Sotah

Our Mishnah is not in agreement with R. Eliezer b. Jacob; for it has been taught: R. Eliezer b. Jacob says: 'Thy elders' i.e., the Sanhedrin; 'thy judges' i.e., the king and High priest-the king, for it is written: The king by judgment establisheth the land;  and the High priest, for it is written: And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be etc.  The question was asked: Is R. Eliezer b. Jacob only at variance [in defining 'judges'] as the king and High priest, but as regards [the number of members of] the Sanhedrin does he agree with R. Judah or R. Simeon; or perhaps he is also at variance on that matter too and requires the whole of the Sanhedrin? — R. Joseph said: Come and hear: If they  found a rebellious elder  in Beth Pagi,  and he rebelled against them,  it is possible to think that his act of rebellion is punishable; therefore there is a text to State, Then shalt thou arise and get thee up unto the place.  This teaches that the 'place' determines [whether the act of rebellion is punishable]. Now how many of them had gone forth [from the Great Sanhedrin to Beth Pagi]? If I say that only a part of them had gone forth, perhaps they who remain behind are of the same opinion as the accused!  It is therefore evident that all must go forth. And for what purpose? If for a secular object, was it possible for them all to go? For behold it is written: Thy navel is like a round goblet, wherein no mingled wine is wanting,  so that should a member have need to go out [from the hall where the Sanhedrin was in session], he may only do so if twenty-three [of his colleagues] remain, corresponding to the number of a minor Sanhedrin, otherwise he may not leave! Obviously, then, [they had gone forth] for a religious object. For what object? Must it not be to measure in connection with the heifer, according to the opinion of R. Eliezer b. Jacob?  — Abaye said to [R. Joseph], No; [they may all go forth for such a purpose as] to add to the boundaries of the city [of Jerusalem] or the Temple-courts; as we have learnt: We do not add to the boundaries of the city [of Jerusalem] or the Temple-courts except by a Court of seventy-one.  There is a teaching in agreement with R. Joseph: If they  met in Beth Pagi, and [an elder] rebelled against them; e.g., they went forth to carry out a measurement in connection with the heifer, or to add to the boundaries of the city [of Jerusalem] or the Temple-courts,  it is possible to think that his act of rebellion is punishable; therefore there is a text to State, Then shalt thou arise and get thee up [etc.].  This teaches that the 'place' determines [whether the act of rebellion is punishable]. IF [THE CORPSE] WAS FOUND HIDDEN IN A HEAP OF STONES, OR HANGING ON A TREE. Is this to say that our Mishnah agrees with R. Judah and not the Rabbis? For it has been taught: And hast forgot a sheaf in the field  — this excludes [a sheaf] which was hidden; such is the statement of R. Judah, but the Sages declare that 'in the field' is to include a hidden sheaf!  — Rab said: You may even maintain that it agrees with the Rabbis since each case is to be explained in the light of its context. [In connection with the corpse] it is written: 'If one be found slain,' i.e., wherever it be found; 'in the earth', i.e., to the exclusion of one which is hidden. The other case [of the sheaf] is to be explained in the light of the context; for it is written: 'When thou reapest thine harvest in thy field and hast forgot a sheaf. There is an analogy between the forgotten sheaf and the harvesting: as the harvesting is visible to all so the forgotten sheaf must be visible to all;  and the fact that the All-Merciful wrote 'in the field' is to include a hidden sheaf. Then let R. Judah likewise draw an analogy between the forgotten sheaf and the harvesting!  — He actually does so; but [he argues], What is the purpose of 'in the field'? It is required to include standing-corn which is forgotten.  From where, then, do the Rabbis derive the regulation of standing-corn which is forgotten? — They derive it from, When thou reapest thine harvest in thy field [and hast forgot].  And [how does] R. Judah [explain this phrase]? — He requires it for the teaching of R. Abbahu in the name of R. Eleazar; for R. Abbahu said in the name of R. Eleazar: It excludes the case where sheaves were carried [by the wind] into his neighbours' field.  And [from where] do the Rabbis [derive this regulation]? — From the fact that Scripture has 'thy field' and not merely 'the field'. And [what of] R. Judah? — He draws no inference from 'thy field' as distinct from 'the field'. R. Jeremiah asked: How is it if sheaves were carried  into his own field? Is the air-space above a field identical with the field or not? — R. Kahana said to R. Papi another version is, R. Kahana said to R. Zebid, The problem is to be solved from the teaching of R. Abbahu who said in the name of R. Eleazar, 'It excludes the case where sheaves were carried [by the wind] into his neighbour's field,' implying, does it not, that only [when they are carried into] his neighbour's field they are [excluded], but [if the wind drops them] into his own field they are not!  But according to your reasoning, [it would follow that] if the sheaves were carried into his neighbour's field [and alighted upon a stone, etc.,] they are excluded, but should they lie [upon the ground] they are not;  surely we require [the sheaves to be] 'in thy field', but they are not there! Rather must they [argue thus:  'It excludes when the sheaves were] in his neighbour's field' even if actually lying upon the ground; and the expression 'carried' is only employed because this could have happened only if they were 'carried' [by the force of the wind]. Come and hear: If he laid hold of a sheaf to convey it into the city, placed it on top of another sheaf belonging to his neighbour and forgot it, the lower is considered to be a forgotten sheaf but not the upper. R. Simeon b. Judah says in the name of R. Simeon: Neither is a forgotten sheaf, the lower because it is hidden and the upper because it is suspended.  Hence they only differ as regards the lower, but with respect to the upper they all agree that it is not a hidden sheaf!  — It is different in this circumstance, because having taken hold of it he has the right to it. If that is so,  why use the argument 'placed it on top of another sheaf belonging to his neighbour'? It would have been the same if he had laid it upon the field [of his neighbour]! — That is so; but he used the illustration of 'on top of another sheaf belonging to his neighbour', because of the instance of the lower sheaf [about which there was a difference of opinion]. Why, then, should he use the phrase 'because it is suspended'!  — Read: because it is like something suspended. Abaye said: Behold I am like Ben Azzai in the streets of Tiberias.  So one of the Rabbis asked Abaye, If there were two corpses, one on top of the other,  from which is the measurement taken? [Do we argue that with] two things of the same kind [the lower] is regarded as hidden and with two things of the same kind [the upper] is not regarded as suspended, so that he takes the measurement from the upper; or perhaps with two things of the same kind [the upper] is regarded as suspended and with two things of the same kind [the lower] is not regarded as hidden, so that he takes the measurement from the lower; or perhaps with two things of the same kind [the lower] is regarded as hidden and with two things of the same kind [the upper] is regarded as suspended, so that he takes measurement neither from the lower nor the upper! — He replied to him,