ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Sotah 45
If "Zekeinecha" implies two judges according to Rebbi Shimon, and
"ve'Shoftecha" another two according to Rebbi Yehudah, then "ve'Yatz'u" and
'u'Mad'du" should add another four judges (making seven according to the one
and nine according to the other). In fact, they both agree that "ve'Yatz'u"
comes to obligate the judges themselves to go to the scene of the murder and
not to send Sheluchim, and "u'Mad'du" - that measuring the nearest town is
obligatory, even if it is obvious which town is the closest.
(a) The author of our Mishnah (which obligates only the judges to
participate in the ceremony of Eglah Arufah) cannot be Rebbi Eliezer ben
Ya'akov. According to him - "ve'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'Va'sa el ha'Kohanim ...
ve'El ha'Shofet ... ").
(b) We have doubts whether Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov even agrees 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 a Beraisa, which speaks about a
Zakein Mamrei meeting the Sanhedrin in Bei Pagi - which is the area within
the precincts of Yerushalayim.
(d) The Tana there says that if a Zakein met the Sanhedrin in Bei Pagi and
rebelled against them there - he does not become a Zakein Mamrei, because
the Torah writes "ve'Kamta ve'Alisa el *ha'Makom* ... ", teaching us that
the location (of the Lishkas ha'Gazis) is vital to the Din of Zakein Mamrei.
(a) The Beraisa must be speaking when ...
1. ... the Zakein Mamrei encountered the entire Sanhedrin in Bei Pagi -
because otherwise, due to the fact that some of the remaining judges would
rule in his favor, he could not be declared a Zakein Mamrei anyway.
(b) 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
2. ... they left the Lishkas ha'Gazis for a D'var Mitzvah and not a D'var
Reshus - because otherwise, based on the Pasuk in Shir Hashirim "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.
(c) Despite Abaye's alternative interpretation of the Beraisa - Rav Yosef's
proof is accepted, because he has a Beraisa to support him.
(d) We have now proved - that Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov also requires the
entire Sanhedrin to participate in the ceremony of the Eglah Arufah.
(a) Rebbi Yehudah extrapolates from the Pasuk "ve'Shachachta Omer ba'Sadeh",
'P'rat le'Tamun' (conforming with the Tana of our Mishnah, which Darshens
"ba'Adamah", 'P'rat le'Tamun'. The Rabbanan Darshen - 'Lerabos es ha'Tamun'.
(b) Rav reconciles the Rabbanan with our Mishnah, by examining both
accompanying Pesukim ("Ki Yimatzei Chalal [ba'Adamah]" and "Ki Siktzor
Ketzircha be'Sadcha ve'Shachachta Omer [ba'Sadeh]") - "Ki Yimatzei Chalal"
implies wherever the corpse is found (even if it is hidden), and the Torah
writes "ba'Adamah" to preclude Tamun; whereas "Ki Siktzor Ketzircha
be'Sadcha ve'Shachachta Omer" implies that it is revealed (similar to
"Katzir"), in which case "ba'Sadeh" comes to include Tamun.
(a) When, explaining Rebbi Yehudah, Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Elazar learns
from "be'Sadcha ve'Shachachta", 'P'rat le'she'Tzafu Omrin le'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 Shikchah.
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
(b) The Rabbanan learn this from "be'Sadeh" "be'Sadcha" - which Rebbi
Yehudah does not consider a source for a D'rashah.
(c) Shikchah - is not applicable to sheaves that were blown into someone
else's field, because the Torah writes "be'Sadcha" (and not in someone
(d) This deters us from inferring from Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Elazar that
'Tzafu' would be considered Shikchah in one's own field - because if we were
to interpret 'Tzafu' as we have until now, then obvious inference that if
the sheaf was lying on the ground, it would be Shikchah, would be incorrect.
(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 Shikchah, but the top one is not. According to
Rebbi Shimon ben Rebbi Yehudah - neither sheaf is Shikchah, 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 Shikchah - that Tzaf even in one's own field, is not Shikchah.
(c) We refute this proof however - by ascribing the real reason that the top
sheaf is not Shikchah 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.
(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 ke'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 he, in his home-town
of Pumedisa, 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 one came
across one corpse on top of another. One might measure ...
1. ... just from the top one - if the fact that it is 'Min be'Mino' does not
prevent the Din of Tamun of taking affect, but does prevent Tzaf.
