1)

(a)If "Zekeinecha" implies two judges (plus one, due to 'Ein Beis-Din Shakul) according to Rebbi Shimon, and "v'Shoftecha" another two according to Rebbi Yehudah, then "v'Yatz'u" and 'u'Madedu" should add another four judges (making seven according to the one and nine according to the other). In fact, they both agree that "v'Yatz'u" comes to obligate the judges themselves to go to the scene of the murder and not to send Sheluchim, and "u'Madedu" - that measuring the nearest town is obligatory, even if it is obvious which town is the closest.

2)

(a)The author of our Mishnah (which obligates only the judges to participate in the ceremony of Eglah Arufah) cannot be Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov, according to whom - "v'Shoftecha" comes to include the King (based on the Pasuk in Mishlei "Melech ba'Mishpat Ya'amid Aretz"), and the Kohen Gadol (based on the Pasuk in Shoftim, Devarim) "u'Vasa El ha'Kohanim ... v'El ha'Shofet ... ").

(b)We express doubts as to whether Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov will even agree with Rebbi Yehudah or Rebbi Shimon regarding the number of judges who had to go out - because he might require the entire Beis-Din ha'Gadol (i.e. the Sanhedrin) to go out.

(c)Rav Yosef resolves the She'eilah from the Mishnah in Shevu'os, which speaks about a Zaken Mamrei meeting the Sanhedrin in Bei Pagi - which is the area within the precincts of Yerushalayim.

(d)The Tana there says that if a Zaken meets the Sanhedrin in Bei Pagi and rebels against them there - he does not become a Zaken Mamrei, because the Torah writes "v'Kamta v'Alisa El ha'Makom ... ", teaching us that the location (of the Lishkas ha'Gazis) is vital to the Din of Zaken Mamrei.

3)

(a)The Beraisa must be speaking when ...

1. ... the Zaken Mamrei encountered the entire Sanhedrin in Bei Pagi, because otherwise - due to the fact that some of the remaining judges might rule in his favor, he could not be declared a Zaken Mamrei anyway.

2. ... they left the Lishkas ha'Gazis for a Devar Mitzvah and not a Devar Reshus, because otherwise - based on the Pasuk in Shir ha'Shirim "Sharerech Agan ha'Sahar Al Yechsar ha'Mazeg", it would be forbidden for more than two thirds of the judges to leave the Lishkas ha'Gazis simultaneously.

(b)We assume that the Devar Mitzvah is that of Eglah Arufah - a proof that Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov disagrees with Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon.

(c)Abaye refutes Rav Yosef's proof by establishing the Sanhedrin's departure from the Lishkas ha'Gazis - to perform the Mitzvah of adding to the city of Yerushalayim or to one of the Azaros (which requires the entire Sanhedrin) ...

(d)... leaving us with the possibility that Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov may well agree with Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon, after all. Despite Abaye's alternative interpretation of the Beraisa - Rav Yosef's proof is accepted, because he has a Beraisa to support him.

(e)We resolve the She'eilah with a Beraisa - which reiterates the Mishnah in Sanhedrin, but adds that the Sanhedrin are on their way either to measure the town (by Eglah Arufah) or to add to Yerushalayim or the Azaros (like Rav Yosef).

4)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah extrapolates from the Pasuk "v'Shachachta Omer ba'Sadeh", 'Prat l'Tamun' (conforming with the Tana of our Mishnah, which Darshens "ba'Adamah", 'Prat l'Tamun'. The Rabanan Darshen - 'Lerabos Es ha'Tamun'.

(b)Rav reconciles the Rabanan with our Mishnah, by contrasting the two accompanying Pesukim "Ki Yimatzei Chalal" - implying wherever the corpse is found (even if it is hidden), so the Torah writes "ba'Adamah" to preclude Tamun; and "Ki Siktzor Ketzircha b'Sadcha v'Shachachta Omer" - which implies that it is revealed (similar to "Katzir"), in which case "ba'Sadeh" comes to include Tamun.

(c)In fact, Rebbi Yehudah will preclude 'Tamun' from 'Shichechah Dumyah d'Katzir' - whereas from "ba'Sadeh" - he includes Shichechah of standing corn (that is still attached).

(d)The Rabanan learn Shichechah of standing corn from "Ki Siktzor Ketzircha b'Sadcha v'Shachachta".

