Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

December 10, 2015 | ื›ืดื— ื‘ื›ืกืœื• ืชืฉืขืดื•

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Sotah 45

Details about the ceremony. Study Guide Sotah 45

PlayPlay

ื•ื™ื• ืœื ืžืฉืžืข ืœื™ื” (ืžืื™ ืงืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื”ืžื™ื•ื—ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉื‘ืฉื•ืคื˜ื™ืš) ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื•ื™ืฆืื• ืฉื ื™ื ื•ืžื“ื“ื• ืฉื ื™ื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ืจื™ ื›ืืŸ ืชืฉืขื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื”ืจื™ ื›ืืŸ ืฉื‘ืขื”

because he does not learn anything from the letter vav. Rather, what is the Merciful One saying in the Torah with the phrase โ€œand your judgesโ€? 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: โ€œAnd they shall go out,โ€ this should indicate another two. And: โ€œAnd they shall measureโ€ (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.

ื”ื”ื•ื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ื•ื™ืฆืื• ื”ืŸ ื•ืœื ืฉืœื•ื—ื™ื”ืŸ ื•ืžื“ื“ื• ืฉืืคื™ืœื• ื ืžืฆื ื‘ืขืœื™ืœ ืœืขื™ืจ ื”ื™ื• ืžื•ื“ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉืžืฆื•ื” ืœืขืกื•ืง ื‘ืžื“ื™ื“ื”

The Gemara responds: He requires that verse: โ€œAnd they shall go outโ€ฆand they shall measure,โ€ for that which is taught in a baraita: โ€œAnd they shall go out,โ€ 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. โ€œAnd they shall measure,โ€ 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.

ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื“ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืื•ืžืจ ื–ืงื ื™ืš ื–ื• ืกื ื”ื“ืจื™ืŸ ืฉืคื˜ื™ืš ื–ื” ืžืœืš ื•ื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืžืœืš ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืžืœืš ื‘ืžืฉืคื˜ ื™ืขืžื™ื“ ืืจืฅ ื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื‘ืืช ืืœ ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื”ืœื•ื™ื ื•ืืœ ื”ืฉืคื˜ ืืฉืจ ื™ื”ื™ื” ื•ื’ื•ืณ

ยง The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov says: โ€œYour Elders,โ€ this is the Sanhedrin; โ€œyour judges,โ€ this is the king and the High Priest. According to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™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: โ€œA king by justice establishes the landโ€ (Proverbs 29:4). A High Priest is called a judge, as it is written: โ€œIf there arise a matter too hard for you in judgmentโ€ฆAnd you shall come to the priests the Levites, and to the judge who shall be in those daysโ€ (Deuteronomy 17:8โ€“9).

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื‘ืžืœืš ื•ื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื”ื•ื ื“ืคืœื™ื’ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืกื ื”ื“ืจื™ ืื™ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื™ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ื” ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื‘ืกื ื”ื“ืจื™ ื ืžื™ ืคืœื™ื’ ืขื“ ื“ืื™ื›ื ื›ื•ืœื” ืกื ื”ื“ืจื™

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is it so that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืชื ืฉืžืข ืžืฆืืŸ ื–ืงืŸ ืžืžืจื ืื‘ื™ ืคื’ื™ ื•ื”ืžืจื” ืขืœื™ื”ืŸ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืชื”ื ื”ืžืจืืชื• ื”ืžืจืื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ืงืžืช ื•ืขืœื™ืช ืืœ ื”ืžืงื•ื ืžืœืžื“ ืฉื”ืžืงื•ื ื’ื•ืจื

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: โ€œAnd you shall arise and go up to the placeโ€ (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.

ื“ื ืคื•ืง ื›ืžื” ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื“ื ืคื•ืง ืžืงืฆืชืŸ ื“ืœืžื ื”ื ืš ื“ืื™ื›ื ื’ื•ืื™ ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื”ื• ืืœื ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ื“ื ืคื•ืง ื›ื•ืœื”ื•

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.

ื•ืœืžืื™ ืื™ ืœื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืจืฉื•ืช ืžื™ ืžืฆื• ื ืคืงื™ ื•ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืฉืจืจืš ืื’ืŸ ื”ืกื”ืจ ืืœ ื™ื—ืกืจ ื”ืžื–ื’ ืฉืื ื ืฆืจืš ืื—ื“ ืžื”ื ืœืฆืืช ืื ื™ืฉ ืฉื ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ืฉืœืฉื” ื›ื ื’ื“ ืกื ื”ื“ืจื™ ืงื˜ื ื” ื™ื•ืฆื ื•ืื ืœืื• ืื™ื ื• ื™ื•ืฆื

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 isnโ€™t it written: โ€œYour navel [shorerekh] is like a round goblet, let no mingled wine be wantingโ€ (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 โ€œlet no mingled wine be wantingโ€ 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.

ืืœื ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืœื“ื‘ืจ ืžืฆื•ื” ืœืžืื™ ืœืื• ืœืžื“ื™ื“ืช ืขื’ืœื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื”ื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืœื ื“ืœืžื ืœื”ื•ืกื™ืฃ ืขืœ ื”ืขื™ืจ ื•ืขืœ ื”ืขื–ืจื•ืช ื›ื“ืชื ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืกื™ืคื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื”ืขื™ืจ ื•ืขืœ ื”ืขื–ืจื•ืช ืืœื ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉืœ ืฉื‘ืขื™ื ื•ืื—ื“

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 Yaโ€™akov? This would prove that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™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.

ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืžืฆืืŸ ืื‘ื™ืช ืคื’ื™ ื•ื”ืžืจื” ืขืœื™ื”ืŸ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื™ืฆืื• ืœืžื“ื™ื“ืช ืขื’ืœื” ืื• ืœื”ื•ืกื™ืฃ ืขืœ ื”ืขื™ืจ ื•ืขืœ ื”ืขื–ืจื•ืช ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืชื”ื ื”ืžืจืืชื• ื”ืžืจืื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ืงืžืช ื•ืขืœื™ืช ืžืœืžื“ ืฉื”ืžืงื•ื ื’ื•ืจื

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef, that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™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: โ€œAnd you shall arise and go up to the placeโ€ (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.

ื ืžืฆื ื˜ืžื•ืŸ ื‘ื’ืœ ืื• ืชืœื•ื™ ื‘ืื™ืœืŸ ืœื™ืžื ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ื™ื ื•ืœื ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืชื ื™ื ื•ืฉื›ื—ืช ืขืžืจ ื‘ืฉื“ื” ืคืจื˜ ืœื˜ืžื•ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื‘ืฉื“ื” ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืืช ื”ื˜ืžื•ืŸ

ยง 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: โ€œAnd you forget a sheaf in the fieldโ€ (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 โ€œin the fieldโ€ 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 โ€œin the fieldโ€ it excludes a concealed corpse.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืคื™ืœื• ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื›ื ืžืขื ื™ื™ื ื™ื” ื“ืงืจื ื”ืชื ืžืขื ื™ื™ื ื™ื” ื“ืงืจื

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.

ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ื™ ื™ืžืฆื ื—ืœืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืžืฉืชื›ื— ื‘ืื“ืžื” ืคืจื˜ ืœื˜ืžื•ืŸ ื•ื”ืชื ืžืขื ื™ื™ื ื™ื” ื“ืงืจื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ื™ ืชืงืฆืจ ืงืฆื™ืจืš ื‘ืฉื“ืš ื•ืฉื›ื—ืช ืขืžืจ ืฉื›ื—ื” ื“ื•ืžื™ื ื“ืงืฆื™ืจ ืžื” ืงืฆื™ืจ ื‘ื’ืœื•ื™ ืืฃ ืฉื›ื—ื” ื‘ื’ืœื•ื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ื‘ืฉื“ื” ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืืช ื”ื˜ืžื•ืŸ

In this case, as it is written: โ€œIf one be found slainโ€ (Deuteronomy 21:1), the default assumption is that the halakha applies no matter where it is found. When the verse then states: โ€œIn the ground,โ€ 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: โ€œWhen you reap your harvest in your field, and you forget a sheafโ€ (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 โ€œin the field,โ€ it must be in order to include the concealed sheaves.

ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื ืžื™ ืชื™ืคื•ืง ืœื™ื” ืžืฉื›ื—ื” ื“ื•ืžื™ื ื“ืงืฆื™ืจ ืื™ืŸ ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™

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 โ€œin the fieldโ€? The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so, he does not derive that halakha from the phrase โ€œin the field.โ€

ื•ืืœื ื‘ืฉื“ื” ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืฉื›ื—ืช ืงืžื” ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืฉื›ื—ืช ืงืžื” ืžื ื ืœื”ื• ื ืคืงื ืœื”ื• ืžื›ื™ ืชืงืฆืจ ืงืฆื™ืจืš ื‘ืฉื“ืš

The Gemara therefore inquires: But then why do I need the phrase โ€œin the field,โ€ 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: โ€œWhen you reap your harvest in your field, and you forget,โ€ which indicates that the halakha includes one who forgot to harvest part of his field.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืคืจื˜ ืœืฉืฆืคื• ืขื•ืžืจื™ืŸ ืœืชื•ืš ืฉื“ื” ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžื‘ืฉื“ื” ื‘ืฉื“ืš ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืฉื“ื” ื‘ืฉื“ืš ืœื ืžืฉืžืข ืœื™ื”

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 anotherโ€™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 โ€œin your field,โ€ to include sheaves situated only in oneโ€™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 โ€œin your field,โ€ as he holds it is not a significant difference.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ืฆืคื• ืขื•ืžืจื™ืŸ ืœืชื•ืš ืฉื“ื”ื• ืžื”ื• ืื•ื™ืจ ืฉื“ื” ื›ืฉื“ื” ื“ืžื™ ืื• ืœืื• ื›ืฉื“ื” ื“ืžื™

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?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืœืจื‘ ืคืคื™ ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืœืจื‘ ื–ื‘ื™ื“ ืชืคืฉื•ื˜ ืœื™ื” ืžื“ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื“ืืžืจ ืคืจื˜ ืœืฉืฆืคื• ืขื•ืžืจื™ืŸ ืœืชื•ืš ืฉื“ื” ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื“ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืื™ืŸ ืœืชื•ืš ืฉื“ื”ื• ืœื

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 anotherโ€™s field. If they floated into anotherโ€™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.

ื•ืœื™ื˜ืขืžื™ืš ืœืชื•ืš ืฉื“ื” ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืฆืคื• ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ื ื—ื™ืŸ ืœื ื•ื”ื ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืฉื“ืš ื•ืœื™ื›ื

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 anotherโ€™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 anotherโ€™s field, no, they are deemed to be forgotten. But this cannot be the halakha, as we require the sheaves to be โ€œin your field,โ€ and these sheaves are not in his field.

ืืœื ืœืชื•ืš ืฉื“ื” ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืžื•ื ื—ื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืื™ ื“ืงืืžืจ ืฆืคื• ื“ืœื ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื” ืืœื ื‘ืฆืคื•

Rather, you must admit that the words: Into anotherโ€™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 oneโ€™s own field.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ืขื•ืžืจ ืฉื”ื—ื–ื™ืง ื‘ื• ืœื”ื•ืœื™ื›ื• ืœืขื™ืจ ื•ื”ื ื™ื—ื• ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื•ืฉื›ื—ื• ื”ืชื—ืชื•ืŸ ืฉื›ื—ื” ื•ื”ืขืœื™ื•ืŸ ืื™ื ื• ืฉื›ื—ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืื™ื ืŸ ืฉื›ื—ื” ื”ืชื—ืชื•ืŸ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื”ื•ื ื˜ืžื•ืŸ ื•ื”ืขืœื™ื•ืŸ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื”ื•ื ืฆืฃ ืขื“ ื›ืืŸ ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ืืœื ื‘ืชื—ืชื•ืŸ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืขืœื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ืœื ื”ื•ืื™ ืฉื›ื—ื”

The Gemara again attempts to resolve the dilemma: Come and hear a proof from a baraita (Tosefta, Peโ€™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.

ืฉืื ื™ ื”ืชื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื—ื–ื™ืง ื‘ื™ื” ื–ื›ื” ื‘ื™ื” ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืžืื™ ืื™ืจื™ื ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืฉื“ื” ื ืžื™ ืื™ืŸ ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื•ื”ืื™ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืžืฉื•ื ืชื—ืชื•ืŸ

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.

ื•ื”ื ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื”ื•ื ืฆืฃ ืงืืžืจ ืื™ืžื ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื”ื•ื ื›ืฆืฃ

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 ownerโ€™s hands.

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ื›ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืื™ ื‘ืฉื•ืงื™ ื˜ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื”ื•ื ืžื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœืื‘ื™ื™ ืฉื ื™ ื—ืœืœื™ื ื–ื” ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื–ื” ืžื”ื™ื›ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืžื•ื“ื“

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?

ืžื™ืŸ ื‘ืžื™ื ื• ื”ื•ื™ ื˜ืžื•ืŸ ื•ืžื™ืŸ ื‘ืžื™ื ื• ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ืฆืฃ ื•ืžืขืœื™ื•ืŸ ืžื•ื“ื“ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ืžื™ืŸ ื‘ืžื™ื ื• ื”ื•ื™ ืฆืฃ ื•ืžื™ืŸ ื‘ืžื™ื ื• ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ื˜ืžื•ืŸ ื•ืžืชื—ืชื•ืŸ ืžื•ื“ื“

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.

