-d will help them win. Afterwards, 20:5-8 record that the shotrim (officials) were to list four reasons for people to be exempt from fighting in the war. It is clear from the exemptions in 20:5-8, that some soldiers will die in the war even thought 20:4 records that G-d will help the people. We see that even if G-d will intervene to help the people, still the laws of nature apply, and people will die in the war.

In addition, we see that a person's lifespan is not pre-determined since if the person returns home and does not fight then he has a greater chance of living. Hoffmann (1961, p.379, on 20:7) writes that for sure the person was destined to die, but just like the law by putting up a guardrail (22:8), we do not want the person's death to be the responsibility of the officials who send the people to war. Yet, this analogy is not correct since the guardrail stops everybody from falling off the roof and dying, while here the exemptions only stop a few people from dying. The simple understanding of 20:2-8, and of the law of putting up a guardrail, is that if a person acts in a dangerous manner, then he/she has a greater chance of dying, and when possible people should take precautions to increase their chance of living.

The four draft exemptions can be divided into two groups, based on the break in 20:8, "and the shotrim continue to speak." The first group, 20:5-7, record exemptions for a person who has built a house but has not yet dedicated it, planted a vineyard but did not harvest it or was engaged but did not yet marry. The second group, 20:8, is for a person who is scared of dying and/ or of attacking the enemy (Ibn Ezra and Hizkuni on 20:8).

It is striking that these exemptions do not include the most popular draft exemption today in Israel, learning Torah. If this is a legitimate exemption, why was it not mentioned in the Torah with the other exemptions? In fact, the examples of planting a vineyard and building a house are probably completely removed from the life of the typical person today who does not serve in the Israeli army. As Hirsch writes, (on 20:5-7) “Clearly here the Torah… strikingly lays value on these peace-time tasks being accomplished by every individual personally.” The list of draft exemptions is another case where the Torah indicates the importance of working.

The Torah explains that the reason for the exemption in 20:8 (the second group) is in order that these people who are exempt do not harm the morale of the people fighting, but what is the reason for the exemptions in 20:5-7 (the first group)? One curiosity within the first group of exemptions is that for each of the three cases, the Torah stresses that there is fear that somebody else may either dedicate the house, harvest the vineyard or marry the woman. Why is this possibility relevant to granting the exemption to a person from fighting? Why is it important who dedicates the house or harvests the vineyard?

The three possibilities mentioned in 20:5-7 are also referred to in the section of curses, 28:30, which is understandable since it is a misfortune if a person cannot enjoy his/ her efforts by the house and the fields and if a person who is engaged loses the prospective spouse to somebody else. However, here the fear is that a person will die in battle, why is it worse that the soldier dies without dedicating his house, eating the grapes of his vineyard or getting married?

One approach (see Rashi on 20:5 and Bekhor Shor on 20:7) is that the exemptions are because it is very sad for somebody who has worked so hard at a project to be unable to complete the project. This sadness compounds the sadness of a soldier dying in battle. Is this true even by a vineyard?  Is the death of a soldier sadder if somebody else lives in the house he built?  Also, if one accepts this idea, that the goal is to reduce the sadness of a death of a soldier, why are there no exemptions to soldiers who have pregnant wives or very young children?

Another approach (see Ibn Ezra on 20:5 and Ramban end of comments on 20:1) is that because a person is so pre-occupied with thinking about his house, vineyard and wife, he will flee the battle. Again, I do not understand why this concern should also not be for a soldier with a pregnant wife or young children? Also, with this idea, what difference does it make if another person is going to enjoy the vineyard or the house? Furthermore, if a person is really so worried about his house, vineyard and wife, maybe he would fight harder to get back to them. Paul Kloot (congregant of shul in Modiin) suggested to me that in battle everybody has to be together, so if a person is worried that another person will take his house, vineyard or wife, then the person will not be willing to sacrifice to help out his fellow soldiers.

My guess is that the draft exemptions are to slightly reduce the tragedy of war. In war, many people die and there is no recollection of them at all, as at times even the bodies cannot be identified. In all three cases of the draft exemption of 20:5-7, the person is on the verge of making a name for himself, either by his house, vineyard or wife, that people would say this is his house, vineyard or wife. This is the point of dedicating the house that it will be called his house, and this is the fear of another person appearing, that the house, vineyard or wife will be called after the other person.  The Torah gives this person an exemption in order that he can make a name for himself in some small way, and not suffer the fate of a solider to be a nameless causality. With this logic, we understand why no exemption was granted for a soldier whose wife was pregnant or who had young children since his name and memory would be remembered by the wife, children or potential child.