5)

(a)When, explaining Rebbi Yehudah, Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Elazar learns from "b'Sadcha v'Shachachta", 'Prat l'she'Tzafu Omrin l'Toch Sadeh Chaveiro' - we think he means that if the wind blew his sheaves into his friend's field and they landed on top of a stone or a post, they are not subject to Shichechah.

(b)The Rabanan learn this from "b'Sadeh" "b'Sadcha" - which Rebbi Yehudah does not consider a source for a Derashah.

(c)Shichechah - is not applicable to sheaves that were blown into someone else's field, because the Torah writes "b'Sadcha" (and not in someone else's field).

(d)This deters us from inferring from Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Elazar that 'Tzafu' would be considered Shichechah in one's own field - because if we were to interpret 'Tzafu' as we have until now, then the obvious inference that if the sheaf was lying on the ground in is friend's field, it would be Shichechah, would be incorrect.

6)

(a)Consequently, when Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Elazar mentions Tzafu in someone else's field, he is referring (not to the sheaves landing on top of something, as it does in the rest of the Sugya, but) - to their being blown into the field by the wind (which is the only way that they would get there).

7)

(a)The Tana Kama in a Beraisa, maintains that if someone places a sheaf that he intends to take into town on top of another sheaf and then forgets them both, the bottom one is Shichechah, but the top one is not. According to Rebbi Shimon ben Rebbi Yehudah - neither sheaf is Shichechah, the one because it is Tamun, the other, because it is Tzaf.

(b)We attempt to prove from the fact that both Tana'im agree that the top sheaf is not Shichechah - that Tzaf even in one's own field, is not Shichechah.

(c)We refute this proof however - by ascribing the real reason that the top sheaf is not Shichechah to the fact that the owner already acquired the sheaf when he picked it up to take into town.

(d)In spite of this, the Tana needed to mention that he placed the one sheaf on top of the other - to teach us the Machlokes Tana'im in the case of the bottom sheaf.

8)

(a)When Rebbi Shimon ben Rebbi Yehudah said 'Mipnei she'Hu Tzaf' (seeing as that is not the real reason, as we just explained) - what he really meant to say was 'Mipnei she'Hu k'Tzaf'.

(b)When Abaye once announced that he felt like ben Azai in the main streets of Teveryah - he meant that his mind was so lucid that, in his home-town of Pumbedisa, he would be able to tackle any problem that was posed to him, like ben Azai in his home-town of Teveryah.

(c)A certain Talmid-Chacham asked him what the Din would be if, regarding the Din of Eglah Arufah, one came across one corpse on top of another. One might measure ...

1. ... just from the top one - if the fact that it is 'Miyn b'Miyno' does not prevent the Din of Tamun from taking affect, but does prevent Tzaf.

2. ... just from the bottom one - if 'Miyn b'Miyno does not prevent Tzaf from taking affect, but does prevent Tamun.

3. ... from neither corpse - if 'Miyn b'Miyno' does not prevent either from taking affect.

(d)A fourth possibility is - whether we will measure from both corpses, because 'Miyn b'Miyno prevents both Tamun and Tzaf from taking affect (only it is already included in the first two She'eilos).

9)

(a)Abaye resolved the She'eilah (of Tamun) from the Machlokes between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah Amar Rebbi Shimon (who argue over the bottom sheaf). Assuming that both Tana'im hold like Rebbi Yehudah, their Machlokes will be - whether 'Miyn b'Miyno is considered Tamun' (Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah) or not (the Rabanan).

(b)We refute this proposal however - to establish the Rabanan like the Rabanan of Rebbi Yehudah ("b'Sadeh" 'Lerabos Es ha'Tamun'), and Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah like Rebbi Yehudah ("b'Sadeh" 'Prat l'Tamun').

(c)Even the Rabanan will agree however - that according to Rebbi Yehudah 'Miyn b'Miyno is considered Tamun'.

(d)In that case, the Tana speaks in a case where the owner placed one sheaf on top of another and not on dust or clods of earth - to teach us that even in such a case, Rebbi Yehudah holds that it is Tamun.

10)

(a)The Tana Kama of the Beraisa, explaining the Pasuk "Ki Yimatzei Chalal ba'Adamah Nofeil ba'Sadeh" precludes Tamun b'Gal from "ba'Adamah", hanging on a tree (even though he was killed by the sword) from "Nofeil", floating on the water from "ba'Sadeh"; whereas from "Chalal" - he precludes Chanuk' (someone who has been strangled to death [because Chalal implies death by a metal sword], and "Parpar' (someone who is gasping his last breath but is not yet dead).

