(Mishnah): (After measuring), the judges of Yerushalayim go away. The elders of that (the nearest) city bring a calf that no one worked with it, and it did not pull with a yoke.

A Mum (blemish) does not disqualify it.

They take it down to a Nachal that is Eisan. Eisan means hard. Even if it is not hard, it is Kosher. (RASHI - Nachal is a valley. RAMBAM - it is a river; below, we discuss seeding the banks.)

They behead it with a chopping knife from the back. One may not seed or work the place. One may comb flax there or quarry rocks.

(Gemara): "Asher Lo Uvad Bah" is intended [work]; "Asher Lo Mashchah b'Ol" is intended or unintended.

R. Yonah explains this Beraisa - "Asher Lo Uvad Bah" is intended. "Asher Lo Mashchah b'Ol" is intended or unintended, if it pulled. (If it did not pull, even if a yoke was intentionally put on, it is Kosher.)

R. Yosi explains the Beraisa - [if a yoke was put on it] intentionally, even if it did not pull. [If a yoke was put on it] unintentionally, [it is Pasul only] if it pulled.

R. Yonah holds like R. Yishmael, and R. Yosi holds like Rabanan;

R. Yonah holds like R. Yishmael, for R. Yishmael says, anything that was in a Klal, and left the Klal to teach a new matter, you cannot return it to its Klal, unless the verse explicitly returns it. Therefore, he needs to say that "Asher Lo Uvad Bah" (the Klal of Melachah) is intentionally. "Asher Lo Mashchah b'Ol" (which left the Klal) is intended or unintended, but only if it pulled.

R. Yosi holds like Rabanan, for Rabanan say, anything that was in a Klal, [it is still in its Klal, and] it is in its Chidush. Therefore, he needs to say that [if the yoke was put] intentionally, (this disqualifies like the Klal of Melachah) even if it did not pull. [If it was put] unintentionally, only if it pulled (the Chidush).

Question: How much must it pull?

Answer #1 (Rebbi): [It must pull] its full length (i.e. of the yoke).

Note: Answer #3 explicitly says 'the full width of the yoke.' Here it says only its full length. This suggests that it is the calf's full length. Presumably, KORBAN HA'EDAH and PNEI MOSHE explain the yoke's full length because it says 'ki'Melo'o' (masculine). However, the entire Sugya says 'Mashach' and 'Yimshoch' (masculine), except when citing the verse "Asher Lo Mashchah b'Ol"! This requires investigation. (PF)

Answer #2 (R. Yosi bei Rebbi Yehudah): Three fingers.

Answer #3 (R. Simon citing R. Yosi ben Nehurai): [It must pull] the full width of the yoke.

Question (R. Bun bar Chiyah, to R. Ze'ira): "Asher Lo Uvad Bah" is a Klal. "Asher Lo Mashchah b'Ol" is a Prat. When there is a Klal u'Ferat, the Klal only has the Prat (only a yoke should disqualify)!

Answer (R. Ze'ira): Had it written 'Asher Lo Uvdah va'Asher Lo Mashchah', you would be correct. However, it says rather "Asher Lo Uvad Bah" - this is not a Klal u'Ferat, rather, inclusions, and we learn from a Gezeirah Shavah "Ol-Ol";

Just like Ol said about Eglah, all other labors [disqualify] like a yoke, also Ol said regarding Parah [Adumah], all other labors are like a yoke;

Just like Ol said about Eglah, a yoke disqualifies it whether it was intended or unintended, also Ol said regarding Parah, a yoke disqualifies it whether it was intended or unintended.

Just like Ol said about Parah, a yoke disqualifies it [even without pulling], also Ol said regarding Eglah, a yoke disqualifies it [even without pulling. We explained this like NACHAL EISAN.]

Suggestion: Just like Ol said about Parah, blemishes disqualify it, also Ol said regarding Eglah, blemishes disqualify it!

Rejection: "Asher Ein Bah Mum" - blemishes disqualify [it, i.e.] Parah, but blemishes do not disqualify Eglah.

