כו א"ל
26 — 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;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the reaper merely overlooked it. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> 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!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not maintain that it is excluded. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> — 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he forgot to cut down a portion of the corn, this remains for the poor. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> 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].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They connect 'forgot' with 'thy field', so that the forgetting applies also to corn standing in the field. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And thinking that they were not his, he left them. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> 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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Some texts read 'afu (flew) instead of zafu. The question relates to the circumstance where the sheaves did not fall upon the field but upon a stone or something similar, so that they were suspended above the field. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> 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!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consequently so long as the sheaves are in his own field, they come within the law of the forgotten sheaf. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> 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;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And come within the law of the forgotten sheaf. ');"><sup>29</sup></span> surely we require [the sheaves to be] 'in thy field', but they are not there! Rather must they [argue thus:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With reference to the teaching of R. Abbabu. ');"><sup>30</sup></span> '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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not lying upon the ground. ');"><sup>31</sup></span> Hence they only differ as regards the lower, but with respect to the upper they all agree that it is not a hidden sheaf!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This conclusion would therefore answer R. Jeremiah's question. ');"><sup>32</sup></span> — It is different in this circumstance, because having taken hold of it he has the right to it. If that is so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That his having taken hold of it precludes it from being regarded as a forgotten sheaf. ');"><sup>33</sup></span> 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'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it was irrelevant to the issue. ');"><sup>34</sup></span> — Read: because it is like something suspended.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is exempt from the law of the forgotten sheaf because, having been in the owner's hand, it is like something suspended and not lying upon the ground. ');"><sup>35</sup></span> Abaye said: Behold I am like Ben Azzai in the streets of Tiberias.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in his own town of Pumbeditha he felt as competent to solve difficult problems as did Ben Azzai in his city of Tiberias. ');"><sup>36</sup></span> So one of the Rabbis asked Abaye, If there were two corpses, one on top of the other,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The top one is not fully over the other, so that if the measurements are taken from the two, a different city would be the nearest in each case. ');"><sup>37</sup></span> 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,