תְּנִיתוּהָ: עוֹמֶר שֶׁהֶחֱזִיק בּוֹ לְהוֹלִיכוֹ לָעִיר, וְהִנִּיחוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי חֲבֵירוֹ וּשְׁכָחוֹ – הַתַּחְתּוֹן שִׁכְחָה, וְהָעֶלְיוֹן אֵינוֹ שִׁכְחָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: שְׁנֵיהֶן אֵינָן שִׁכְחָה, הַתַּחְתּוֹן – מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא טָמוּן; וְהָעֶלְיוֹן – מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא צָף. סַבְרוּהָ דְּהָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סְבִירָא לְהוּ, דְּאָמַר: ״בַּשָּׂדֶה״ – פְּרָט לְטָמוּן.

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

מַאי לָאו בְּהָא קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמָר סָבַר: מִין בְּמִינוֹ הָוֵי טָמוּן, וּמָר סָבַר: לָא הָוֵי טָמוּן!

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

לָא. אִי כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סְבִירָא לְהוּ – דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מִין בְּמִינוֹ הָוֵי טָמוּן. וְהָכָא בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבָּנַן קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּרַבָּנַן כְּרַבָּנַן, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

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.

אִי הָכִי, מַאי אִירְיָא עַל גַּבֵּי חֲבֵירוֹ? אֲפִילּוּ בְּעָפָר וּבִצְרוֹר נַמִי! אִין הָכִי נַמִי, וּלְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחוֹ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ מִין בְּמִינוֹ הָוֵי טָמוּן.

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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״חָלָל״ – וְלֹא חָנוּק, ״חָלָל״ – וְלֹא מְפַרְפֵּר, ״בָּאֲדָמָה״ – וְלֹא טָמוּן בְּגַל, ״נֹפֵל״ – וְלֹא תָּלוּי בְּאִילָן, ״בַּשָּׂדֶה״ – וְלֹא צָף עַל פְּנֵי הַמַּיִם. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: בְּכוּלָּן, אִם הָיָה חָלָל – עוֹרְפִין.

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

תַּנְיָא: אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר יְהוּדָה, אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אִי אַתָּה מוֹדֶה שֶׁאִם הָיָה חָנוּק וּמוּטָּל בָּאַשְׁפָּה שֶׁאֵין עוֹרְפִין? אַלְמָא ״חָלָל״ – וְלֹא חָנוּק; הָכָא נַמִי ״בָּאֲדָמָה״ – וְלֹא טָמוּן בְּגַל, ״נֹפֵל״ – וְלֹא תָּלוּי בְּאִילָן, ״בַּשָּׂדֶה״ – וְלֹא צָף עַל גַּבֵּי מַיִם. וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: ״חָלָל״ יְתֵירָא כְּתִיב.

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

״נִמְצָא סָמוּךְ לַסְּפָר אוֹ לְעִיר שֶׁרוּבָּהּ נָכְרִים״ כו'. דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי יִמָּצֵא״ – פְּרָט לְמָצוּי.

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

״אוֹ לְעִיר שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ בֵּית דִּין״. דְּבָעֵינָא ״זִקְנֵי הָעִיר״, וְלֵיכָּא. ״אֵין מוֹדְדִין אֶלָּא לְעִיר״ כו'. פְּשִׁיטָא, כֵּיוָן דְּתָנָא ״לְעִיר שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ בֵּית דִּין״, אֲנָא יָדַעְנָא דְּאֵין מוֹדְדִין אֶלָּא לְעִיר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ בֵּית דִּין!

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

הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן, כִּדְתַנְיָא: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם נִמְצָא סָמוּךְ לְעִיר שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ בֵּית דִּין, שֶׁמַּנִּיחִין אוֹתָהּ וּמוֹדְדִין לְעִיר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ בֵּית דִּין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְלָקְחוּ זִקְנֵי הָעִיר הַהִיא״, מִכָּל מָקוֹם.

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

מתני׳ נִמְצָא מְכוּוָּן בֵּין שְׁתֵּי עֲיָירוֹת – שְׁתֵּיהֶן מְבִיאוֹת שְׁתֵּי עֶגְלוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וְאֵין יְרוּשָׁלַיִם מְבִיאָה עֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה. נִמְצָא רֹאשׁוֹ בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד וְגוּפוֹ בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר – מוֹלִיכִין הָרֹאשׁ אֵצֶל הַגּוּף, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר; רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: הַגּוּף אֵצֶל הָרֹאשׁ. מֵאַיִן הָיוּ מוֹדְדִין? רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: מִטִּיבּוּרוֹ, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: מֵחוֹטְמוֹ. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁנַּעֲשֶׂה חָלָל, מִצַּוָּארוֹ.

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

גמ׳ מַאי טַעֲמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר? קָסָבַר: אֶפְשָׁר לְצַמְצֵם, וּ״קְרוֹבָה״ – וַאֲפִילּוּ קְרוֹבוֹת.