Suggestion: [You should likewise] say "Asher Lo Uvad Bah" - in it (Eglah), labor disqualifies, but labor does not disqualify Parah!

Rejection: Here, "Asher Lo Uvad Bah" - in it (Eglah), labor disqualifies, but labor does not disqualify Kodshim.

Rhetorical question: Can you say there "Asher Ein Bah Mum" - blemishes disqualify [it, i.e.] Parah, but blemishes do not disqualify Kodshim?! (Surely you cannot, for it says about all Kodshim "Temimim." Therefore, we must say that "Bah" excludes Eglah.)

Question: Does Mechusar Ever (a missing limb) disqualify [Eglah]?

Answer: (Surely it does!) Even Korbanos of Bnei Noach (which may have a Mum) are not [Kosher b'Mechusar Ever]!

Did not R. Yosa say that R. Lazar explained to Talmidim "umi'Kol ha'Chai mi'Kol Basar" - [Noach took animals] complete in their limbs [so he could offer Korbanos from them afterwards].

Objection: There, they are put on a Mizbe'ach. Here (Eglah), no part goes on a Mizbe'ach (so perhaps even Mechusar Ever is Kosher)!

Defense (R. Chunah citing R. Yirmeyah): Since you say that Kaparah is written about [Eglah] like [it is written about] Kodshim, it is as if part goes on a Mizbe'ach.

Question: Does Tereifah disqualify [Eglah]?

Answer: Since you say that [it is as if] part goes on a Mizbe'ach, Mechusar Ever disqualifies it, it is clear to you that Tereifah disqualifies it.

Question: If the foot was round like that of a donkey, what is the law - is it like Mechusar Ever, or like a Ba'al Mum? If you will say that it is like Mechusar Ever, it is Pasul. If you will say that it is like a Ba'al Mum, it is Kosher.

Question: Is its [Eglah's] blood Machshir (enable food to be Mekabel Tum'ah? Dam Kodshim is not Machshir, for "Al ha'Aretz Tishpechenu ka'Mayim" does not apply to it. Eglah Arufah is equated to Kodshim. Or, since its blood is spilled on the ground, it is Machshir!)

Answer: Since R. Chiyah taught that its blood is Tamei (it is not equated to Kodshim for this, for Dam Kodshim is Tahor), this teaches that its blood is Machshir (PNEI MOSHE).

Question (an elder, to Rabanan of Kisarin): Does beheading it Metaher its Tereifah from its Tum'ah (Neveilah? It is called Tereifah because its neck is broken. Alternatively, the text should not say 'Tereifasah'.)

Answer (Rabanan of Kisarin): Do we not learn this from a Mishnah (Chulin 5:3)? If one slaughtered [an animal] and if it was found to be Tereifah [or Eglah Arufah... Chachamim obligate for Oso v'Es Beno. This shows that Arifah is like Shechitah; it is Metaher.]

Question (the elder): I asked you about beheading, and you bring an answer from Shechitah?! (That Mishnah discusses Shechitah of an Eglah Arufah!)

Answer (Rabanan of Kisarin): Did not R. Yanai not say that R. Meir holds that even Arifah, one is liable [for Oso v'Es Beno, for it is like Shechitah]?!

Question (the elder): Do you answer me from R. Yanai's teaching?! (I say that the Mishnah discusses only Shechitah. We explained this like SEFER NIR.)

"Eisan" is like it connotes, hard - "Eisan Moshavecha v'Sim ba'Sela Kinecha."

Even if it is not Eisan, it is Kosher.

Question: Do we say, even if it is not a Nachal, it is Kosher?

Answer (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Yochai): [It could have said] 'Horidu'. Rather, it says "v'Horidu" - even if it is not a Nachal.

