Question: If R. Yehudah and R. Shimon learn this way, each should learn two additional judges from "they will go out" and another two from "they will measure"!

Answer: Those words teach other laws. "They will go out", not their messengers. "They will measure", even if it is obvious which city is closest, for it is a Mitzvah to measure.

Our Mishnah is unlike R. Eliezer ben Yakov.

(Beraisa - R. Eliezer ben Yakov): "Your elders" refers to the (great) Sanhedrin. "Your judges" refers to the king and the Kohen Gadol.

Other verses call the king and the Kohen Gadol "judges".

Question: Does R. Eliezer ben Yakov hold that the entire Sanhedrin goes out, or only five or three like R. Yehudah or R. Shimon?

Answer (Rav Yosef - Beraisa) Suggestion: If a defiant sage finds the great Sanhedrin by Bei Pagi (within Yerushalayim) and rules against them, perhaps this is considered rebellion (and he is liable)!

Rejection: "You will ascend to the place" - rebellion is only when they are in their place (Lishkas ha'Gazis, a chamber partially in the Mikdash).

Question: How many members of the Sanhedrin were by Bei Pagi?

Suggestion: Not all of them were there.

Rejection: In any place this is not rebellion. Perhaps the other members would agree with the sage!

Answer: We must say that the entire Sanhedrin was there.

Question: Why did they leave their normal place?

Suggestion: They leave for a reason that is not a Mitzvah.

Rejection: That is forbidden! A judge may not leave the great Sanhedrin unless at least 23 judges remain.

Answer: Rather, we must say that they all left for a Mitzvah.

Suggestion: This Beraisa is like R. Eliezer ben Yakov. They left to measure from a corpse!

Rejection (Abaye): No, perhaps they left to add on to Yerushalayim or the courtyards of the Mikdash;

(Mishnah): All 71 members of the Sanhedrin are needed to add on to Yerushalayim or the courtyards of the Mikdash.

Support (for Rav Yosef - Beraisa) Suggestion: If a defiant sage finds the great Sanhedrin by Bei Pagi and rules against them, e.g. they left to measure from a corpse, or to add on to Yerushalayim or the courtyards of the Mikdash, perhaps this is considered rebellion!

Rejection: "You will ascend to the place" - rebellion is only when they are in their place.

(Mishnah): If a corpse was found covered or hanging from a tree...

Suggestion: Our Mishnah is like R. Yehudah, and unlike Chachamim:

(Beraisa - R. Yehudah): "And you forgot a sheaf in the field" excludes a covered sheaf (from the law of Shichechah, forgotten produce that must be left for the poor);

Chachamim say, "in the field" includes a covered sheaf.

Rejection (Rav): Our Mishnah is even like Chachamim. In each case, we learn from the context of the verse;

"If you will find a corpse" connotes any way he is found. "In the ground" excludes if he is covered;

"If you will harvest in your field, and forget a sheaf" equates Shichechah to what is harvested. Just like one harvests what is exposed, also Shichechah must be exposed;

The verse continues "in the field" to include what is covered.

Question: R. Yehudah should also learn that Shichechah must be exposed, like the harvest. He should not need a verse to exclude what is covered!

Answer: Correct! Indeed, he uses "in your field" to teach that Shichechah applies to attached vegetation.

Question: What is Chachamim's source for this?

Answer: They learn from "if you will harvest in your field, and forget."

R. Yehudah uses that to teach R. Avahu's law.

(R. Avahu): "In your field" excludes sheaves that floated to a neighbor's field.

Chachamim would have included attached vegetation even if the Torah said 'in the field.' Rather, it says "in your field" to teach also R. Avahu's law.

R. Yehudah holds that this change of wording does not warrant expounding another law.

Question (R. Yirmeyah): If the wind lifted sheaves onto a rock, can they become Shichechah?

Is something resting in the airspace of the field as if it is on the field, or not?

Answer #1 (Rav Kahana): We can learn from R. Avahu.

R. Avahu taught that if sheaves floated to a neighbor's field (and are still off the ground, e.g. on a rock) they are not Shichechah. The same case in his own field would be Shichechah!

Objection: If this were a valid inference, one should also infer that only sheaves above his neighbor's field are not Shichechah, but sheaves on the field are Shichechah!

Question: It says "in your field", and this is not fulfilled!

Answer: Rather, we must say that whenever sheaves float to his neighbor's field; even if they are on the ground, they are not Shichechah;

R. Avahu said floated because this is the only way it would come (by itself) to his neighbor's field.

Answer #2 (Beraisa): If a landowner picked up a sheaf to take it to the city, put it on another sheaf, and forgot it, the bottom sheaf is Shichechah, but the top sheaf is not;

R. Shimon ben Yehudah says, the bottom sheaf is not Shichechah, for it is covered. The top sheaf is not Shichechah, for it is elevated.

(Summation of answer): Both Tana'im agree that the top sheaf is not Shichechah because it is not on the ground!

Rejection: No. He acquired it when he picked it up (therefore it can never become Shichechah).

Question: If so, why does it say that he put it on top of another sheaf? Even if it were on the ground, it would not be Shichechah!

Answer: That is true! The Beraisa discusses when he put it on another sheaf to teach the argument about the bottom sheaf.

Objection: It says that the top sheaf is not Shichechah because it is elevated!

Answer: It means, the top sheaf is not Shichechah because it is as if it elevated, i.e. still in his hand.

Question: If one corpse is found resting on another, for which do we measure (to bring Eglah Arufah)?

Do we say that the bottom corpse is considered covered (even though the covering is also a corpse), but the top corpse is not considered elevated (since another corpse cannot be considered a separation from the ground, therefore, we measure for the top corpse)?

