Sotah 45

ויו לא משמע ליה (מאי קאמר רחמנא המיוחדין שבשופטיך) אלא מעתה ויצאו שנים ומדדו שנים לרבי יהודה הרי כאן תשעה לרבי שמעון הרי כאן שבעה

because he does not learn anything from the letter vav. Rather, what is the Merciful One saying in the Torah with the phrase “and your judges”? He is referring to the distinguished that are among your judges. The Gemara raises an objection: However, if that is so, if every plural form in the verse adds another two judges, then when it later states: “And they shall go out,” this should indicate another two. And: “And they shall measure” (Deuteronomy 21:2), should indicate yet another two. This means that according to the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda there are nine judges enumerated here, while according to the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon there are seven judges enumerated here.

ההוא מיבעי ליה לכדתניא ויצאו הן ולא שלוחיהן ומדדו שאפילו נמצא בעליל לעיר היו מודדין שמצוה לעסוק במדידה

The Gemara responds: He requires that verse: “And they shall go out…and they shall measure,” for that which is taught in a baraita: “And they shall go out,” serves to emphasize that they themselves go out, and not their agents, i.e., they may not appoint an agent to measure the distance but must do it themselves. “And they shall measure,” teaches that even if the corpse was found clearly near to a particular city they would nevertheless measure the distance, as it is a mitzva to engage in this act of measurement.

מתניתין דלא כרבי אליעזר בן יעקב דתניא רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר זקניך זו סנהדרין שפטיך זה מלך וכהן גדול מלך דכתיב מלך במשפט יעמיד ארץ כהן גדול דכתיב ובאת אל הכהנים הלוים ואל השפט אשר יהיה וגו׳

§ The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: “Your Elders,” this is the Sanhedrin; “your judges,” this is the king and the High Priest. According to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, the king and the High Priest need to participate in the ritual of breaking the neck of the heifer. From where is it learned that they are called judges? A king is called a judge, as it is written: “A king by justice establishes the land” (Proverbs 29:4). A High Priest is called a judge, as it is written: “If there arise a matter too hard for you in judgment…And you shall come to the priests the Levites, and to the judge who shall be in those days” (Deuteronomy 17:8–9).

איבעיא להו רבי אליעזר בן יעקב במלך וכהן גדול הוא דפליג אבל בסנהדרי אי כרבי יהודה אי כרבי שמעון סבירא ליה או דלמא בסנהדרי נמי פליג עד דאיכא כולה סנהדרי

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is it so that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov disagrees only with regard to a king and a High Priest, contending that they too must be present at the measurement, but that with regard to the Sanhedrin he holds either in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that five Elders are needed or in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that three suffice? Or, perhaps he also disagrees with regard to the Sanhedrin and claims that the ritual is not performed unless there is the entire Sanhedrin participating.

אמר רב יוסף תא שמע מצאן זקן ממרא אבי פגי והמרה עליהן יכול תהא המראתו המראה תלמוד לומר וקמת ועלית אל המקום מלמד שהמקום גורם

Rav Yosef said: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: If a rebellious Elder found the Sanhedrin not in the Hewn Chamber, which was their usual place, but in Beit Pagei, near Jerusalem, and he rebelled against them there, by teaching in opposition to their ruling, one might have thought his rebellion should be considered a rebellion, rendering him liable to punishment. The verse therefore states: “And you shall arise and go up to the place” (Deuteronomy 17:8), which teaches that it is the place where the Sanhedrin resides that causes the halakha of a rebellious Elder to take effect.

דנפוק כמה אילימא דנפוק מקצתן דלמא הנך דאיכא גואי כוותיה סבירא להו אלא פשיטא דנפוק כולהו

The Gemara analyzes this statement: In this case, how many members of the Sanhedrin were there who went out to Beit Pagei? If we say that only a minority of them went out, why should he be considered a rebellious Elder? Perhaps those judges who are inside the Hewn Chamber hold in accordance with his opinion, which would mean that the Elder in question ruled with the majority. Rather, it is obvious that they all went out.