Rebuttal: This teaching of R. Shimon ben Yochai depends on differing [texts] here and there (about the argument of Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel about shaving a Nazir without hair, i.e. must the verse be fulfilled like it says);

(R. Yochanan): All these teachings of R. Shimon ben Yochai [in which he does not require like the verse says, e.g. here, a murdered body found standing on his bed, and putting Dam Asham on a Metzora without a right thumb] depend on texts and texts. They are an individual's opinion; we do not rely on them. (We explained this like NO'AM YERUSHALMI Yevamos 12:2. R. Yochanan holds that the Rabim require like the verse says; if it is not a Nachal, it is Pasul. - PF)

Question: Must one be Oref [cut] two (both Simanim, i.e. the foodpipe and windpipe), or the majority of two, like in Shechitah?

Answer: We learn from the following. R. Ze'ira citing Rav Yehudah citing Shmuel said, up to the place of the neck that is Kosher for Shechitah, opposite (on the other side of the neck) the Oref is Kosher for Melikah, and similarly here.

Note: Perhaps this means that since we learn Eglah Arufah from Chatas ha'Of (about which it says "mi'Mul Arpo"), for which one Siman suffices, the same applies here. (PF) KORBAN HA'EDAH says oppositely, but his words are mistaken (NO'AM YERUSHALMI, NACHAL EISAN).

(Mishnah): One can plow one furrow, and be liable for it due to eight Lavim.

Question (R. Hoshayah): Let it teach that he is liable for plowing in the place where an Eglah was beheaded, and there are nine [Lavim]!

Answer (Talmidim, in front of R. Yosi): [That Mishnah] is like the one who says that [the Torah is adamant about] the past (that it was not worked. Bavli 46b brings an argument about this.)

Rejection (R. Yosi): The one who says [that the Torah was adamant about the past], all the more so for the future! (We explained this like SHA'AREI TORAS ERETZ YISRAEL. TOSFOS (Makos 22a) says that the Mishnah could have counted also this and other Lavim.)

The place of Gitah (where Arifah was done) and Tefisasah (where it died), they are forbidden.

Question: How much is Tefisasah?

Answer #1: It is 40 Amos.

Answer #2 (Rebbi): I say that Tefisasah is 50 Amos.

Question (R. Shmuel brei d'R. Yosi bei R. Bun): "Asher Lo Ye'aved Bo" is a Klal. "V'Lo Yizare'a" is a Prat. When there is a Klal u'Ferat, the Klal only has what is in the Prat! (What is the source for other Avodos?)

Answer: Had it said 'Asher Lo Ye'aved Bo Asher Lo Yizare'a', this would be proper. However, it is written only "Asher Lo Ye'aved Bo [v'Lo Yizare'a]";

Note: The name of the one who answered was omitted. It cannot be Rebbi (the last Chacham mentioned), for R. Shmuel brei d'R. Yosi bei R. Bun was a sixth generation Amora, long after Rebbi.

This is like R. Ze'ira said - this is not a Klal u'Ferat, rather, inclusions (v'Lo Yizare'a forbids the future).

(Mishnah): The elders of that city wash their hands in water where the calf was beheaded. They say "Yadeinu Lo Shafchu Es ha'Dam ha'Zeh..."

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

Answer: Rather, they mean, 'he did not come to our hands, and we exempted him; we did not see him and leave him.'

The Kohanim say "Kaper l'Amcha Yisrael Asher Padisa Hash-m." They need not say "v'Nechaper Lahem ha'Dam", rather, Ru'ach ha'Kodesh informs them 'when you do so, the blood is atoned for you.'

If the murderer was found before beheading the calf, the calf may graze with the herd (i.e. it is totally permitted);

[If he was found] after Arifah, it is buried in its place, for it is brought amidst Safek from the beginning. It atoned for its Safek, and went.

If the murderer is found after beheading the calf, he is killed.

(Gemara): Rabanan here (in Eretz Yisrael) explain the verse to discuss the murderer. Rabanan there (in Bavel) explain the verse to discuss the victim.

Rabanan here explain the verse to discuss the murderer. He did not come to our hands, and we exempted him and did not kill him. We did not see him, and left him and we were lazy and did not clarify his law.