ืื• ื“ืœืžื ืžื™ืŸ ื‘ืžื™ื ื• ื”ื•ื™ ื˜ืžื•ืŸ ื•ืžื™ืŸ ื‘ืžื™ื ื• ื”ื•ื™ ืฆืฃ ื•ืœื ืžืชื—ืชื•ืŸ ืžื•ื“ื“ ื•ืœื ืžืขืœื™ื•ืŸ ืžื•ื“ื“

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.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื”

Abaye said to him:

ืชื ื™ืชื•ื” ืขื•ืžืจ ืฉื”ื—ื–ื™ืง ื‘ื• ืœื”ื•ืœื™ื›ื• ืœืขื™ืจ ื•ื”ื ื™ื—ื• ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื•ืฉื›ื—ื• ื”ืชื—ืชื•ืŸ ืฉื›ื—ื” ื•ื”ืขืœื™ื•ืŸ ืื™ื ื• ืฉื›ื—ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืฉื ื™ื”ืŸ ืื™ื ืŸ ืฉื›ื—ื” ื”ืชื—ืชื•ืŸ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื”ื•ื ื˜ืžื•ืŸ ื•ื”ืขืœื™ื•ืŸ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื”ื•ื ืฆืฃ ืกื‘ืจื•ื” ื“ื”ื ื™ ืชื ืื™ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื”ื• ื“ืืžืจ ื‘ืฉื“ื” ืคืจื˜ ืœื˜ืžื•ืŸ

You learned it in the baraita (Tosefta, Peโ€™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 tannaโ€™im in the baraita basically hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that the phrase โ€œin the fieldโ€ serves to exclude a concealed sheaf.

ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื‘ื”ื ืงื ืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื“ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืžื™ืŸ ื‘ืžื™ื ื• ื”ื•ื™ ื˜ืžื•ืŸ ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ื˜ืžื•ืŸ

The Gemara continues Abayeโ€™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.

ืœื ืื™ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื”ื• ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืžื™ืŸ ื‘ืžื™ื ื• ื”ื•ื™ ื˜ืžื•ืŸ ื•ื”ื›ื ื‘ืคืœื•ื’ืชื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”

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.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืžืื™ ืื™ืจื™ื ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืขืคืจ ื•ื‘ืฆืจื•ืจ ื ืžื™ ืื™ืŸ ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื•ืœื”ื•ื“ื™ืขืš ื›ื—ื• ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืžื™ืŸ ื‘ืžื™ื ื• ื”ื•ื™ ื˜ืžื•ืŸ

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.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื—ืœืœ ื•ืœื ื—ื ื•ืง ื—ืœืœ ื•ืœื ืžืคืจืคืจ ื‘ืื“ืžื” ื•ืœื ื˜ืžื•ืŸ ื‘ื’ืœ ื ืคืœ ื•ืœื ืชืœื•ื™ ื‘ืื™ืœืŸ ื‘ืฉื“ื” ื•ืœื ืฆืฃ ืขืœ ืคื ื™ ื”ืžื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืื ื”ื™ื” ื—ืœืœ ืขื•ืจืคื™ืŸ

ยง The Gemara returns to discuss when the ritual of breaking the neck of the heifer is performed. The Sages taught, expounding the verse โ€œIf one be found slain in the land which the Lord your God has given you to possess it, lying in the fieldโ€ (Deuteronomy 21:1): โ€œSlainโ€ indicates one killed by a sword, but not one who was strangled; โ€œslain,โ€ but not one who was found twitching in his death throes; โ€œin the land,โ€ but not concealed in a pile of stones; โ€œlying,โ€ but not hanging on a tree; โ€œin the field,โ€ 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.

ืชื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืœืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื™ ืืชื” ืžื•ื“ื” ืฉืื ื”ื™ื” ื—ื ื•ืง ื•ืžื•ื˜ืœ ื‘ืืฉืคื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืจืคื™ืŸ ืืœืžื ื—ืœืœ ื•ืœื ื—ื ื•ืง ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื‘ืื“ืžื” ื•ืœื ื˜ืžื•ืŸ ื‘ื’ืœ ื ืคืœ ื•ืœื ืชืœื•ื™ ื‘ืื™ืœืŸ ื‘ืฉื“ื” ื•ืœื ืฆืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ืžื™ื ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื—ืœืœ ื™ืชื™ืจื ื›ืชื™ื‘

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 heiferโ€™s neck? Apparently, โ€œslainโ€ is a precise term that means slain but not strangled. If you accept that, here too the words โ€œin the landโ€ should indicate: In the land, but not concealed in a pile of stones; โ€œfallenโ€ should indicate: Fallen but not hanging on a tree; and โ€œin the fieldโ€ 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 โ€œslainโ€ an extra time in the next verse: โ€œAbout him that is slainโ€ (Deuteronomy 21:2), this repetition teaches that a victim of strangulation is not included in this halakha.

ื ืžืฆื ืกืžื•ืš ืœืกืคืจ ืื• ืœืขื™ืจ ืฉืจื•ื‘ื” ื ื›ืจื™ื ื›ื•ืณ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ื™ ื™ืžืฆื ืคืจื˜ ืœืžืฆื•ื™

ยง 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 heiferโ€™s neck, as it is written: โ€œIf one be found slainโ€ (Deuteronomy 21:1). This excludes places where murdered bodies are commonly found, such as the aforementioned locations.

ืื• ืœืขื™ืจ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืขื™ื ื ื–ืงื ื™ ื”ืขื™ืจ ื•ืœื™ื›ื ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ื“ื“ื™ืŸ ืืœื ืœืขื™ืจ ื›ื•ืณ ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืชื ื ืœืขื™ืจ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืื ื ื™ื“ืขื ื ื“ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ื“ื“ื™ืŸ ืืœื ืœืขื™ืจ ืฉื™ืฉ ื‘ื” ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ

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 โ€œthe Elders of that cityโ€ (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.

ื”ื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ืžื ื™ืŸ ืฉืื ื ืžืฆื ืกืžื•ืš ืœืขื™ืจ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉืžื ื™ื—ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื” ื•ืžื•ื“ื“ื™ืŸ ืœืขื™ืจ ืฉื™ืฉ ื‘ื” ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ืœืงื—ื• ื–ืงื ื™ ื”ืขื™ืจ ื”ื”ื™ื ืžื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื

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: โ€œAnd the Elders of that city shall takeโ€ (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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื ืžืฆื ืžื›ื•ื•ืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืชื™ ืขื™ื™ืจื•ืช ืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ ืžื‘ื™ืื•ืช ืฉืชื™ ืขื’ืœื•ืช ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื•ืื™ืŸ ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ืžื‘ื™ืื” ืขื’ืœื” ืขืจื•ืคื” ื ืžืฆื ืจืืฉื• ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืื—ื“ ื•ื’ื•ืคื• ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืื—ืจ ืžื•ืœื™ื›ื™ืŸ ื”ืจืืฉ ืืฆืœ ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ืืฆืœ ื”ืจืืฉ ืžืื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื• ืžื•ื“ื“ื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืžื˜ื™ื‘ื•ืจื• ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืžื—ื•ื˜ืžื• ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืื•ืžืจ ืžืžืงื•ื ืฉื ืขืฉื” ื—ืœืœ ืžืฆื•ืืจื•

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 Yaโ€™akov says: From the place where he became a slain person, which is from the neck.