ולמאי אי לדבר הרשות מי מצו נפקי והכתיב שררך אגן הסהר אל יחסר המזג שאם נצרך אחד מהם לצאת אם יש שם עשרים ושלשה כנגד סנהדרי קטנה יוצא ואם לאו אינו יוצא

The assumption that they all went out leads to the following question: And for what purpose did they all leave the Hewn Chamber? If it was for an optional matter, may they leave? But isn’t it written: “Your navel [shorerekh] is like a round goblet, let no mingled wine be wanting” (Song of Songs 7:3). This verse is interpreted as referring to the Sanhedrin, the ministers [sarei] of Israel who sit in a semicircle, like half of a round goblet. The words “let no mingled wine be wanting” teach that if one of the great Sanhedrin needed to leave, then if there are still present in the Hewn Chamber twenty-three members, corresponding to the number of a lesser Sanhedrin, he may leave; and if not, he may not leave. This indicates that it is prohibited for the entire Sanhedrin to leave for an optional matter.

אלא פשיטא לדבר מצוה למאי לאו למדידת עגלה ורבי אליעזר בן יעקב היא אמר ליה אביי לא דלמא להוסיף על העיר ועל העזרות כדתנן אין מוסיפין על העיר ועל העזרות אלא בבית דין של שבעים ואחד

Rather it is obvious that they left for a matter of a mitzva. For what particular mitzva did they venture out? Is it not for the measurement associated with the ritual of the heifer, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov? This would prove that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov holds that the entire Sanhedrin goes out to measure the distance from the corpse to the nearby cities. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: No, this is not a proof, as perhaps they went out for a different mitzva, to expand the city of Jerusalem or the courtyards of the Temple, as we learned in a mishna (Sanhedrin 2a): They may expand the sanctified area of the city of Jerusalem or of the Temple courtyards only with the court of seventy-one.

תניא כוותיה דרב יוסף מצאן אבית פגי והמרה עליהן כגון שיצאו למדידת עגלה או להוסיף על העיר ועל העזרות יכול תהא המראתו המראה תלמוד לומר וקמת ועלית מלמד שהמקום גורם

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef, that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov disagrees even with regard to the number of judges: If the rebellious Elder found the Sanhedrin in Beit Pagei and rebelled against them, for example, if they went out for the measurement of the ritual of the heifer or to expand the area of the city or that of the courtyards, one might have thought that his rebellion should be a rebellion. Therefore, the verse states with regard to the requirement to follow the rulings of the Sanhedrin: “And you shall arise and go up to the place” (Deuteronomy 17:8). This teaches that the place causes the halakha of a rebellious Elder to take effect, indicating that the entire Sanhedrin participates in the measurement of the distance from the corpse to the cities.

נמצא טמון בגל או תלוי באילן לימא מתניתין רבי יהודה היא ולא רבנן דתניא ושכחת עמר בשדה פרט לטמון דברי רבי יהודה וחכמים אומרים בשדה לרבות את הטמון

§ The mishna teaches: If the corpse was found concealed in a pile of stones or hanging on a tree, they would not perform the ritual of the heifer. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. This is as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the halakha that sheaves of grain forgotten in the fields must be left for the poor: “And you forget a sheaf in the field” (Deuteronomy 24:19). This excludes a concealed sheaf; it is not considered forgotten and it may be collected by the owner, even if he did forget it. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: The phrase “in the field” serves to include the concealed sheaves, and these must be left for the poor. Rabbi Yehuda holds, like the ruling in the mishna here, that when the verse states “in the field” it excludes a concealed corpse.

אמר רב אפילו תימא רבנן הכא מענייניה דקרא התם מענייניה דקרא

Rav said: You can even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as here they expound the halakha based on the context of the verse, and there too they expound the halakha based on the context of the verse.