Or, do we say that a corpse is not considered a covering for a corpse, but the top corpse is considered elevated even though it rests on another corpse, therefore, we measure for the bottom corpse?

Or, do we say that they are covered and elevated, respectively, and no calf is brought? (Or, are they neither covered nor elevated, and we measure for each?)

Answer (Abaye): We can settle (the law of the bottom corpse) from the Beraisa.

(Beraisa): If a landowner picked up a sheaf to take it to the city, put it on another sheaf, and forgot it, the bottom sheaf is Shichechah, but the top sheaf is not;

R. Shimon ben Yehudah says, the bottom sheaf is not Shichechah, for it is covered. The top sheaf is not Shichechah, for it is elevated.

(Assumption): Both Tana'im hold like R. Yehudah, that a covered sheaf can be Shichechah. They argue about whether or not a sheaf is considered a covering for another sheaf.

Rejection: No. All agree that a sheaf is considered a covering for another sheaf. They argue about whether or not Shichechah applies to a covered sheaf.

Question: If so, why does it say that a sheaf covers the bottom sheaf? The first Tana would say that it is Shichechah even if it is covered by soil!

Answer: That is true. The Tana wanted to show the extremity of R. Yehudah, that even a sheaf covered by a sheaf is not Shichechah.

(Beraisa): "A corpse" (connotes one killed by a sword, and excludes one who died by choking. "A corpse" excludes one still quivering. "On the ground" excludes one covered in a rock heap. "That fell" excludes one hanging from a tree. "On the field" excludes one floating on the water;

R. Eliezer says, we bring a calf for any corpse (killed by a sword, even if it is quivering, covered, hanging or floating).

Chachamim: You admit that if he choked, even if he rests on the ground, we do not bring a calf. Why do you argue about the other teachings?

R. Eliezer: I admit only to the first, since an extra "corpse" is written.

(Mishnah): If it was found close to the border, or near a city that is mostly Nochrim...

No calf is brought, for it says "if you will find" to exclude such cases, for corpses are regularly found there.

(Mishnah): Or to a city without a Sanhedrin...

This is because the elders (Sanhedrin) of the city must come out, and this cannot be fulfilled.

(Mishnah): We measure only to a city with a Sanhedrin...

Question: This is obvious. Since only a city with a Sanhedrin brings a calf, it is futile to measure to a city without a Sanhedrin!

Answer: The Mishnah teaches like the following Beraisa:

(Beraisa) Question: What is the source that if it was found closest to a city without a Sanhedrin, we measure to the closest city with a Sanhedrin (and bring a calf)?

Answer: "The elders of that city will take" - in any case.

(Mishnah - R. Eliezer): If it is found to be exactly midway between two cities, each city brings a calf.

Yerushalayim does not bring a calf.

R. Eliezer says, if the head was not near the body, we bring the head to the body;

R. Akiva says, we bring the body to the head.

R. Eliezer says, we measure from the navel;

R. Akiva says, we measure from the nose;

R. Eliezer ben Yakov says, we measure from the place he became a corpse, from the neck.

(Gemara) Question: Why does R. Eliezer say that two calves are beheaded?

Answer: He holds that it is possible that it is exactly in the middle, and he expounds "the closest city" to means the closest cities (if two are equally close).

(Mishnah): Yerushalayim does not bring a calf.

This is because it says "in the land that you were given to inherit it", and the Tana holds that Yerushalayim was not apportioned to the Shevatim.

(Mishnah): If the head was not near the body...

Question: What do they argue about?

Suggestion: They argue about from where we measure.

Rejection: Later, the Mishnah asks from where we measure. This implies that it does not address this earlier!

Answer (R. Yitzchak): An unattended corpse is buried in its place. They argue about where to bury it when the head and body are not in the same place;

R. Eliezer says that it is buried where the body is. R. Akiva says, it is buried where the head is.

Question: What are their reasons?

Answer: R. Eliezer holds that he died where the body is, and the head rolled. R. Akiva holds that he died where the head is, and his body kept walking after the head was severed.

(Mishnah): From where do we measure?

Question: What do they argue about?

Answer: R. Akiva says that the source of life is the nose; R. Eliezer says that it is the stomach.

Suggestion: They argue like the following Tana'im:

(Beraisa): The initial creation of a fetus is the head - "from my mother's womb, You formed my head";

Aba Sha'ul says, it is from the navel. It grows in all directions.

Rejection: No. Aba Sha'ul can hold even like R. Akiva;

Aba Sha'ul said that a fetus is created from the middle, but he can admit that the source of life is the nose - "all that has a soul of life in its nose."

R. Eliezer ben Yakov says, we measure from where he became a corpse, from the neck.

He learns from a verse that cutting the neck makes it called a corpse.

(Mishnah): (After measuring), the judges from Yerushalayim return to Yerushalayim. The elders of the nearest city bring a calf that never bore a yoke.

A Mum (blemish) does not disqualify the calf.

Version #1 (Rashi): They take it down to an Eisan valley. This means hard. Even if it is not hard, it is Kosher.

Version #2 (Rambam): They take it down to an Eisan (raging; alternatively, old) river. It should be Eisan. Even if it is not Eisan, it is Kosher. (end of Version #2)

They behead it with a chopping knife from the back. One may not farm the place where it was beheaded. One may comb flax there or quarry rocks.

The elders of the city wash their hands in water where it was beheaded. They say "our hands did not spill his blood, and our eyes did not see."

Question: Would we really think that the elders of Beis Din are murderers?!

Answer: They mean, had he come to us, we would not have turned him away; had we seen him, we would not have abandoned him.