Rabanan there explain the verse to discuss the victim. He did not come to our hands, and we exempted him without escort. We did not see him, and left him without food.

The elders wash their hands in water at the place of Arifas ha'Eglah, and say "Yadeinu Lo Shafchu Es ha'Dam ha'Zeh..." The Kohanim say "Kaper l'Amcha Yisrael", and Ru'ach ha'Kodesh says "v'Nechaper Lahem ha'Dam."

Three recitals were said about [this] one matter - what this one says, this one does not say, and what this one says, this one does not say (i.e. each of three different parties says one).

Similarly - "va'Tomer Haker Na l'Mi ha'Chosemes veha'Pesilim veha'Mateh ha'Eleh" - until here, Tamar spoke. "Va'Yaker Yehudah va'Yomer Tzadkah Mimeni Ki Al Ken No Nesatiha l'Shelah Veni" - until here, Yehudah spoke, and Ru'ach ha'Kodesh said "v'Lo Yasaf Od Ledatah." (YEFE MAR'EH asks, regarding Eglah Arufah, the verses connote that the elders say everything; it is a Chidush that three parties say them. However, here and below, it is clear from the verses that three parties say them!)

Three recitals were said about one matter - what this one says, this one does not say, and what this one says, this one does not say.

Similarly - "va'Ysapru Lo va'Yomeru Banu El ha'Aretz Asher Shelachtanu v'Gam Zavas Chalav u'Devash Hi v'Zeh Piryah" - until here, Yehoshua spoke. "Efes Ki Az ha'Am haYoshev ba'Aretz vehe'Arim Betzuros Gedolos Me'od v'Gam Yelidei ha'Anak Ra'inu Sham" - until here, the [evil] Meraglim spoke. "Va'Yahas Kalev Es ha'Am El Moshe va'Yomer Alo Na'aleh v'Yarashnu Osah Ki Yachol Nuchal Lah" - until here, Kalev spoke.

Three recitals were said about one matter - what this one says, this one does not say, and what this one says, this one does not say.

Similarly - "b'Ad ha'Chalon Nishkefah va'Teyabev Em Sisera..." - until here (i.e. the words that follow this), Sisera's mother spoke. "Chachamos Saroseaha Ta'anenah...; Ha'Lo Yimtze'u Yechaleku Shalal" - his daughter-in-laws said this. (YEFE MAR'EH - they are the Chachamos.) Ru'ach ha'Kodesh says "Ken Yovdu Kol Oivecha Hash-m."

(R. Pinchas): [Eglah Arufah] is proper for atone for [the Aveiros of Yisrael] from [the time of] Yetzi'as Mitzrayim. ("Kaper l'Amcha Yisrael Asher Padisa" hints to from when You redeemed them, i.e. from Mitzrayim.)

(R. Yanai): R. Meir holds that even if he did Arifah, he is liable [for Oso v'Es Beno, for it is like Shechitah].

(R. Yakov bar Acha citing R. Ami citing Reish Lakish): Even according to R. Meir, if he did Arifah, he is exempt.

(R. Yanai): I heard that there is a limit from when [Eglah Arufah] is forbidden. "V'Horidu" - from the time it is taken down [to the Nachal].

(R. Ila): This exempts [one who slaughters it] due to Oso v'Es Beno, like R. Shimon [who says that an improper Shechitah is not considered Shechitah].

(R. Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak): While it is alive, it is Kadosh.

Support (Mishnah): [If the murderer was found before Arifah,] it goes out and grazes with the herd. What does it mean [it goes out]? It leaves its Kedushah.

(R. Matanya): [Our Mishnah] properly says [that if the murderer is found after Arifah, he is killed]. What is written? "V'Nechaper Lahem ha'Dam" - [the Torah should have] been silent (ended here)! Rather, even so (after Arifah), "v'Atah Teva'er ha'Dam ha'Naki mi'Kirbecha."