דכתיב כי ימצא חלל היכא דמשתכח באדמה פרט לטמון והתם מענייניה דקרא דכתיב כי תקצר קצירך בשדך ושכחת עמר שכחה דומיא דקציר מה קציר בגלוי אף שכחה בגלוי כתב רחמנא בשדה לרבות את הטמון

In this case, as it is written: “If one be found slain” (Deuteronomy 21:1), the default assumption is that the halakha applies no matter where it is found. When the verse then states: “In the ground,” it must be serving to exclude a matter, i.e., a concealed corpse. And similarly, there, in the case of forgotten sheaves, they also expound based on the context of the verse, as it is written: “When you reap your harvest in your field, and you forget a sheaf” (Deuteronomy 24:19). This indicates that forgotten sheaves are similar to those of the harvest: Just as the harvest is performed with revealed objects, i.e., the growing grain, so too, the halakhot of forgetting pertain to revealed sheaves. Consequently, when the Merciful One writes in the Torah “in the field,” it must be in order to include the concealed sheaves.

לרבי יהודה נמי תיפוק ליה משכחה דומיא דקציר אין הכי נמי

In light of this explanation, the Gemara asks: According to Rabbi Yehuda as well, let him derive that covered sheaves are not included from the fact that forgotten sheaves are similar to those of the harvest. Why does he have to derive it from the words “in the field”? The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so, he does not derive that halakha from the phrase “in the field.”

ואלא בשדה למה לי מיבעי ליה לרבות שכחת קמה ורבנן שכחת קמה מנא להו נפקא להו מכי תקצר קצירך בשדך

The Gemara therefore inquires: But then why do I need the phrase “in the field,” which indicates either an exclusion or an inclusion? The Gemara answers: He requires it in order to include the forgotten stalks of standing grain. Produce that one forgot to reap is considered forgotten, even if it is still attached to the ground. The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, from where do they learn the halakha of forgotten stalks of standing grain? The Gemara answers: They derive it from the verse: “When you reap your harvest in your field, and you forget,” which indicates that the halakha includes one who forgot to harvest part of his field.

ורבי יהודה מיבעי ליה לכדרבי אבהו אמר רבי אלעזר דאמר רבי אבהו אמר רבי אלעזר פרט לשצפו עומרין לתוך שדה חבירו ורבנן מבשדה בשדך ורבי יהודה בשדה בשדך לא משמע ליה

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yehuda derive from this verse? The Gemara answers: It is necessary for him in order to learn that which Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Elazar says, as Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Elazar says: This verse excludes sheaves that floated through the air from his field into another’s field. Such sheaves are not classified as forgotten and may be retrieved later by the owner. And the Rabbis, from where do they derive this halakha? They derive it from the fact that the verse could have stated: In the field, but instead states “in your field,” to include sheaves situated only in one’s own field. The Gemara continues to ask: And what does Rabbi Yehuda learn from this phrase? The Gemara answers: He does not learn anything from the difference between: In the field, and “in your field,” as he holds it is not a significant difference.

בעי רבי ירמיה צפו עומרין לתוך שדהו מהו אויר שדה כשדה דמי או לאו כשדה דמי

Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If sheaves floated into his field, i.e., if one sheaf landed on another sheaf or on another item, what is the halakha? Is the airspace of a field considered to be like it is the field itself, in which case one sheaf on top of another meets the legal requirements to be deemed forgotten? Or, is it not considered like the field, in which case one sheaf on top of another does not meet the legal requirements to be deemed forgotten?

אמר ליה רב כהנא לרב פפי ואמרי לה רב כהנא לרב זביד תפשוט ליה מדרבי אבהו אמר רבי אלעזר דאמר פרט לשצפו עומרין לתוך שדה חבירו דחבירו אין לתוך שדהו לא

Rav Kahana said to Rav Pappi, and some say Rav Kahana said it to Rav Zevid: Let him resolve the dilemma from the statement of Rabbi Abbahu, who says that Rabbi Elazar says: This excludes sheaves that floated into another’s field. If they floated into another’s field, yes, Rabbi Elazar said that they are not deemed forgotten, but if they floated into his own field, they are not discussed by Rabbi Elazar, and therefore they are deemed forgotten.