(d) A fourth possibility is - whether we will measure from both corpses,
because 'Min be'Mino prevents both Tamun and Tzaf from taking affect (only
it is already included in the first two She'eilos).
2. ... just from the bottom one - if 'Min be'Mino does not prevent Tzaf from
taking affect, but does prevent Tamun.
3. ... from neither corpse - if 'Min be'Mino' does not prevent either from
(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 is whether 'Min be'Mino Havi Tamun' (Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah) or
not (the Rabbanan).
(b) We refute this proposal however - to establish the Rabbanan like the
Rabbanan of Rebbi Yehudah ("be'Sadeh" 'Lerabos es ha'Tamun'), and Rebbi
Shimon ben Yehudah like Rebbi Yehudah ("be'Sadeh" 'P'rat le'Tamun').
(c) Even the Rabbanan will agree however - that according to Rebbi Yehudah
'Min be'Mino Havi 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.
(a) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa, explaining the Pasuk "Ki Yimatzei Chalal
ba'Adamah Nofeil ba'Sadeh" precludes Tamun be'Gal from "ba'Adamah", hanging
on a tree (even though he was killed by the sword) from "Nofeil", and
floating on the water from "ba'Sadeh". The two D'rashos that he makes from
"Chalal" are - "Chalal", 've'Lo Chanuk' (because Chalal implies death by a
(metal) sword, and "Chalal", 've'Lo Parpar' (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) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah asked Rebbi Elazar that, in view of the fact
that he Darshens "Chalal", why does he ignore the D'rashos 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
(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 can be expected 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 that one goes on to the next town
that does have a Beis-Din).
(d) We Darshen this from the Pasuk "ve'Lakchu Ziknei ha'Ir ha'Hi", because,
otherwise, having already mentioned "ha'Ir ha'Hi", it could have continued
"ve'Lakchu Zekeinehah Eglas Bakar".
(a) Rebbi Eliezer says that a corpse that one finds exactly in between two
towns - must each bring an Eglah Arufah. This is based on the principle
'Efshar Letzamtem' (it is possible for the two towns to be exactly the same
distance [and it is not a Safek]), which he must hold. In addition, he must
also hold that when the Torah writes "ha'Ir ha'Kerovah el he'Chalal", it
incorporates the plural ("Kerovah" 'va'Afilu Kerovos'). (If either of these
facts was absent, the two towns would be able to bring a joint Eglah and
stipulate that whichever town was closer would be its owner).
(b) The Tana of our Mishnah rules that Yerushalayim cannot bring an Eglah
Arufah. His source is the Pasuk "Lerishtah" - and he holds that Yerushalayim
was not distributed to the tribes as an inheritance.
(c) 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 was running]).
2. Its ramifications do not affect the realm of 'Eglah Arufah', but that of
'Meis Mitzvah', who must be buried at the exact spot where he is found.
(a) According to Rebbi Eliezer, they would measure from the navel, according
to Rebbi Akiva, from the nostrils. Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov says - from the
neck (the place where he was slain).
(b) Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov'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 chief area of life is 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
(d) We learn from the Pasuk "Kol Asher Nishmas Ru'ach Chayim be'Apav" - that
the Soul leaves the body via the nostrils.
(a) The elders of the Beis-Din ha'Gadol, having performed their Mitzvah (of
measuring) returned to the Lishkas ha'Gazis. The local Beis-Din then
brought the Eglah Arufah.
(b) The calf must have never drawn a yoke. It did not matter if it was
(c) It was taken down to a hard valley (of virgin soil). It did not matter
if the earth there was not hard.
(d) They killed it with a Kupitz (a large knife) from the back of its neck.
(a) Working that valley was permanently prohibited, yet combing flax and
cleaning stones was permitted - because it is not connected with the ground.
(b) The local Beis-Din would announce 'Yadeinu Lo Shafchu es ha'Dam ha'Zeh
... ' - prior to which they would wash their hands.
(c) The Kohanim would pray 'Kaper le'Amcha Yisrael Asher Padisa Hashem ...
(d) And Hashem declared (here in this Pasuk) 've'Nikaper Lahem ha'Dam',
meaning that if they followed the prescribed procedure, they would be
absolved from the innocent blood that had been shed.