Accompaniment, and a Shorter Mishnah
The Mishnah at the bottom of Sotah 45b reads:
זִקְנֵי אוֹתָהּ הָעִיר רוֹחֲצִין אֶת יְדֵיהֶן בַּמַּיִם בִּמְקוֹם עֲרִיפָה שֶׁל עֶגְלָה, וְאוֹמְרִים ״יָדֵינוּ לֹא שָׁפְכוּ אֶת הַדָּם הַזֶּה וְעֵינֵינוּ לֹא רָאוּ״. וְכִי עַל דַּעְתֵּינוּ עָלְתָה שֶׁזִּקְנֵי בֵּית דִּין שׁוֹפְכֵי דָּמִים הֵן? אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא בָּא עַל יָדֵינוּ וּפְטַרְנוּהוּ (בְּלֹא מָזוֹן), וְלֹא רְאִינוּהוּ וְהִנַּחְנוּהוּ (בְּלֹא לְוָיָיה).
The Elders of that city would then wash their hands in water in the place of the breaking of the neck of the heifer, and they would recite: “Our hands did not spill this blood, nor did our eyes see” (Deuteronomy 21:7). The mishna explains: But did it enter our minds that the Elders of the court are spillers of blood, that they must make such a declaration? Rather, they mean to declare that the victim did not come to us and then we let him take his leave without food, and we did not see him and then leave him alone to depart without accompaniment. They therefore attest that they took care of all his needs and are not responsible for his death even indirectly.
The parentheses surrounding בְּלֹא מָזוֹן and בְּלֹא לְוָיָיה already indicate that we know they shouldn’t be there.
In the Vilna Shas, see the parentheses and the marginal note:
It states: “In the Yerushalmi and in Ein Yaakov they aren’t gores this. And so too it is in Rashi here. And see Tosafot Yom Tov.”
How do we see this from Rashi?
לא בא לידינו ופטרנוהו - בגמ' מפרש בלא מזונות והיינו ידינו לא שפכו לא נהרג על ידינו שפטרנוהו בלא מזונות והוצרך ללסטם את הבריות ועל כך נהרג:
לא ראינוהו והנחנוהו - יחידי בלא חבורה והיינו ועינינו לא ראו:
Rashi explains how the gemara (specifically in a brayta) they explain it, and cites that explanation. So too, he explains the next phrase. He must not have had that text in his Mishnah.
In the Bomberg Venice printing, it has both phrases in the Mishnah:
The stand-alone Mishnah on Sefaria has these phrases:
However, the Mishnah in the Yerushalmi lacks them:
What about Talmudic manuscripts? Well, the Munich 95 manuscript also lacks it:
and also lacks the final והנחנוהו.
So too Vatican 110:
and so too Regensburg:
One manuscript may show what happened. In Oxford 2675, we have:
We have the Mishnah, and we have the phrases בְּלֹא מָזוֹן and בְּלֹא לְוָיָיה which I have underlined in red. But above each of these phrases it says פירוש, to explain.
Further, from both Bavli and Yerushalmi we can see that the phrases probably shouldn’t exist in the Mishnah. In Yerushalmi, we have the following:
הלכה: רַבָּנִין דְּהָכָא פָּֽתְרִין קִרְייָה בָּהוֹרֵג. וְרַבָּנִין דְּתַמָּן פָּֽתְרִין קִרְייָה בַּנֶּהֱרַג. רַבָּנִין דְּהָכָא פָּֽתְרִין קִרְייָה בָּהוֹרֵג. שֶׁלֹּא בָא עַל יָדֵינוּ וּפֻטַרְנוּהוּ. וְלֹא הָרַגְנוּהוּ. וְלֹא רְאִינוּהוּ וְהִנַּחְנוּהוּ. וְעִימְעַמְנוּ עַל דִּינוֹ. וְרַבָּנִין דְּתַמָּן פָּֽתְרִין קִרְייָה בַּנֶּהֱרַג. לֹא בָא עַל יָדֵינוּ וּפְטַרְנוּהוּ. בְּלֹא הַלְוָייָה. וְלֹא רְאִינוּהוּ וְהִנַּחְנוּהוּ. בְּלֹא פַרְנָסָה.
HALAKHAH: The rabbis here explain the verse about the murderer, the rabbis there explain the verse about the murder victim. The rabbis here explain the verse about the murderer, "he did not come to our attention and we sent him away," and did not execute him; "or that we did not see him and left him," and muddled his trial. But the rabbis there explain the verse about the murder victim, "he did not come to our attention and we sent him away," without company; "or that we did not see him and left him," without provisions.
That is, they consider it a dispute between rabbis of Israel and Bavel. In Israel, they expand on וּפֻטַרְנוּהוּ to mean “and we didn’t refrain from executing the perpetrator of this murderer”, and וְהִנַּחְנוּהוּ to mean “we didn’t mess up the perpetrator’s murder trial”. Meanwhile, in the Bavli they interpret it to pertain to the victim, that we didn’t refrain from doing our part to help him.
This only works if the Mishnah itself is ambiguous.
So too, the Bavli cites a brayta, whose sole function seems to be too fill in the Mishnah’s ambiguity. Thus, on Sotah 46b:
זִקְנֵי הָעִיר רוֹחֲצִין יְדֵיהֶן כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְכׇל זִקְנֵי הָעִיר הָהִיא הַקְּרֹבִים אֶל הֶחָלָל יִרְחֲצוּ אֶת יְדֵיהֶם עַל הָעֶגְלָה הָעֲרוּפָה בַנָּחַל״. שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״הָעֲרוּפָה״, וּמָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״הָעֲרוּפָה״ — עַל מְקוֹם עֲרִיפָתָהּ שֶׁל עֶגְלָה.
§ The mishna taught that the Elders of the city would then wash their hands. The Sages taught: With regard to the verse: “And all the Elders of that city, who are nearest to the slain man, shall wash their hands over the heifer whose neck was broken in the valley” (Deuteronomy 21:6), one might have thought that there is no need for the verse to state: “Whose neck was broken,” because there is no heifer mentioned other than the one whose neck was broken. And what is the meaning when the verse states: “Whose neck was broken”? It serves to teach us that they wash their hands over the place where the heifer’s neck was broken.
״וְאָמְרוּ יָדֵינוּ לֹא שָׁפְכוּ אֶת הַדָּם הַזֶּה וְעֵינֵינוּ לֹא רָאוּ״, וְכִי עַל לִבֵּנוּ עָלְתָה שֶׁבֵּית דִּין שׁוֹפְכִין דָּמִים?! אֶלָּא: לֹא בָּא לְיָדֵינוּ וּפְטַרְנוּהוּ בְּלֹא מְזוֹנוֹת, וְלֹא רְאִינוּהוּ וְהִנַּחְנוּהוּ בְּלֹא לְוָיָה.
The verse further states: “And they shall say: Our hands did not spill this blood, nor did our eyes see” (Deuteronomy 21:7). The mishna explains: But did it enter our minds that the Elders of the court are spillers of blood, that they must make such a declaration? Rather, they mean to declare: The victim did not come to us and then we let him take his leave without food, and we did not see him and then leave him alone to depart without accompaniment. They therefore attest that they took care of all his needs and are not responsible for his death even indirectly.
This must be a Babylonian interpretation which the Yerushalmi had mentioned, appearing as it does in our Bavli.