וליטעמיך לתוך שדה חבירו צפו אין מונחין לא והא בעינן בשדך וליכא

The Gemara refutes this proof: And according to your reasoning that the halakha of the baraita is limited to the case stated, one could infer: In a case where the sheaves drifted into another’s field, then if they were floating, yes, they are not deemed to be forgotten, but if they were resting directly on the ground in another’s field, no, they are deemed to be forgotten. But this cannot be the halakha, as we require the sheaves to be “in your field,” and these sheaves are not in his field.

אלא לתוך שדה חבירו ואפילו מונחין והאי דקאמר צפו דלא משכחת לה אלא בצפו

Rather, you must admit that the words: Into another’s field, include not only those sheaves which are lying on other items, but even those resting directly on the ground. And the reason that Rabbi Abbahu states: Floated, is that you find a situation where sheaves end up in the field of another only in a case where they floated through the air and fell there. Since the term floated was not used to teach a halakha, no inference can be made from this baraita with regard to sheaves that floated in one’s own field.

תא שמע עומר שהחזיק בו להוליכו לעיר והניחו על גבי חבירו ושכחו התחתון שכחה והעליון אינו שכחה רבי שמעון בן יהודה אומר משום רבי שמעון שניהם אינן שכחה התחתון מפני שהוא טמון והעליון מפני שהוא צף עד כאן לא פליגי אלא בתחתון אבל בעליון דברי הכל לא הואי שכחה

The Gemara again attempts to resolve the dilemma: Come and hear a proof from a baraita (Tosefta, Pe’a 3:7): In the case of a sheaf that had been held by its owner in order to take it to the city, and he placed it on top of another sheaf, and he forgot both sheaves, the lower sheaf is deemed to be a forgotten sheaf, and the upper one is not deemed to be a forgotten sheaf. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: Both of them are not deemed to be forgotten sheaves; the lower one because it is concealed, and the upper one because it is floating and not directly touching the field. The Gemara points out: They disagree only with regard to the lower sheaf, but with regard to the upper one all agree that it is not deemed a forgotten sheaf. This demonstrates that a sheaf located in the airspace of the field is not deemed to be forgotten.

שאני התם כיון דאחזיק ביה זכה ביה אי הכי מאי איריא על גבי חבירו אפילו בשדה נמי אין הכי נמי והאי דקתני על גבי חבירו משום תחתון

The Gemara rejects this proof: There it is different, as, since the owner had held it to take it to the city, he acquired it. The reason it is not deemed to be a forgotten sheaf is not because it is not touching the field but because the owner had already acquired that particular sheaf before forgetting it. The Gemara raises an objection to this explanation: If so, why specifically state the case of a sheaf that was placed on top of another? The same would hold true in a case where one put the sheaf down directly in the field as well, as he has already acquired it. The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so, and the reason that the baraita teaches: On top of another, is due to the lower sheaf rather than the upper one, in order to teach the dispute concerning the lower sheaf.

והא מפני שהוא צף קאמר אימא מפני שהוא כצף

The Gemara asks: But Rabbi Shimon said: Because it is floating. How can one then say that the reason for his ruling is because the owner of the field has acquired it? The Gemara answers: Say instead: Because it is like it is floating. In other words, it is as though the upper sheaf had not been put down at all, but remains in the owner’s hands.

אמר אביי הריני כבן עזאי בשוקי טבריא אמר ליה ההוא מדרבנן לאביי שני חללים זה על גבי זה מהיכן הוא מודד

The Gemara tells of a related incident. On one occasion Abaye said: I am hereby as sharp and expert as ben Azzai, who taught Torah in the markets of Tiberias, and am ready to answer any question that might be posed to me. One of the Sages said to Abaye, with regard to the ritual of the heifer whose neck is broken: If there were two slain people found one on top of the other not precisely aligned, from where does one measure the distance to the surrounding cities?