ื’ืžืณ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืงืกื‘ืจ ืืคืฉืจ ืœืฆืžืฆื ื•ืงืจื•ื‘ื” ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืงืจื•ื‘ื•ืช

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 โ€œThat is nearestโ€ (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.

ื•ืื™ืŸ ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ืžื‘ื™ืื” ืขื’ืœื” ืขืจื•ืคื” ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืœืจืฉืชื” ื•ืงืกื‘ืจ ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ืœื ื ืชื—ืœืงื” ืœืฉื‘ื˜ื™ื

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: โ€œIf one be found slain in the land which the Lord your God has given you to possess itโ€ (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.

ื ืžืฆื ืจืืฉื• ื‘ืžืงื•ื ื›ื•ืณ ื‘ืžืื™ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ืžื“ื™ื“ื” ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื”ื ืžื“ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ืžืื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื• ืžื•ื“ื“ื™ืŸ ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืจื™ืฉื ืœื ื‘ืžื“ื™ื“ื” ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืžืช ืžืฆื•ื” ืงื ื” ืžืงื•ืžื• ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™

ยง 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 Yitzแธฅak 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.

ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืœืงื•ื‘ืจื• ืงื ื” ืžืงื•ืžื• ื•ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ื ืžืฆื ืจืืฉื• ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืื—ื“ ื•ื’ื•ืคื• ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืื—ืจ ืžื•ืœื™ื›ื™ืŸ ื”ืจืืฉ ืืฆืœ ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ืืฆืœ ื”ืจืืฉ ื‘ืžืื™ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื’ื•ืคื™ื” ื‘ื“ื•ื›ืชื™ื” ื ืคื™ืœ ืจื™ืฉื ื“ื ืื“ื™ ื•ื ืคื™ืœ ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืจื™ืฉื ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ื ืคื™ืœ ื ืคื™ืœ ื’ื•ืคื ื”ื•ื ื“ืจื”ื™ื˜ ืื–ื™ืœ

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.

ืžืื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื• ืžื•ื“ื“ื™ืŸ ื‘ืžืื™ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืขื™ืงืจ ื—ื™ื•ืชื ื‘ืืคื™ื” ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืขื™ืงืจ ื—ื™ื•ืชื ื‘ื˜ื™ื‘ื•ืจื™ื”

ยง 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 personโ€™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.

ืœื™ืžื ื›ื™ ื”ื ื™ ืชื ืื™ ืžื”ื™ื›ืŸ ื”ื•ืœื“ ื ื•ืฆืจ ืžืจืืฉื• ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืžืžืขื™ ืืžื™ ืืชื” ื’ื•ื–ื™ ื•ืื•ืžืจ ื’ื–ื™ ื ื–ืจืš ื•ื”ืฉืœื™ื›ื™ ื•ื’ื•ืณ ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืžื˜ื™ื‘ื•ืจื• ื•ืžืฉืœื— ืฉืจืฉื• ืื™ืœืš

The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that these tannaโ€™im are like those tannaโ€™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: โ€œOut of my motherโ€™s womb You pulled me [gozi]โ€ (Psalms 71:6). And the proof that โ€œgoziโ€ is referring to the head is from the verse that states: โ€œCut off [gozi] your hair, and cast it awayโ€ (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.

ืืคื™ืœื• ืชื™ืžื ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ืขื“ ื›ืืŸ ืœื ืงืืžืจ ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ืืœื ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ื™ืฆื™ืจื” ื“ื›ื™ ืžื™ืชืฆืจ ื•ืœื“ ืžืžืฆื™ืขืชื™ื” ืžื™ืชืฆืจ ืื‘ืœ ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื•ืชื ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ื‘ืืคื™ื” ื”ื•ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ืœ ืืฉืจ ื ืฉืžืช ืจื•ื— ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืืคื™ื• ื•ื’ื•ืณ

The Gemara refutes this comparison: You can even say that both tannaโ€™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 tannaโ€™im in the baraita, agree that it is in his nose, as it is written: โ€œAll in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of lifeโ€ (Genesis 7:22).

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืื•ืžืจ ืžืžืงื•ื ืฉื ืขืฉื” ื—ืœืœ ืžืฆื•ืืจื• ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื›ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœืชืช ืื•ืชืš ืืœ ืฆื•ืืจื™ ื—ืœืœื™ ืจืฉืขื™ื

The mishna taught another opinion. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™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 Yaโ€™akov? The Gemara answers: As it is written: โ€œTo lay you upon the necks of the wicked who are to be slainโ€ (Ezekiel 21:34), which shows that being slain occurs at the neck.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื ืคื˜ืจื• ื–ืงื ื™ ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ื•ื”ืœื›ื• ืœื”ืŸ ื–ืงื ื™ ืื•ืชื” ื”ืขื™ืจ ืžื‘ื™ืื™ืŸ ืขื’ืœืช ื‘ืงืจ ืืฉืจ ืœื ืžืฉื›ื” ื‘ืขื•ืœ ื•ืื™ืŸ ื”ืžื•ื ืคื•ืกืœ ื‘ื” ื•ืžื•ืจื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื” ืœื ื—ืœ ืื™ืชืŸ ืื™ืชืŸ ื›ืžืฉืžืขื• ืงืฉื” ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืื™ืชืŸ ื›ืฉืจ ื•ืขื•ืจืคื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื” ื‘ืงื•ืคื™ืฅ ืžืื—ื•ืจื™ื” ื•ืžืงื•ืžื” ืืกื•ืจ ืžืœื–ืจื•ืข ื•ืžืœืขื‘ื•ื“ ื•ืžื•ืชืจ ืœืกืจื•ืง ืฉื ืคืฉืชืŸ ื•ืœื ืงืจ ืฉื ืื‘ื ื™ื

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.

ื–ืงื ื™ ืื•ืชื” ื”ืขื™ืจ ืจื•ื—ืฆื™ืŸ ืืช ื™ื“ื™ื”ืŸ ื‘ืžื™ื ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืขืจื™ืคื” ืฉืœ ืขื’ืœื” ื•ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื™ื“ื™ื ื• ืœื ืฉืคื›ื• ืืช ื”ื“ื ื”ื–ื” ื•ืขื™ื ื™ื ื• ืœื ืจืื• ื•ื›ื™ ืขืœ ื“ืขืชื™ื ื• ืขืœืชื” ืฉื–ืงื ื™ ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉื•ืคื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ื ื”ืŸ ืืœื ืฉืœื ื‘ื ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ื ื• ื•ืคื˜ืจื ื•ื”ื• (ื‘ืœื ืžื–ื•ืŸ) ื•ืœื ืจืื™ื ื•ื”ื• ื•ื”ื ื—ื ื•ื”ื• (ื‘ืœื ืœื•ื™ื™ื”)

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: โ€œOur hands did not spill this blood, nor did our eyes seeโ€ (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.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Sotah 45

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sotah 45

ื•ื™ื• ืœื ืžืฉืžืข ืœื™ื” (ืžืื™ ืงืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื”ืžื™ื•ื—ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉื‘ืฉื•ืคื˜ื™ืš) ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื•ื™ืฆืื• ืฉื ื™ื ื•ืžื“ื“ื• ืฉื ื™ื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ืจื™ ื›ืืŸ ืชืฉืขื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื”ืจื™ ื›ืืŸ ืฉื‘ืขื”

because he does not learn anything from the letter vav. Rather, what is the Merciful One saying in the Torah with the phrase โ€œand your judgesโ€? 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: โ€œAnd they shall go out,โ€ this should indicate another two. And: โ€œAnd they shall measureโ€ (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.

