Komentarz do Sota 9:2

נמצא סמוך לספר – near the border of non-Jews

Introduction The first part of our mishnah teaches that corpses found in certain places do not require a heifer’s neck to be broken. The second section teaches that proximity of the corpse to certain cities also does not require the heifer’s neck to be broken. We should note that the fact that the rabbis were quite willing to limit the applicability of the neck-breaking ceremony demonstrates that they were far less concerned with blood atonement than Israelites were in ancient times. The need for blood atonement was prominent in biblical theology and law, and played less of a role in rabbinic thinking.

לא היו מודדים – they would not measure, as it is written (Deuteronomy 21:1): “someone slain is found [lying in the open],” excluding someone who brings himself that is nearby the border of the non-Jews as if he brought himself to death.

If [the corpse] was found buried underneath a heap of stones, or hanging on a tree, or floating on the surface of the water, they would not break [the heifer’s neck], as it says: “In the earth” and not buried underneath a heap of stones, nor hanging on a tree; “In a field” and not floating on the surface of the water. Deuteronomy 21:1 reads, “If a corpse is found slain on the land.” The rabbis read “on the land” to exclude corpses that are not found “on the land” but rather underneath a heap of stones or hanging in a tree. The continuation of the verse states “lying in the field”. From this phrase the mishnah excludes a corpse found floating on the surface of the water.

לעיר שאין בה ב"ד לא היו מודדין. אין מודדין אלא מעיר שיש בה ב"ד – this is what he said: if he is found near a city that lacks in it a Jewish court, we don’t measure it, but rather, [near to] a city that has a Jewish court close to it. What city that has a Jewish court near it? And if he did not repeat this teaching, I would think that we don’t measure at all, the inference teaches us (Deuteronomy 21:3): “The elders of the town [nearest the corpse] shall then take a [heifer which has never been worked, which has never pulled in a yoke],” anyמway, for this “the city” is an additional Biblical verse” for one could have written “and the city that is closest to the slain and its elders went out.”

If it was found near the border, or a city whose majority of inhabitants were Gentiles, or a city in which there is no court, they would not break [the heifer's neck]. They only measure the distance from a city in which there is a court. If [the corpse] was found exactly between two cities, both of them bring two heifers [between them], the words of Rabbi Eliezer; If the corpse was found near the border of the land of Israel, i.e. near enemy territory, or near a Gentile city (also considered to be enemies), a heifer was not brought. The Talmud explains that these places are considered dangerous and therefore, by going near there, the victim was not acting in a safe manner. Hence, if he is slain, assumedly by enemies, there is no communal guilt incurred by the Jewish city closest to the corpse. However, if the corpse was found near a city in which there is no court, they would still bring a heifer, and they would measure to the nearest city which does have a court. Since the Torah requires members of the court of the nearest city to go out and participate in the neck-breaking ceremony, the city which brings the heifer obviously must have a court. Rabbi Eliezer states that if the corpse is found exactly between two cities, both cities would bring a heifer and breaks its neck. In the Talmud a different opinion is brought, and that is that the two cities equidistant from the corpse share in bringing one heifer. Perhaps these two different opinions have different concepts of the neck-breaking ceremony. Rabbi Eliezer would claim that it is essential that each city which is closest must bring a heifer in order to cleanse its guilt. The responsibility is intended for the people of the city to bring a heifer, and since we don’t know which city is closest, both must bring. The other opinion would hold that the critical thing is that a heifer’s neck is broken in order to atone for the blood of the victim. The act must be fulfilled and the participation of the closest town matters less.

מכוון – squeezed in–confined, that it is not closer to this or fro that one, even as much as a thread’s length.

Jerusalem does not bring a heifer whose neck is to be broken. The abovementioned verse states, “If a corpse is found slain on the land which God is giving you to inherit”. Jerusalem was not given as an inheritance to any specific tribe. Rather, it belongs to all of Israel. Therefore, it is excluded from the laws of this verse. If a corpse is found closest to Jerusalem, a heifer’s neck is not broken.

מביאות שתי עגלות דברי ר"א – but the Halakha is not like this, but rather, both bring one heifer jointly . And we state this in the Gemara in [Tractate] Bekhorot [18a).

אין ירושלם מביאה עגלה ערופה – as it is written (Deuteronomy 21:1): “in the land that the LORD your God is assigning you [as a possession) to possess,” excluding Jerusalem that was not allotted to the tribes.