מין במינו הוי טמון ומין במינו לא הוי צף ומעליון מודד או דלמא מין במינו הוי צף ומין במינו לא הוי טמון ומתחתון מודד

The various aspects of the dilemma are as follows: Is a substance in contact with the same type of substance considered to be concealed, and is a substance in contact with the same type of substance not considered to be floating, which would mean that the lower, concealed corpse is ignored because one does not measure the distance from a concealed corpse, as taught in the mishna, and one measures the distance from the upper one? Or perhaps a substance in contact with the same type of substance is considered to be floating, and a substance in contact with the same type of substance is not considered to be concealed, and he measures the distance from the lower one, because it is not considered to be concealed, but not from the upper one, which is considered to be floating.

או דלמא מין במינו הוי טמון ומין במינו הוי צף ולא מתחתון מודד ולא מעליון מודד

Or perhaps a substance in contact with the same type of substance is considered to be concealed, and a substance in contact with the same type of substance is considered to be floating, and he therefore does not measure the distance from the lower one nor does he measure the distance from the upper one. According to this last option, in such a situation no measuring is done, and the ritual is not performed.

אמר ליה

Abaye said to him:

תניתוה עומר שהחזיק בו להוליכו לעיר והניחו על גבי חבירו ושכחו התחתון שכחה והעליון אינו שכחה רבי שמעון בן יהודה אומר משום רבי שמעון שניהן אינן שכחה התחתון מפני שהוא טמון והעליון מפני שהוא צף סברוה דהני תנאי כרבי יהודה סבירא להו דאמר בשדה פרט לטמון

You learned it in the baraita (Tosefta, Pe’a 3:7): In the case of a sheaf that had been held by its owner in order to take it to the city, and he placed it on top of another sheaf, and he forgot both sheaves, the lower sheaf is deemed to be a forgotten sheaf, and the upper one is not deemed to be a forgotten sheaf. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: Both of them are not deemed to be forgotten sheaves; the lower one because it is concealed and the upper one because it is floating and not directly touching the field. The Sages assumed that these tanna’im in the baraita basically hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that the phrase “in the field” serves to exclude a concealed sheaf.

מאי לאו בהא קא מיפלגי דמר סבר מין במינו הוי טמון ומר סבר לא הוי טמון

The Gemara continues Abaye’s statement: What, is it not the case that they disagree about this, as one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that a substance in contact with the same type of substance is considered to be concealed, and therefore the lower sheaf is not deemed to be a forgotten sheaf, and one Sage, the Rabbis, holds that it is not considered to be concealed, which means it is deemed to be a forgotten sheaf. The same dispute would apply to the two corpses.

לא אי כרבי יהודה סבירא להו דכולי עלמא מין במינו הוי טמון והכא בפלוגתא דרבי יהודה ורבנן קמיפלגי דרבנן כרבנן ורבי שמעון בן יהודה כרבי יהודה

The Gemara refutes this claim: No, if they hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, then it could be that everyone agrees that a substance in contact with the same type of substance is considered to be concealed, and they would maintain this with regard to the two corpses as well. And here they disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute of Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, in that the opinion of the Rabbis of this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis there, which claims that the halakha of a forgotten sheaf applies even to a concealed sheaf, and Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that a concealed sheaf is exempt from the halakha of forgotten sheaves.

אי הכי מאי איריא על גבי חבירו אפילו בעפר ובצרור נמי אין הכי נמי ולהודיעך כחו דרבי יהודה דאמר אפילו מין במינו הוי טמון

The Gemara asks: If that is so, that their dispute is with regard to the halakha of concealed sheaves, why did they specifically disagree in the case of a sheaf that was on top of another sheaf; the same would hold true even in a case where the sheaf was concealed in dirt and pebbles? The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so. They disagree with regard to all concealed sheaves, and their dispute is stated with regard to a case of one sheaf on top of another in order to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that even a substance that is in contact with the same type of substance is considered concealed. Therefore, a substance concealed in a different type of matter is all the more so considered concealed.