ื”ื”ื•ื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ื•ื™ืฆืื• ื”ืŸ ื•ืœื ืฉืœื•ื—ื™ื”ืŸ ื•ืžื“ื“ื• ืฉืืคื™ืœื• ื ืžืฆื ื‘ืขืœื™ืœ ืœืขื™ืจ ื”ื™ื• ืžื•ื“ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉืžืฆื•ื” ืœืขืกื•ืง ื‘ืžื“ื™ื“ื”

The Gemara responds: He requires that verse: โ€œAnd they shall go outโ€ฆand they shall measure,โ€ for that which is taught in a baraita: โ€œAnd they shall go out,โ€ 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. โ€œAnd they shall measure,โ€ 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.

ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื“ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืื•ืžืจ ื–ืงื ื™ืš ื–ื• ืกื ื”ื“ืจื™ืŸ ืฉืคื˜ื™ืš ื–ื” ืžืœืš ื•ื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืžืœืš ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืžืœืš ื‘ืžืฉืคื˜ ื™ืขืžื™ื“ ืืจืฅ ื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื‘ืืช ืืœ ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื”ืœื•ื™ื ื•ืืœ ื”ืฉืคื˜ ืืฉืจ ื™ื”ื™ื” ื•ื’ื•ืณ

ยง The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov says: โ€œYour Elders,โ€ this is the Sanhedrin; โ€œyour judges,โ€ this is the king and the High Priest. According to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™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: โ€œA king by justice establishes the landโ€ (Proverbs 29:4). A High Priest is called a judge, as it is written: โ€œIf there arise a matter too hard for you in judgmentโ€ฆAnd you shall come to the priests the Levites, and to the judge who shall be in those daysโ€ (Deuteronomy 17:8โ€“9).

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื‘ืžืœืš ื•ื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื”ื•ื ื“ืคืœื™ื’ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืกื ื”ื“ืจื™ ืื™ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื™ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ื” ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื‘ืกื ื”ื“ืจื™ ื ืžื™ ืคืœื™ื’ ืขื“ ื“ืื™ื›ื ื›ื•ืœื” ืกื ื”ื“ืจื™

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is it so that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืชื ืฉืžืข ืžืฆืืŸ ื–ืงืŸ ืžืžืจื ืื‘ื™ ืคื’ื™ ื•ื”ืžืจื” ืขืœื™ื”ืŸ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืชื”ื ื”ืžืจืืชื• ื”ืžืจืื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ืงืžืช ื•ืขืœื™ืช ืืœ ื”ืžืงื•ื ืžืœืžื“ ืฉื”ืžืงื•ื ื’ื•ืจื

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: โ€œAnd you shall arise and go up to the placeโ€ (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.

ื“ื ืคื•ืง ื›ืžื” ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื“ื ืคื•ืง ืžืงืฆืชืŸ ื“ืœืžื ื”ื ืš ื“ืื™ื›ื ื’ื•ืื™ ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื”ื• ืืœื ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ื“ื ืคื•ืง ื›ื•ืœื”ื•

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.

ื•ืœืžืื™ ืื™ ืœื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืจืฉื•ืช ืžื™ ืžืฆื• ื ืคืงื™ ื•ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืฉืจืจืš ืื’ืŸ ื”ืกื”ืจ ืืœ ื™ื—ืกืจ ื”ืžื–ื’ ืฉืื ื ืฆืจืš ืื—ื“ ืžื”ื ืœืฆืืช ืื ื™ืฉ ืฉื ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ืฉืœืฉื” ื›ื ื’ื“ ืกื ื”ื“ืจื™ ืงื˜ื ื” ื™ื•ืฆื ื•ืื ืœืื• ืื™ื ื• ื™ื•ืฆื

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 isnโ€™t it written: โ€œYour navel [shorerekh] is like a round goblet, let no mingled wine be wantingโ€ (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 โ€œlet no mingled wine be wantingโ€ 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.

ืืœื ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืœื“ื‘ืจ ืžืฆื•ื” ืœืžืื™ ืœืื• ืœืžื“ื™ื“ืช ืขื’ืœื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื”ื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืœื ื“ืœืžื ืœื”ื•ืกื™ืฃ ืขืœ ื”ืขื™ืจ ื•ืขืœ ื”ืขื–ืจื•ืช ื›ื“ืชื ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืกื™ืคื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื”ืขื™ืจ ื•ืขืœ ื”ืขื–ืจื•ืช ืืœื ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉืœ ืฉื‘ืขื™ื ื•ืื—ื“

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 Yaโ€™akov? This would prove that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™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.

ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืžืฆืืŸ ืื‘ื™ืช ืคื’ื™ ื•ื”ืžืจื” ืขืœื™ื”ืŸ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื™ืฆืื• ืœืžื“ื™ื“ืช ืขื’ืœื” ืื• ืœื”ื•ืกื™ืฃ ืขืœ ื”ืขื™ืจ ื•ืขืœ ื”ืขื–ืจื•ืช ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืชื”ื ื”ืžืจืืชื• ื”ืžืจืื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ืงืžืช ื•ืขืœื™ืช ืžืœืžื“ ืฉื”ืžืงื•ื ื’ื•ืจื

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef, that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™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: โ€œAnd you shall arise and go up to the placeโ€ (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.

ื ืžืฆื ื˜ืžื•ืŸ ื‘ื’ืœ ืื• ืชืœื•ื™ ื‘ืื™ืœืŸ ืœื™ืžื ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ื™ื ื•ืœื ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืชื ื™ื ื•ืฉื›ื—ืช ืขืžืจ ื‘ืฉื“ื” ืคืจื˜ ืœื˜ืžื•ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื‘ืฉื“ื” ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืืช ื”ื˜ืžื•ืŸ

ยง 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: โ€œAnd you forget a sheaf in the fieldโ€ (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 โ€œin the fieldโ€ 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 โ€œin the fieldโ€ it excludes a concealed corpse.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืคื™ืœื• ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื›ื ืžืขื ื™ื™ื ื™ื” ื“ืงืจื ื”ืชื ืžืขื ื™ื™ื ื™ื” ื“ืงืจื

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.

ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ื™ ื™ืžืฆื ื—ืœืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืžืฉืชื›ื— ื‘ืื“ืžื” ืคืจื˜ ืœื˜ืžื•ืŸ ื•ื”ืชื ืžืขื ื™ื™ื ื™ื” ื“ืงืจื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ื™ ืชืงืฆืจ ืงืฆื™ืจืš ื‘ืฉื“ืš ื•ืฉื›ื—ืช ืขืžืจ ืฉื›ื—ื” ื“ื•ืžื™ื ื“ืงืฆื™ืจ ืžื” ืงืฆื™ืจ ื‘ื’ืœื•ื™ ืืฃ ืฉื›ื—ื” ื‘ื’ืœื•ื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ื‘ืฉื“ื” ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืืช ื”ื˜ืžื•ืŸ

In this case, as it is written: โ€œIf one be found slainโ€ (Deuteronomy 21:1), the default assumption is that the halakha applies no matter where it is found. When the verse then states: โ€œIn the ground,โ€ 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: โ€œWhen you reap your harvest in your field, and you forget a sheafโ€ (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 โ€œin the field,โ€ it must be in order to include the concealed sheaves.

ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื ืžื™ ืชื™ืคื•ืง ืœื™ื” ืžืฉื›ื—ื” ื“ื•ืžื™ื ื“ืงืฆื™ืจ ืื™ืŸ ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™

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 โ€œin the fieldโ€? The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so, he does not derive that halakha from the phrase โ€œin the field.โ€

ื•ืืœื ื‘ืฉื“ื” ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืฉื›ื—ืช ืงืžื” ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืฉื›ื—ืช ืงืžื” ืžื ื ืœื”ื• ื ืคืงื ืœื”ื• ืžื›ื™ ืชืงืฆืจ ืงืฆื™ืจืš ื‘ืฉื“ืš

The Gemara therefore inquires: But then why do I need the phrase โ€œin the field,โ€ 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: โ€œWhen you reap your harvest in your field, and you forget,โ€ which indicates that the halakha includes one who forgot to harvest part of his field.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืคืจื˜ ืœืฉืฆืคื• ืขื•ืžืจื™ืŸ ืœืชื•ืš ืฉื“ื” ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžื‘ืฉื“ื” ื‘ืฉื“ืš ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืฉื“ื” ื‘ืฉื“ืš ืœื ืžืฉืžืข ืœื™ื”

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 anotherโ€™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 โ€œin your field,โ€ to include sheaves situated only in oneโ€™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 โ€œin your field,โ€ as he holds it is not a significant difference.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ืฆืคื• ืขื•ืžืจื™ืŸ ืœืชื•ืš ืฉื“ื”ื• ืžื”ื• ืื•ื™ืจ ืฉื“ื” ื›ืฉื“ื” ื“ืžื™ ืื• ืœืื• ื›ืฉื“ื” ื“ืžื™

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?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืœืจื‘ ืคืคื™ ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืœืจื‘ ื–ื‘ื™ื“ ืชืคืฉื•ื˜ ืœื™ื” ืžื“ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื“ืืžืจ ืคืจื˜ ืœืฉืฆืคื• ืขื•ืžืจื™ืŸ ืœืชื•ืš ืฉื“ื” ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื“ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืื™ืŸ ืœืชื•ืš ืฉื“ื”ื• ืœื

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 anotherโ€™s field. If they floated into anotherโ€™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.

ื•ืœื™ื˜ืขืžื™ืš ืœืชื•ืš ืฉื“ื” ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืฆืคื• ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ื ื—ื™ืŸ ืœื ื•ื”ื ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืฉื“ืš ื•ืœื™ื›ื

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 anotherโ€™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 anotherโ€™s field, no, they are deemed to be forgotten. But this cannot be the halakha, as we require the sheaves to be โ€œin your field,โ€ and these sheaves are not in his field.

ืืœื ืœืชื•ืš ืฉื“ื” ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืžื•ื ื—ื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืื™ ื“ืงืืžืจ ืฆืคื• ื“ืœื ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื” ืืœื ื‘ืฆืคื•

Rather, you must admit that the words: Into anotherโ€™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 oneโ€™s own field.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ืขื•ืžืจ ืฉื”ื—ื–ื™ืง ื‘ื• ืœื”ื•ืœื™ื›ื• ืœืขื™ืจ ื•ื”ื ื™ื—ื• ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื•ืฉื›ื—ื• ื”ืชื—ืชื•ืŸ ืฉื›ื—ื” ื•ื”ืขืœื™ื•ืŸ ืื™ื ื• ืฉื›ื—ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืื™ื ืŸ ืฉื›ื—ื” ื”ืชื—ืชื•ืŸ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื”ื•ื ื˜ืžื•ืŸ ื•ื”ืขืœื™ื•ืŸ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื”ื•ื ืฆืฃ ืขื“ ื›ืืŸ ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ืืœื ื‘ืชื—ืชื•ืŸ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืขืœื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ืœื ื”ื•ืื™ ืฉื›ื—ื”

The Gemara again attempts to resolve the dilemma: Come and hear a proof from a baraita (Tosefta, Peโ€™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.

ืฉืื ื™ ื”ืชื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื—ื–ื™ืง ื‘ื™ื” ื–ื›ื” ื‘ื™ื” ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืžืื™ ืื™ืจื™ื ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืฉื“ื” ื ืžื™ ืื™ืŸ ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื•ื”ืื™ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืžืฉื•ื ืชื—ืชื•ืŸ

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.

ื•ื”ื ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื”ื•ื ืฆืฃ ืงืืžืจ ืื™ืžื ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื”ื•ื ื›ืฆืฃ

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 ownerโ€™s hands.

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ื›ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืื™ ื‘ืฉื•ืงื™ ื˜ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื”ื•ื ืžื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœืื‘ื™ื™ ืฉื ื™ ื—ืœืœื™ื ื–ื” ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื–ื” ืžื”ื™ื›ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืžื•ื“ื“

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?

ืžื™ืŸ ื‘ืžื™ื ื• ื”ื•ื™ ื˜ืžื•ืŸ ื•ืžื™ืŸ ื‘ืžื™ื ื• ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ืฆืฃ ื•ืžืขืœื™ื•ืŸ ืžื•ื“ื“ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ืžื™ืŸ ื‘ืžื™ื ื• ื”ื•ื™ ืฆืฃ ื•ืžื™ืŸ ื‘ืžื™ื ื• ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ื˜ืžื•ืŸ ื•ืžืชื—ืชื•ืŸ ืžื•ื“ื“

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.