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

״וְאֵין יְרוּשָׁלַיִם מְבִיאָה עֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה״. דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״לְרִשְׁתָּהּ״, וְקָסָבַר: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם לֹא נִתְחַלְּקָה לִשְׁבָטִים.

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

״נִמְצָא רֹאשׁוֹ בְּמָקוֹם״ כו'. בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? אִילֵימָא לְעִנְיַן מְדִידָה קָמִיפַּלְגִי, הָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא ״מֵאַיִן הָיוּ מוֹדְדִין״, מִכְּלָל דְּרֵישָׁא לָא בִּמְדִידָה עָסְקִינַן! אֲמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: בְּמֵת מִצְוָה קָנָה מְקוֹמוֹ קָמִיפַּלְגִי,

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

וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: לְקוֹבְרוֹ קָנָה מְקוֹמוֹ. וְהֵיכָא דְּנִמְצָא רֹאשׁוֹ בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד וְגוּפוֹ בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר – מוֹלִיכִין הָרֹאשׁ אֵצֶל הַגּוּף, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר; רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: הַגּוּף אֵצֶל הָרֹאשׁ. בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? מָר סָבַר: גּוּפֵיהּ בְּדוּכְתֵּיהּ נָפֵיל, רֵישָׁא דְּנָאדֵי וְנָפֵיל; וּמָר סָבַר: רֵישָׁא הֵיכָא דְּנָפֵיל נָפֵיל, גּוּפָא הוּא דְּרָהֵיט אָזֵיל.

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.

״מֵאַיִן הָיוּ מוֹדְדִין?״ בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? מָר סָבַר: עִיקַּר חִיּוּתָא בְּאַפֵּיהּ, וּמָר סָבַר: עִיקַּר חִיּוּתָא בְּטִיבּוּרֵיהּ.

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

לֵימָא כִּי הָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי: מֵהֵיכָן הַוָּלָד נוֹצָר? מֵרֹאשׁוֹ. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״מִמְּעֵי אִמִּי אַתָּה גוֹזִי״, וְאוֹמֵר: ״גָּזִּי נִזְרֵךְ וְהַשְׁלִיכִי״ וגו'. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: מִטִּיבּוּרוֹ, וּמְשַׁלֵּחַ שָׁרְשׁוֹ אֵילָךְ!

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

אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא אַבָּא שָׁאוּל. עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן יְצִירָה, דְּכִי מִיתְּצַר וָלָד – מִמְּצִיעָתֵיהּ מִיתְּצַר, אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן חִיּוּתָא – דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא בְּאַפֵּיהּ הוּא, דִּכְתִיב: ״כֹּל אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁמַת רוּחַ חַיִּים בְּאַפָּיו״ וגו'.

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

״רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁנַּעֲשֶׂה חָלָל, מִצַּוָּארוֹ״. מַאי טַעֲמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב? כְּדִכְתִיב: ״לָתֵת אוֹתָךָ אֶל צַוְּארֵי חַלְלֵי רְשָׁעִים״.

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

מתני׳ נִפְטְרוּ זִקְנֵי יְרוּשָׁלַיִם וְהָלְכוּ לָהֶן. זִקְנֵי אוֹתָהּ הָעִיר מְבִיאִין עֶגְלַת בָּקָר אֲשֶׁר לֹא מָשְׁכָה בְּעוֹל. וְאֵין הַמּוּם פּוֹסֵל בָּהּ. וּמוֹרִידִין אוֹתָהּ לְנַחַל אֵיתָן. ״אֵיתָן״ כְּמַשְׁמָעוֹ – קָשֶׁה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ אֵיתָן – כָּשֵׁר. וְעוֹרְפִין אוֹתָהּ בְּקוֹפִיץ מֵאֲחוֹרֶיהָ; וּמְקוֹמָהּ אָסוּר מִלִּזְרוֹעַ וּמִלַּעֲבוֹד, וּמוּתָּר לִסְרוֹק שָׁם פִּשְׁתָּן וּלְנַקֵּר שָׁם אֲבָנִים.

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.

זִקְנֵי אוֹתָהּ הָעִיר רוֹחֲצִין אֶת יְדֵיהֶן בְּמַיִם בִּמְקוֹם עֲרִיפָה שֶׁל עֶגְלָה, וְאוֹמְרִים: ״יָדֵינוּ לֹא שָׁפְכוּ אֶת הַדָּם הַזֶּה וְעֵינֵינוּ לֹא רָאוּ״. וְכִי עַל דַּעְתֵּינוּ עָלְתָה שֶׁזִּקְנֵי בֵּית דִּין שׁוֹפְכֵי דָמִים הֵן? אֶלָּא, שֶׁלֹּא בָּא עַל יָדֵינוּ וּפְטַרְנוּהוּ (בְּלֹא מָזוֹן), וְלֹא רְאִינוּהוּ וְהִנַּחְנוּהוּ (בְּלֹא לְוָיָיה).

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