תנו רבנן חלל ולא חנוק חלל ולא מפרפר באדמה ולא טמון בגל נפל ולא תלוי באילן בשדה ולא צף על פני המים רבי אלעזר אומר בכולן אם היה חלל עורפין

§ The Gemara returns to discuss when the ritual of breaking the neck of the heifer is performed. The Sages taught, expounding the verse “If one be found slain in the land which the Lord your God has given you to possess it, lying in the field” (Deuteronomy 21:1): “Slain” indicates one killed by a sword, but not one who was strangled; “slain,” but not one who was found twitching in his death throes; “in the land,” but not concealed in a pile of stones; “lying,” but not hanging on a tree; “in the field,” but not floating on the surface of the water. Rabbi Elazar says: In all these cases, if a person was slain by the sword, the judges break the neck of the heifer, and it does not matter where the corpse was found.

תניא אמר רבי יוסי בר יהודה אמרו לו לרבי אלעזר אי אתה מודה שאם היה חנוק ומוטל באשפה שאין עורפין אלמא חלל ולא חנוק הכא נמי באדמה ולא טמון בגל נפל ולא תלוי באילן בשדה ולא צף על גבי מים ורבי אלעזר חלל יתירא כתיב

It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says that the Sages said to Rabbi Elazar: Do you not concede that if he was strangled and left in a garbage heap, that they do not break the heifer’s neck? Apparently, “slain” is a precise term that means slain but not strangled. If you accept that, here too the words “in the land” should indicate: In the land, but not concealed in a pile of stones; “fallen” should indicate: Fallen but not hanging on a tree; and “in the field” should indicate in the field but not floating on the surface of the water. And Rabbi Elazar holds that those other situations are not excluded, and that because in that first case the Torah writes “slain” an extra time in the next verse: “About him that is slain” (Deuteronomy 21:2), this repetition teaches that a victim of strangulation is not included in this halakha.

נמצא סמוך לספר או לעיר שרובה נכרים כו׳ דכתיב כי ימצא פרט למצוי

§ The mishna taught: If a corpse was found close to the border of the country or close to a city in which the majority of its inhabitants are gentiles, the judges would not break the heifer’s neck, as it is written: “If one be found slain” (Deuteronomy 21:1). This excludes places where murdered bodies are commonly found, such as the aforementioned locations.

או לעיר שאין בה בית דין דבעינא זקני העיר וליכא אין מודדין אלא לעיר כו׳ פשיטא כיון דתנא לעיר שאין בה בית דין אנא ידענא דאין מודדין אלא לעיר שיש בה בית דין

The mishna taught: Or if the victim was discovered close to a city that is without a rabbinical court of twenty-three judges, they would not measure the distance to that city. The Gemara explains: This is because the verse requires “the Elders of that city” (Deuteronomy 21:3), and this is not the case here; therefore the rite was not performed. The mishna also taught that the Elders measure the distance from the corpse only to a city that contains a rabbinical court of twenty-three judges. The Gemara asks: This is obvious. Since the mishna taught that they do not measure the distance to a city that does not have a rabbinical court of twenty-three judges, I know that they measure the distance only to a city that has a rabbinical court of twenty-three judges.

הא קא משמע לן כדתניא מנין שאם נמצא סמוך לעיר שאין בה בית דין שמניחין אותה ומודדין לעיר שיש בה בית דין תלמוד לומר ולקחו זקני העיר ההיא מכל מקום

The Gemara answers: This tanna teaches us the halakha as it is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that if the corpse was found close to a city that does not have a rabbinical court of twenty-three judges, that they leave the city aside and measure the distance from the corpse to a city that has a rabbinical court of twenty-three judges? The verse states: “And the Elders of that city shall take” (Deuteronomy 21:3), which indicates that the Elders of a city are involved in any case, and the measurement is taken even if it is not to the city closest to the body.