ืื• ื“ืœืžื ืžื™ืŸ ื‘ืžื™ื ื• ื”ื•ื™ ื˜ืžื•ืŸ ื•ืžื™ืŸ ื‘ืžื™ื ื• ื”ื•ื™ ืฆืฃ ื•ืœื ืžืชื—ืชื•ืŸ ืžื•ื“ื“ ื•ืœื ืžืขืœื™ื•ืŸ ืžื•ื“ื“

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.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื”

Abaye said to him:

ืชื ื™ืชื•ื” ืขื•ืžืจ ืฉื”ื—ื–ื™ืง ื‘ื• ืœื”ื•ืœื™ื›ื• ืœืขื™ืจ ื•ื”ื ื™ื—ื• ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื•ืฉื›ื—ื• ื”ืชื—ืชื•ืŸ ืฉื›ื—ื” ื•ื”ืขืœื™ื•ืŸ ืื™ื ื• ืฉื›ื—ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืฉื ื™ื”ืŸ ืื™ื ืŸ ืฉื›ื—ื” ื”ืชื—ืชื•ืŸ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื”ื•ื ื˜ืžื•ืŸ ื•ื”ืขืœื™ื•ืŸ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื”ื•ื ืฆืฃ ืกื‘ืจื•ื” ื“ื”ื ื™ ืชื ืื™ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื”ื• ื“ืืžืจ ื‘ืฉื“ื” ืคืจื˜ ืœื˜ืžื•ืŸ

You learned it in the baraita (Tosefta, Peโ€™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 tannaโ€™im in the baraita basically hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that the phrase โ€œin the fieldโ€ serves to exclude a concealed sheaf.

ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื‘ื”ื ืงื ืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื“ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืžื™ืŸ ื‘ืžื™ื ื• ื”ื•ื™ ื˜ืžื•ืŸ ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ื˜ืžื•ืŸ

The Gemara continues Abayeโ€™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.

ืœื ืื™ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื”ื• ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืžื™ืŸ ื‘ืžื™ื ื• ื”ื•ื™ ื˜ืžื•ืŸ ื•ื”ื›ื ื‘ืคืœื•ื’ืชื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”

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.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืžืื™ ืื™ืจื™ื ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืขืคืจ ื•ื‘ืฆืจื•ืจ ื ืžื™ ืื™ืŸ ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื•ืœื”ื•ื“ื™ืขืš ื›ื—ื• ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืžื™ืŸ ื‘ืžื™ื ื• ื”ื•ื™ ื˜ืžื•ืŸ

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.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื—ืœืœ ื•ืœื ื—ื ื•ืง ื—ืœืœ ื•ืœื ืžืคืจืคืจ ื‘ืื“ืžื” ื•ืœื ื˜ืžื•ืŸ ื‘ื’ืœ ื ืคืœ ื•ืœื ืชืœื•ื™ ื‘ืื™ืœืŸ ื‘ืฉื“ื” ื•ืœื ืฆืฃ ืขืœ ืคื ื™ ื”ืžื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืื ื”ื™ื” ื—ืœืœ ืขื•ืจืคื™ืŸ

ยง The Gemara returns to discuss when the ritual of breaking the neck of the heifer is performed. The Sages taught, expounding the verse โ€œIf one be found slain in the land which the Lord your God has given you to possess it, lying in the fieldโ€ (Deuteronomy 21:1): โ€œSlainโ€ indicates one killed by a sword, but not one who was strangled; โ€œslain,โ€ but not one who was found twitching in his death throes; โ€œin the land,โ€ but not concealed in a pile of stones; โ€œlying,โ€ but not hanging on a tree; โ€œin the field,โ€ 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.

ืชื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืœืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื™ ืืชื” ืžื•ื“ื” ืฉืื ื”ื™ื” ื—ื ื•ืง ื•ืžื•ื˜ืœ ื‘ืืฉืคื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืจืคื™ืŸ ืืœืžื ื—ืœืœ ื•ืœื ื—ื ื•ืง ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื‘ืื“ืžื” ื•ืœื ื˜ืžื•ืŸ ื‘ื’ืœ ื ืคืœ ื•ืœื ืชืœื•ื™ ื‘ืื™ืœืŸ ื‘ืฉื“ื” ื•ืœื ืฆืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ืžื™ื ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื—ืœืœ ื™ืชื™ืจื ื›ืชื™ื‘

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 heiferโ€™s neck? Apparently, โ€œslainโ€ is a precise term that means slain but not strangled. If you accept that, here too the words โ€œin the landโ€ should indicate: In the land, but not concealed in a pile of stones; โ€œfallenโ€ should indicate: Fallen but not hanging on a tree; and โ€œin the fieldโ€ 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 โ€œslainโ€ an extra time in the next verse: โ€œAbout him that is slainโ€ (Deuteronomy 21:2), this repetition teaches that a victim of strangulation is not included in this halakha.

ื ืžืฆื ืกืžื•ืš ืœืกืคืจ ืื• ืœืขื™ืจ ืฉืจื•ื‘ื” ื ื›ืจื™ื ื›ื•ืณ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ื™ ื™ืžืฆื ืคืจื˜ ืœืžืฆื•ื™

ยง 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 heiferโ€™s neck, as it is written: โ€œIf one be found slainโ€ (Deuteronomy 21:1). This excludes places where murdered bodies are commonly found, such as the aforementioned locations.

ืื• ืœืขื™ืจ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืขื™ื ื ื–ืงื ื™ ื”ืขื™ืจ ื•ืœื™ื›ื ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ื“ื“ื™ืŸ ืืœื ืœืขื™ืจ ื›ื•ืณ ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืชื ื ืœืขื™ืจ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืื ื ื™ื“ืขื ื ื“ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ื“ื“ื™ืŸ ืืœื ืœืขื™ืจ ืฉื™ืฉ ื‘ื” ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ

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 โ€œthe Elders of that cityโ€ (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.

ื”ื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ืžื ื™ืŸ ืฉืื ื ืžืฆื ืกืžื•ืš ืœืขื™ืจ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉืžื ื™ื—ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื” ื•ืžื•ื“ื“ื™ืŸ ืœืขื™ืจ ืฉื™ืฉ ื‘ื” ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ืœืงื—ื• ื–ืงื ื™ ื”ืขื™ืจ ื”ื”ื™ื ืžื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื

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: โ€œAnd the Elders of that city shall takeโ€ (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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื ืžืฆื ืžื›ื•ื•ืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืชื™ ืขื™ื™ืจื•ืช ืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ ืžื‘ื™ืื•ืช ืฉืชื™ ืขื’ืœื•ืช ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื•ืื™ืŸ ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ืžื‘ื™ืื” ืขื’ืœื” ืขืจื•ืคื” ื ืžืฆื ืจืืฉื• ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืื—ื“ ื•ื’ื•ืคื• ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืื—ืจ ืžื•ืœื™ื›ื™ืŸ ื”ืจืืฉ ืืฆืœ ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ืืฆืœ ื”ืจืืฉ ืžืื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื• ืžื•ื“ื“ื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืžื˜ื™ื‘ื•ืจื• ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืžื—ื•ื˜ืžื• ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืื•ืžืจ ืžืžืงื•ื ืฉื ืขืฉื” ื—ืœืœ ืžืฆื•ืืจื•

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 Yaโ€™akov says: From the place where he became a slain person, which is from the neck.

