In light of the Kashya from the Beraisa of Rebbi Yashiyah and Rebbi Yonasan, Rav Masna establishes the meaning of 'Sheivet' in our Mishnah ('Ein Danin es ha'Sheivet ...' [not literally as 'tribe', but]) as the 'Nasi of the tribe', who now requires the Sanhedrin ha'Gadol to judge him ...

... with regard to any sin that he performed which carries with it the death-penalty.

And we interpret it this way on the basis of Rav Ada bar Ahavah, who will shortly interpret the Pasuk ''Kol ha'Davar ha'Gadol Yavi'u eleicha" to mean (not literally 'ha'Davar ha'Gadol', but) - 'matters pertaining to a great man' (as we shall see), and a Nasi is a great man.

Ula Amar Rebbi Elazar attempts to establish the Mishnah literally, not with regard to Avodah-Zarah, but with regard to 'Nachalos'. What he means is - that just as the original distribution of Eretz Yisrael required a Beis-Din of seventy-one - so too, will any subsequent query in that regard require the same.

We reject this suggestion however, on the grounds that, in that case, three other things, which the Tana does not list, should also be required whenever the Dinim of Nachalos are judged - a box (for drawing lots), the Kohen Gadol wearing the U'rim ve'Tumim and the presence of the whole of Yisrael.

So we are forced to revert to the previous explanation of Rav Masna. Ravina however, re-establishes our Mishnah with regard to a tribe that served Avodah-Zarah, and he resolves the problem of the fact that the inhabitants are punished like individuals and receive Sekilah - by making a comprise; on the one hand, they are sentenced to death like individuals, whereas on the other, they require the Sanhedrin ha'Gadol to pass that sentence.

And he bases this on Rebbi Chama b'Rebbi Yossi Amar Rebbi Oshaya, who interprets the Pasuk in Shoftim "ve'Hotzeisa es ha'Ish ha'hu ... el She'arecha" 'Ish ve'Ishah atah Motzi li'She'arecha, ve'I atah Motzi Kol ha'Ir el She'arecha'. The ramifications of this twin D'rashah are that - both an entire city and an entire tribe are put to death (not by the gate of the city where they sinned [i.e. at the hand of the Sanhedrin ha'Katan], but) - at the hand of the Sanhedrin ha'Gadol.

Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina learns the Din of the Mishnah that a Navi Sheker requires a Beis-Din of seventy-one via a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Hazadah" ("Ach ha'Navi asher Yazid") "Hazadah" ("ve'ha'Ish asher Ya'aseh be'Zadon") from a Zakein Mamrei. We reject this 'Gezeirah-Shavah' however - on the grounds that the latter Pasuk is written in connection with the execution of the Zakein Mamrei, which requires only twenty-three judges.

So Resh Lakish learns it from "Davar" ("asher Yazid Le'daber") "Davar" ("ve'Asisa al-Pi ha'Davar asher Yorucha") - which is written in connection with the Zakein Mamrei's judgement, which requires a Beis-Din of seventy-one.

We cannot then learn from "Hazadah" "Hazadah" from a Navi Sheker, that the death of a Zakein Mamrei should also require seventy-one judges - because whereas the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' of "Davar" "Davar" was handed down traditionally from their Rebbes, that of "Hazadah" "Hazadah" was not (and no-one can Darshen his own 'Gezeirah-Shavah' without a Kabalah.

As the source of our Mishnah, which requires a Beis-Din of seventy-one for a Kohen Gadol, Rav Ada bar Ahavah quotes - the Pasuk in Yisro (that we quoted earlier) "Kol ha'Davar ha'Gadol Yavi'u elecha", which he interprets as 'Devarav shel Gadol'.

We have a problem with this however, from a Beraisa. Based on the Pasuk there "es ha'Davar ha'Kasheh Yevi'un el Moshe", the Tana interprets the previous Pasuk to mean - literally major or complicated matters (which, he maintains, indicates that that is also what "es Davar ha'Gadol" means).

We answer that Rav Ada bar Ahavah bases his interpretation on another Beraisa. Bearing in mind the D'rashah of the first Tana, this Tana interprets "ha'Davar ha'Gadol" like Rav Ada bar Ahavah - because in his opinion, the Pasuk "es ha'Davar ha'Kasheh" indicates that "Kol ha'Davar ha'Gadol must mean something else.

He declines to learn like the first Tana, because he does not see why we need two Pesukim to teach us the same thing.

Initially, Rebbi Avahu tries to learn the Din in our Mishnah 'Ein Motzi'in le'Milchemes ha'Reshus Ela al-Pi Beis-Din shel Shiv'im-ve'Echad' from the Pasuk in Pinchas "ve'Lifnei Elazar ha'Kohen Ya'amod. He interprets the continuation of the Pasuk ...

... "Hu" (referring to Yehoshua) - as the king.

... "ve'Chol B'nei Yisrael Ito"- as the "Mashu'ach Milchamah (the Kohen Gadol for war).

... "ve'Chol ha'Eidah" - as the Sanhedrin.

We reject this proof however, on the grounds that, the Pasuk is not speaking about going to war - but about any of the above who come to consult the Urim ve'Tumim (but not for a S'tam Yachid).

So Rav Acha bar Bizna Amar Rebbi Shimon Chasida learns it from David Hamelech, who awoke every night - to the sound of the north-wind blowing on the harp that hung above his bed.

David would then - learn Torah until dawn-break.

When the Chachamim would inform David that Yisrael needed Parnasah, he would reply - that the people should sustain each other (the rich should sustain the poor).

The Chachamim would react to that - by informing him that one cannot fill a deep pit with the earth that one extricated from it (there was simply not enough money to go round).