מתני׳ נמצא מכוון בין שתי עיירות שתיהן מביאות שתי עגלות דברי רבי אליעזר ואין ירושלים מביאה עגלה ערופה נמצא ראשו במקום אחד וגופו במקום אחר מוליכין הראש אצל הגוף דברי רבי אליעזר רבי עקיבא אומר הגוף אצל הראש מאין היו מודדין רבי אליעזר אומר מטיבורו רבי עקיבא אומר מחוטמו רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר ממקום שנעשה חלל מצוארו

MISHNA: If the slain person is found precisely between two cities, the inhabitants of the two of them bring two heifers total; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not bring a heifer whose neck is broken, even if Jerusalem is the city closest to the slain victim. If the head of the corpse was found in one place and his body was found in a different place, they bring the head next to the body; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Akiva says: They bring the body next to the head. From where on the body would they measure the distance? Rabbi Eliezer says: From his navel. Rabbi Akiva says: From his nose. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: From the place where he became a slain person, which is from the neck.

גמ׳ מאי טעמא דרבי אליעזר קסבר אפשר לצמצם וקרובה ואפילו קרובות

GEMARA: The Gemara explains: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Eliezer, that when a body is found precisely between two cities, the inhabitants of each city bring a heifer? His ruling is based on two factors. First, he holds that it is possible to measure precisely and that it is a real possibility to determine that both cities are exactly the same distance from the corpse. And second, he interprets the term “That is nearest” (Deuteronomy 21:3), to be referring not only to one city. It can even be understood as: That are nearest, so that the halakhot apply to more than one city.

ואין ירושלים מביאה עגלה ערופה דאמר קרא לרשתה וקסבר ירושלים לא נתחלקה לשבטים

The mishna taught: And the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not bring a heifer whose neck is broken. The Gemara explains: This is because the verse states: “If one be found slain in the land which the Lord your God has given you to possess it” (Deuteronomy 21:1), and this tanna holds that Jerusalem was not divided among the tribes in the division of Eretz Yisrael. It was not given as a possession to any particular person but belongs to all; therefore the halakha of the heifer whose neck is broken does not apply to it.

נמצא ראשו במקום כו׳ במאי קמיפלגי אילימא לענין מדידה קמיפלגי הא מדקתני סיפא מאין היו מודדין מכלל דרישא לא במדידה עסקינן אמר רבי יצחק במת מצוה קנה מקומו קמיפלגי

§ With regard to the halakha of a corpse whose head was found in one place and its body elsewhere, the Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha do they disagree? If we say they disagree with regard to whether the measurement is taken from the head or the body, from the fact that the latter clause teaches: From where would they measure the distance, it may be inferred that in the first clause we are not dealing with measurement. Rabbi Yitzḥak said: They disagree with regard to a different matter, the question of whether a corpse with no one to bury it [met mitzva] acquires its place, meaning if an unattended corpse must be buried where it is found.

והכי קאמר לקוברו קנה מקומו והיכא דנמצא ראשו במקום אחד וגופו במקום אחר מוליכין הראש אצל הגוף דברי רבי אליעזר רבי עקיבא אומר הגוף אצל הראש במאי קמיפלגי מר סבר גופיה בדוכתיה נפיל רישא דנאדי ונפיל ומר סבר רישא היכא דנפיל נפיל גופא הוא דרהיט אזיל

And this is what the mishna is saying: With regard to burying him, the victim acquires his place, and he is buried there. The mishna continues: And in a case where his head is found in one place and his body is found in a different place, they bring the head next to the body and bury him there; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Akiva says: They bring the body next to the head. The Gemara explains: With regard to what do they disagree? They both agree that he should be buried in the place where he was killed, but one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that his body fell in its place, and it was the head that rolled away and fell. And one Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds that his head fell where it fell, and it was the body that went and continued onward. Therefore, the body is brought to the head.

מאין היו מודדין במאי קמיפלגי מר סבר עיקר חיותא באפיה ומר סבר עיקר חיותא בטיבוריה

§ The mishna taught that there is a dispute concerning the question: From where on the body would they measure the distance? The Gemara asks: With regard to what do they disagree? One Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds: A person’s life is sustained mainly in his nose, in his respiratory system. And one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds: His life is mainly in the area of his navel, in his digestive system.