ื’ืžืณ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืงืกื‘ืจ ืืคืฉืจ ืœืฆืžืฆื ื•ืงืจื•ื‘ื” ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืงืจื•ื‘ื•ืช

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 โ€œThat is nearestโ€ (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.

ื•ืื™ืŸ ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ืžื‘ื™ืื” ืขื’ืœื” ืขืจื•ืคื” ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืœืจืฉืชื” ื•ืงืกื‘ืจ ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ืœื ื ืชื—ืœืงื” ืœืฉื‘ื˜ื™ื

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: โ€œIf one be found slain in the land which the Lord your God has given you to possess itโ€ (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.

ื ืžืฆื ืจืืฉื• ื‘ืžืงื•ื ื›ื•ืณ ื‘ืžืื™ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ืžื“ื™ื“ื” ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื”ื ืžื“ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ืžืื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื• ืžื•ื“ื“ื™ืŸ ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืจื™ืฉื ืœื ื‘ืžื“ื™ื“ื” ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืžืช ืžืฆื•ื” ืงื ื” ืžืงื•ืžื• ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™

ยง 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 Yitzแธฅak 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.

ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืœืงื•ื‘ืจื• ืงื ื” ืžืงื•ืžื• ื•ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ื ืžืฆื ืจืืฉื• ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืื—ื“ ื•ื’ื•ืคื• ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืื—ืจ ืžื•ืœื™ื›ื™ืŸ ื”ืจืืฉ ืืฆืœ ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ืืฆืœ ื”ืจืืฉ ื‘ืžืื™ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื’ื•ืคื™ื” ื‘ื“ื•ื›ืชื™ื” ื ืคื™ืœ ืจื™ืฉื ื“ื ืื“ื™ ื•ื ืคื™ืœ ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืจื™ืฉื ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ื ืคื™ืœ ื ืคื™ืœ ื’ื•ืคื ื”ื•ื ื“ืจื”ื™ื˜ ืื–ื™ืœ

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.

ืžืื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื• ืžื•ื“ื“ื™ืŸ ื‘ืžืื™ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืขื™ืงืจ ื—ื™ื•ืชื ื‘ืืคื™ื” ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืขื™ืงืจ ื—ื™ื•ืชื ื‘ื˜ื™ื‘ื•ืจื™ื”

ยง 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 personโ€™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.

ืœื™ืžื ื›ื™ ื”ื ื™ ืชื ืื™ ืžื”ื™ื›ืŸ ื”ื•ืœื“ ื ื•ืฆืจ ืžืจืืฉื• ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืžืžืขื™ ืืžื™ ืืชื” ื’ื•ื–ื™ ื•ืื•ืžืจ ื’ื–ื™ ื ื–ืจืš ื•ื”ืฉืœื™ื›ื™ ื•ื’ื•ืณ ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืžื˜ื™ื‘ื•ืจื• ื•ืžืฉืœื— ืฉืจืฉื• ืื™ืœืš

The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that these tannaโ€™im are like those tannaโ€™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: โ€œOut of my motherโ€™s womb You pulled me [gozi]โ€ (Psalms 71:6). And the proof that โ€œgoziโ€ is referring to the head is from the verse that states: โ€œCut off [gozi] your hair, and cast it awayโ€ (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.

ืืคื™ืœื• ืชื™ืžื ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ืขื“ ื›ืืŸ ืœื ืงืืžืจ ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ืืœื ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ื™ืฆื™ืจื” ื“ื›ื™ ืžื™ืชืฆืจ ื•ืœื“ ืžืžืฆื™ืขืชื™ื” ืžื™ืชืฆืจ ืื‘ืœ ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื•ืชื ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ื‘ืืคื™ื” ื”ื•ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ืœ ืืฉืจ ื ืฉืžืช ืจื•ื— ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืืคื™ื• ื•ื’ื•ืณ

The Gemara refutes this comparison: You can even say that both tannaโ€™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 tannaโ€™im in the baraita, agree that it is in his nose, as it is written: โ€œAll in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of lifeโ€ (Genesis 7:22).

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืื•ืžืจ ืžืžืงื•ื ืฉื ืขืฉื” ื—ืœืœ ืžืฆื•ืืจื• ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื›ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœืชืช ืื•ืชืš ืืœ ืฆื•ืืจื™ ื—ืœืœื™ ืจืฉืขื™ื

The mishna taught another opinion. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™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 Yaโ€™akov? The Gemara answers: As it is written: โ€œTo lay you upon the necks of the wicked who are to be slainโ€ (Ezekiel 21:34), which shows that being slain occurs at the neck.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื ืคื˜ืจื• ื–ืงื ื™ ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ื•ื”ืœื›ื• ืœื”ืŸ ื–ืงื ื™ ืื•ืชื” ื”ืขื™ืจ ืžื‘ื™ืื™ืŸ ืขื’ืœืช ื‘ืงืจ ืืฉืจ ืœื ืžืฉื›ื” ื‘ืขื•ืœ ื•ืื™ืŸ ื”ืžื•ื ืคื•ืกืœ ื‘ื” ื•ืžื•ืจื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื” ืœื ื—ืœ ืื™ืชืŸ ืื™ืชืŸ ื›ืžืฉืžืขื• ืงืฉื” ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืื™ืชืŸ ื›ืฉืจ ื•ืขื•ืจืคื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื” ื‘ืงื•ืคื™ืฅ ืžืื—ื•ืจื™ื” ื•ืžืงื•ืžื” ืืกื•ืจ ืžืœื–ืจื•ืข ื•ืžืœืขื‘ื•ื“ ื•ืžื•ืชืจ ืœืกืจื•ืง ืฉื ืคืฉืชืŸ ื•ืœื ืงืจ ืฉื ืื‘ื ื™ื

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.

ื–ืงื ื™ ืื•ืชื” ื”ืขื™ืจ ืจื•ื—ืฆื™ืŸ ืืช ื™ื“ื™ื”ืŸ ื‘ืžื™ื ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืขืจื™ืคื” ืฉืœ ืขื’ืœื” ื•ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื™ื“ื™ื ื• ืœื ืฉืคื›ื• ืืช ื”ื“ื ื”ื–ื” ื•ืขื™ื ื™ื ื• ืœื ืจืื• ื•ื›ื™ ืขืœ ื“ืขืชื™ื ื• ืขืœืชื” ืฉื–ืงื ื™ ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉื•ืคื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ื ื”ืŸ ืืœื ืฉืœื ื‘ื ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ื ื• ื•ืคื˜ืจื ื•ื”ื• (ื‘ืœื ืžื–ื•ืŸ) ื•ืœื ืจืื™ื ื•ื”ื• ื•ื”ื ื—ื ื•ื”ื• (ื‘ืœื ืœื•ื™ื™ื”)

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: โ€œOur hands did not spill this blood, nor did our eyes seeโ€ (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.

Scroll To Top