Before asking the Sanhedrin and the Urim ve'Tumim for a final decision - they would consult Achitofel, because his advice, invariably correct, was indispensable.

Based on Pesukim in Divrei Hayamim and Shmuel, the role in the hierarchy played by ...

... Benayahu ben Yehoyada was - that of head of Sanhedrin.

... Evyasar, who was Kohen Gadol, was - that of the one to wear and consult the Urim ve'Tumim.

... Yo'av was - that of commander-in-chief of the army.

Despite the fact that the Pasuk writes "u'Benayahu ben Yehoyada al ha'Kereisi ve'al ha'Peleisi", we know that he was not in charge of the Urim ve'Tumim - because in the Pasuk in Divrei Hayamim, he is placed before Evyasar, indicating that Evyasar was entrusted with that task (and Benayahu was [one level] above the K'reii u'Peleisi).

The Urim ve'Tumim is called ...

... K'reisi - because its reply is clear-cut.

... P'leisi - because its words are wondrous (since they always come true.

Rebbi Yitzchak bar Avudimi learns from the Pasuk in Tehilim "Urah Chevodi Urah, ha'Neivel ve'Chinor " - that a harp was suspended above David's bed ... , as we just learned.

Rav Shimi bar Chiya Darshen from the Pasuk in Terumah "ke'Chol asher Ani Mar'eh oscha, es Tavnis ha'Mishkan ... ve'Chein Ta'asu" - that adding to Yerushalayim or to the Azaros required the Beis-Din of seventy-one (like the Mishkan which was sanctified by Moshe, who was considered a Beis-Din of seventy-one).

The holy vessels of the Mishkan were sanctified with the anointing oil. The Beraisa rules - that subsequent vessels that needed to be manufactured were sanctified by initiating them in the service of Hash-m.

We answer the discrepancy between this Beraisa and the Mishnah's D'rashah from "ve'Chein Ta'asu", by quoting the Pasuk "va'Yimshachem va'Yekadesh osam" - from which we Darshen "osam" bi'Meshichah, ve'Lo le'Doros bi'Meshichah' (only those first vessels were anointed, but not subsequent ones).

The problem with this D'rashah is that - perhaps "Osam" comes to teach us that Doros is different than the Mishkan, inasmuch as one has a choice of either anointing them or initiating them ... .

So Rav Papa quotes the Pasuk in Bamidbar "asher Yesharsu bam ba'Kodesh". In spite of the fact that the Torah also writes "ve'Chein Ta'asu", we know that the vessels require initiation exclusively, and that one does not have the option of anointing them, like we just asked - because of the Pasuk "va'Yimshachem va'Yekadesh Osam" excluding them from anointing (as we explained a little earlier).

We know that the option of initiation was not available in the Mishkan too - since the Pasuk "asher Yesharsu bam ba'Kodesh" is written in the future (and not in the present).

And we know that appointing a Sanhedrin for the Tribes requires a Beis-Din of seventy-one - from Moshe Rabeinu, who was considered like the Sanhedrin ha'Gedolah, and who appointed the Sanhedrin for the tribes at Yisro's instigation.

We learn the obligation to appoint judges and law-enforcement officers in Yisrael from the Pasuk "Shoftim ve'Shotrim Titen l'cha ... ". And we learn from the Pasuk ...

... " ... bi'(Chol) She'arecha" - that one is obligated to appoint them in every tribe.

... the word "be'Chol" - that it is also obligatory to appoint them in each and every town.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel learns from "li'Shevatecha ve'Shaftu" that - a litigant is not allowed to go to a Beis-Din belonging to another tribe.

Rebbi Chiya bar Yosef Amar Rebbi Oshaya quotes the Pasuk "ve'Hotzeisa es ha'Ish ha'hu ... el She'arecha" - as the source of the Mishnah's ruling that an Ir ha'Nidachas requires a Beis-Din of seventy-one (and not of twenty-three) because it implies that only an individual is judged by a Beis-Din of twenty-three, but not an entire city.

We learn from the Pasuk in Re'ei ...

... "mi'Kirbecha" - that Beis-Din cannot declare a border town an Ir ha'Nidachas.

... "Arecha" - that two towns can be declared Arei Nidachas at one time, whereas from ...

... "Achas" - we learn that - that three cannot.

Sometimes Rav would restrict the prohibition of declaring three towns Arei Nidachas to one Beis-Din (but two or three Batei-Din may). On other occasions - he would extend the prohibition to even two or three Batei-Din.

The reason behind the latter opinion is - because, since the reason for the prohibition is the fact that it leaves a bald patch ('Korchah'), and easy access to the enemy, what difference does the number of Batei-Din make?

Resh Lakish permits declaring two or three towns Arei ha'Nidachas in different areas. Rebbi Yochanan holds that even that is forbidden - because he is speaking about different towns that are situated in the same section of Eretz Yisrael, as we shall now see, and he forbids it because of Korchah (leaving a gap for the enemy to enter).

In the Beraisa in support of Rebbi Yochanan, the Tana rules ...

... that one Ir ha'Nidachas in Yehudah and one in Galil - is permitted.

... that two Arei Nidachas in Yehudah or two in Galil - is forbidden.

The reason the Tana gives for the prohibition of declaring an Ir ha'Nidachas next to the border - is also because of Korchah (giving enemies free access to Eretz Yisrael).

The Tana needs a reason, in spite of the fact that the Torah writes "mi'Kirbecha" - because the author of the Beraisa is Rebbi Shimon, who contends with the reasons of the Mitzvos (as we learned in Bava Metzi'a).