(b)The only specification from all of these that Rebbi Elazar requires is - Chalal (slain by the sword).

(c)When Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah asked Rebbi Elazar that, in view of the fact that he Darshens "Chalal", why he ignores the Derashos of "ba'Adamah", "Nofeil" and "ba'Sadeh", he replied - that he only Darshened "Chalal" because the Torah mentions it a number of times (an indication that it is crucial).

11)

(a)The Tana of our Mishnah exempts a corpse who was found near a border town or a town that is inhabited mainly by Nochrim from the Din of Eglah Arufah - on the basis of the Pasuk "Ki Yimatzei", which implies that it happened that way, precluding cases where it is bound to happen.

(b)We learn this from the Pasuk "Ziknei ha'Ir" - that one only measures to a town which has a Beis-Din.

(c)Having taught us that we do not measure to a town which has no Beis-Din, the Tana nevertheless needs to continue that one only measures to a town which has a Beis-Din - to preclude the implication that when a town has no Beis-Din one does not measure at all (but rather that one goes on to the next town that does have a Beis-Din).

(d)We Darshen this from the Pasuk "v'Lakchu Ziknei ha'Ir ha'Hi" - since, having already mentioned "ha'Ir ha'Hi", it could otherwise have continued "v'Lakchu Zekeinehah Eglas Bakar".

12)

(a)Rebbi Eliezer says that if one finds a corpse exactly in between two towns, each one must bring an Eglah Arufah. This is based on the principle 'Efshar Letzamtem' - meaning in this case that it is possible for the two towns to be exactly the same distance [and is not a Safek]).

(b)In addition, he must interpret the Pasuk "ha'Ir ha'Kerovah El he'Chalal" - "Kerovah" 'va'Afilu Kerovos'. (If either of these factors is absent, the two towns will able to bring a joint Eglah and stipulate that whichever town is closer will be the owner).

(c)Our Mishnah rules that Yerushalayim cannot bring an Eglah Arufah. His source is the Pasuk "Lerishtah" - and Yerushalayim was not distributed to the tribes as an inheritance.

(d)According to Rebbi Eliezer, if a corpse is found in one spot and its head in another, one carries the head to the body and measures from there. Rebbi Akiva maintains the opposite.

1. The basis of their Machlokes is - whether it is the head that rolls away from the body (Rebbi Eliezer [as would happen if the person was still or walking slowly when he was decapitated]), or the body that is thrown a distance from the head (Rebbi Akiva [as would happen if he had been running]).

2. Its ramifications affect (not the Din of 'Eglah Arufah', but) - that of 'Mes Mitzvah', who must be buried at the exact spot where he is found.

13)

(a)According to Rebbi Eliezer, they would measure from the navel, according to Rebbi Akiva, from the nostrils. Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov says - from the neck (the place where he was slain).

(b)Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov's source is the Pasuk "Laseis Oscha El Tzavrei Chalelei Resha'im". The basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Akiva is - whether the main area of life is located in the nostrils or in the navel.

(c)This Machlokes seems to follow the Machlokes between the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, who holds that a baby's head is formed first, and Aba Shaul, who holds that it is his navel. We reconcile Aba Shaul with Rebbi Akiva however - by differentiating between the formation of the body and the point where the Soul leaves the body (which even Aba Shaul agrees is the nostrils) ...

(d)... as we learn from the Pasuk "Kol Asher Nishmas Ru'ach Chayim b'Apav".

14)

(a)The elders of the Beis-Din ha'Gadol, having performed their Mitzvah (of measuring) return to the Lishkas ha'Gazis. The local Beis-Din then bring the Eglah Arufah.

(b)The calf must have never drawn a yoke. It does not matter if it was blemished.

(c)It is then taken down to a hard valley (of virgin soil). It does not matter if the earth there is not hard.

(d)They kill it with a Kupitz (a large knife) from the back of its neck.

15)

(a)Even though working that valley is permanently prohibited, combing flax and chiseling stones is permitted - because it is not connected with the ground.

(b)The local Beis-Din announce 'Yadeinu Lo Shafchu Es ha'Dam ha'Zeh ... ' - prior to which they wash their hands.

(c)The Kohanim pray 'Kaper l'Amcha Yisrael Asher Padisa Hash-m ... '.

(d)And Hash-m declares (here in this Pasuk) 've'Nikaper la'Hem ha'Dam', meaning that if they follow the prescribed procedure, they will be absolved from the innocent blood that has been shed.