לימא כי הני תנאי מהיכן הולד נוצר מראשו וכן הוא אומר ממעי אמי אתה גוזי ואומר גזי נזרך והשליכי וגו׳ אבא שאול אומר מטיבורו ומשלח שרשו אילך

The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that these tanna’im are like those tanna’im, who had a dispute as it is taught in a baraita: From where is an embryo formed? From its head, and so the verse states: “Out of my mother’s womb You pulled me [gozi]” (Psalms 71:6). And the proof that “gozi” is referring to the head is from the verse that states: “Cut off [gozi] your hair, and cast it away” (Jeremiah 7:29). In this verse, the term gozi relates to the hair of the head. Abba Shaul says: An embryo is formed from its navel, and it sends its roots forth. This dispute concerning the initial formation of an embryo also appears to depend on where the main source of life in a person is.

אפילו תימא אבא שאול עד כאן לא קאמר אבא שאול אלא לענין יצירה דכי מיתצר ולד ממציעתיה מיתצר אבל לענין חיותא דכולי עלמא באפיה הוא דכתיב כל אשר נשמת רוח חיים באפיו וגו׳

The Gemara refutes this comparison: You can even say that both tanna’im of the mishna agree with Abba Shaul, as Abba Shaul says his opinion only with regard to the forming of an embryo, that when an embryo is formed, it is formed from its middle. But with regard to life, everyone, i.e., both tanna’im in the baraita, agree that it is in his nose, as it is written: “All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life” (Genesis 7:22).

רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר ממקום שנעשה חלל מצוארו מאי טעמא דרבי אליעזר בן יעקב כדכתיב לתת אותך אל צוארי חללי רשעים

The mishna taught another opinion. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: The distance should be measured from the place where the victim became a slain person, from his neck. The Gemara poses a question: What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov? The Gemara answers: As it is written: “To lay you upon the necks of the wicked who are to be slain” (Ezekiel 21:34), which shows that being slain occurs at the neck.

מתני׳ נפטרו זקני ירושלים והלכו להן זקני אותה העיר מביאין עגלת בקר אשר לא משכה בעול ואין המום פוסל בה ומורידין אותה לנחל איתן איתן כמשמעו קשה אף על פי שאינו איתן כשר ועורפין אותה בקופיץ מאחוריה ומקומה אסור מלזרוע ומלעבוד ומותר לסרוק שם פשתן ולנקר שם אבנים

MISHNA: The mishna continues to describe the ritual. After they would take the measurement, the Elders of Jerusalem took their leave and went away. The Elders of the city that is closest to the corpse bring a heifer from cattle, which has not pulled a yoke. But a blemish does not disqualify it, because, unlike the description of the red heifer, the Torah does not state that it must be without blemish. And they bring it down to a stream that is eitan. Eitan in this context means as the word generally indicates, powerful. The stream must have a forceful flow. The mishna comments: Even if it is not forceful, it is a valid site for the ritual. And they break the neck of the heifer from behind with a cleaver. And with regard to its place, where the heifer was standing when its neck was broken, it is prohibited for that ground to be sown or to be worked, but it is permitted to comb flax there or to cut stones there.

זקני אותה העיר רוחצין את ידיהן במים במקום עריפה של עגלה ואומרים ידינו לא שפכו את הדם הזה ועינינו לא ראו וכי על דעתינו עלתה שזקני בית דין שופכי דמים הן אלא שלא בא על ידינו ופטרנוהו (בלא מזון) ולא ראינוהו והנחנוהו (בלא לוייה)

The Elders of that city would then wash their hands in water in the place of the breaking of the neck of the heifer, and they would recite: “Our hands did not spill this blood, nor did our eyes see” (Deuteronomy 21:7). The mishna explains: But did it enter our minds that the Elders of the court are spillers of blood, that they must make such a declaration? Rather, they mean to declare that the victim did not come to us and then we let him take his leave without food, and we did not see him and then leave him alone to depart without accompaniment. They therefore attest that they took care of all his needs and are not responsible for his death even indirectly.