Distinction: However, if it is known that it is a Yisrael, in every case it has Tefusah (if one moves it, he must take with it the dirt under it).

Question #1: What is the Chidush? Would we think that lying normally causes the law of Tefusah, since it is known that it is a Yisrael?!

Question #2: This is unlike [the other exclusions, i.e.] "Mes", to exclude murdered, and "lying", to exclude sitting, and "normally", to exclude its head resting between its thighs!

Explanation #3: Rather, it excludes Matzuy, i.e. it excludes known;

This does not like "known" that it says there, one that was known and two were found now, for that means known that he was buried there, but not that it is known that it was buried for the sake of [permanent] burial there;

Rather, this "to exclude Matzuy" means that it is known that he was buried for the sake of [permanent] burial there. [In such a case], the law of a burial site applies (if there are three), and one may not move it from there, even if it is a lone grave.

Source - Citation (Sanhedrin 47b - Beraisa): One may not move a known grave. If one moved it, its place is Asur b'Hana'ah. The Rashba and Ri in Nazir explained so.

Reference: It says in Nazir that we require three known or three found only now. Rashi said that this is a tradition.

Rebuttal (Ri): We cannot say that it is a tradition, for this has a reason;

When there are two that were not known and one that was known, we should not say that since there were two others, he was buried there for the sake of [permanent] burial, for when he was buried there, those two were not known. The same applies to two known and one found now.

However, if all three were known, or all not known, presumably they were placed there for the sake of burial.

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): This Tana holds that the interior of the cave is four Amos by eight, and he also holds that three Mesim are buried in the wall of the cave that is only four Amos [long].

Question #1 (Ri): Below, we infer "who is this? If it is R. Shimon... if it is Rabanan... We should have inferred that it is not like either, for there is not between burial cavities the Shi'ur in our Mishnah, i.e. an Amah in between according to everyone!

Answer: We could say that our Mishnah is like R. Shimon ben Gamliel, who says that [the spacing] varies according to the rock.

Question #2 (Ri): This Mishnah of one who takes out a Mes is also in Ohalos (16:3), and it teaches also in the Seifa "one who checks, he checks an Amah and leaves an Amah";

If this Tana holds that there are only two Tefachim between one cavity and another, why does he leave an Amah?

Disclaimer: Even without this, we must give a reason for the Tosefta in Ohalos (16:6). There is an opinion that according to Beis Hillel, he checks an Amah and leaves two. Why does he leave two, since there is only an Amah between one cavity and another!

Question #3: However, surely it is difficult for the Rashbam, that below R. Shimon says that we view the middle ones as if they were not, and the others join from four Amos until eight;

How do they join for the Shi'ur of four Amos if we view the middle ones as if they were not? If so, there is [at least] an Amah between one cavity and another [the width of the Mes we ignore], and there should be only two Tefachim, since all three are in four Amos!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): These three taught here, two of them are from the width of the cave, and one is from the length;

There is an Amah between one cavity and another, like the Shi'ur of our Mishnah. Four Amos are for the two on the width, two Amos [for the coffins] and an Amah in between - this is three Amos - and the third is found at the end of the fourth Amah - half an Amah from the width of the cave, and half an Amah from its length in the corner;

Support: Now it is fine that when he found them truly consecutively (without any space in between), we view the middle ones as if they were not, and there is only one Amah between one cavity and another.

Explanation: They normally used to leave the side of the feet towards the [interior of] the cave. We discuss when he found the head towards the cave and the feet opposite to the other side;

Note: Tosfos discusses another Mes found within 20 Amos of the first three. He explains why we must check another 20 Amos from it.

We should say that [this last Mes] is from another cave, therefore he checks 20 Amos from it.

Question #1: The words are very difficult. They connote that because we established like R. Shimon, we ask, and afterwards we ask "who taught this? Whether like R. Shimon or Rabanan, it is not like any Tana!"

Question #2: We could have asked from [the Beraisa] itself. Since it teaches that the cave is eight long, [why does he check] 20? [The amount he must check] is 22!

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): The diagonal of [a rectangle] four by six is two Amos [more than the longer side, i.e. eight], like the diagonal of [a square] five by five.

Rejection #1: In [a rectangle] four by six, put a string on the diagonal of [a square] four by four (like in the picture in Tosfos). It is four Amos and eight fifths of an Amah;

[If we want to extend the string to the end of the diagonal of the rectangle four by six,] there remains below a side of two. In all, the long string (that measures the diagonal we discuss) is seven Amos and three fifths of an Amah (this is the 4 and 8/5 mentioned above, and another 2).

All the more so, if the string will go straight on the diagonal [of the rectangle] four by six, it will be less [than seven and three fifths, so it cannot be eight]!

Rejection #2: You are forced to say that the diagonal of [a square] five by five is greater [than the diagonal of a rectangle four by six], for the area of a square five by five is 25, and the area of a rectangle four by six is 24.

Note: I do not understand this. According to this reasoning, the diagonal of a rectangle nine by one should be even smaller, for its area is even smaller (it is only nine). Surely, the diagonal is more than the longer side, which is nine! Indeed, for rectangles of a given perimeter, geometry shows that the square has the greatest area and the shortest diagonal!

Suggestion: We are concerned to check the other cave only until 20 Amos, for [Chachamim] were not stringent to check so much, only for a cave of Nefilim.

Rejection: We ask afterwards "since this of Nefilim, also these are Nefilim!"

Inference: [Hacha... bi'Nefili means that] the one found, we establish it for Nefilim! (However, we check the other cave for regular Mesim.)

Question: It teaches "from four Amos until eight", and a cave of Nefilim is only six! (We should require the three to be within six amos!)

Answer: We must say that even though the Reisha discusses only adults, in any case this that was taught "he checks from it and onwards 20" discusses Nefalim. It does not refer to the Reisha.

Explanation: It mentions "earth" for a bigger Chidush. Even so, [cavities or rocks] less than 10 Tefachim are measured with it;

This is unlike the Rashbam, who explained that if he did not say "earth", rather, "Beis Kor" Stam, even if it is totally rocks, the sale stands.

Version #1 (Rashbam): The text does not say "in the Yovel year", for in the Yovel year itself, Rav and Shmuel argue in Erchin (24a, about whether or not it gets Kedushah)

Version #2: However, in most Seforim the text says there in the Mishnah "in the Yovel year."

Explanation: "In the Yovel year" can properly mean the year after Yovel, and not literally the 50th year, since it did not say "in the Yovel year itself", like it says in the argument of Rav and Shmuel.

Implied question: It says "in the Yovel year, the field will return..." You are forced to say that there it is the Yovel year itself (even though the verse does not say "itself")!

Answer: We can distinguish. The wording of the Torah is different. The verse does not normally write "itself".

Support: Also there, Rav learns from the fact that it says "v'Im mi'Shenas ha'Yovel', and the Yovel year is included, and Shmuel challenges him "it is not written mi'Shenas ha'Yovel"!