We learned in our Mishnah that in Dinei Nefashos, a judge who learns Z'chus is not permitted to switch to Chov. Rav qualifies this ruling, permitting him to switch - from the time of the 'Gmar-Din (when the judges come to pronounce judgment).

The Mishnah in the fifth Perek rules that when, on the following day, the judges resume the proceedings of the previous day - they are permitted to switch their opinions from Chov to Z'chus, but not from Z'chus to Chov.

We reconcile Rav, who permits them to retract either way from the G'mar Din and onwards ...

... with this Mishnah - by establishing the Mishnah by the continuation of the Masa u'Matan, but before the G'mar-Din.

... with the Beraisa 'Danin Eilu K'neged Eilu ad she'Yir'eh Echad min ha'Mechayvin Divrei ha'Mezakin' - by giving the reason that the Tana declines to present the reverse case ('ad she'Yir'eh Echad min ha'Mezakin Divrei ha'Mechayvin') because he is concerned with the side of merit (not because he is forbidden to do so).

... with Rebbi Yossi be'Rebbi Chanina ('Echad min ha'Talmidim she'Zikah u'Meis ... '), who does not contend with the possibility that had the judge been alive, he might have retracted - because, when all's said and done, he didn't retract.

When they sent from Eretz Yisrael 'le'Divrei Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina Mutza mi'Chelal Rabeinu', they meant that - according to R. Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina Rav is precluded from our Mishnah (that he cannot concur with it).

To reconcile it with Rav, we amend it to read - ' ... Eino Mutza mi'Chelal Rabeinu' (that he is not precluded from it).

The Beraisa explains that - the two Sofrim of Beis-Din, who stood before the judges, one on the right and one on the left, would transcribe the words of the Mezakin and of the Mechayvin.

They wrote the words of the Mechayvin - because, should they give new reasons for their respective opinions, they would be obligated to wait another day before sentencing the defendant to death.

We try to prove from the fact that they also wrote the words of the Mezakin that - even at the time of the G'mar Din, a judge is not permitted to switch from Z'chus to Chov (a Kashya on Rav).

We refute this suggestion however, due to Rebbi Yochanan's answer to Rebbi Asi's She'eilah as to what the Din will be if two judges issue the same ruling based on two different Pesukim. To which Rebbi Yochanan replied that - if two judges issue the same ruling but based on two different sources, they are only considered to be one opinion, not two.

That explains why it is necessary to write even the words of the Mezakin too.

Abaye learned Rebbi Yochanan's ruling from the Pasuk in Tehilim "Achas Diber Elokim Shetayim Zu Shama'ti, ki Oz l'Elokim" in that - even though one Pasuk can teach us many things, we do not find two Pesukim that teach us the same thing (see Ya'avatz).

And de'bei Rebbi Yishmael learns from the Pasuk in Yirmiyah "u'che'Patish Yefotzetz Sela" that - just as a hammer breaks the rock into many pieces, so too, does one Pasuk split up into many reasons (it contains many explanations).

Rav Z'vid suggests that an example of the same Chidush from two Pesukim is to be found in the Mishnah in Zevachim. To explain the words of the Tana Kama 'Mizbe'ach Mekadesh es ha'Ra'uy lo, Rebbi Yehoshua learns from the Pasuk "Hi ha'Olah al Mokdah", 'Kol ha'Ra'uy le'Ishim - Im Alah Lo Yeired' (once something that is fit to go on the Mizbea'ach, is brought up on it, it cannot be taken down).

And Rabban Gamliel learns from the continuation of the same Pasuk "Hi ha'Olah al Mokdah al ha'Mizbe'ach" - the very same Chidush ('Kol ha'Ra'uy la'Mizbe'ach, Im Alah Lo Yeired').

Rebbi Yehoshua learns his opinion from the word - "Mokdah", and Rabban Gamliel learns his from - "al ha'Mizbe'ach".

Both Tana'im learn that if something that is Pasul is brought on the Mizbe'ach, it remains there. This incorporates - only something that was Kosher before it entered the Azarah ('Pesulo ba'Kodesh'). Something that was Pasul when it entered the Azarah (such as species that are not eligible to be brought as a Korban or animals that are T'reifah) must be removed from the Mizbe'ach.

In fact, Rebbi Yehoshua and Rabban Gamliel argue, as the Mishnah itself points out. The Mishnah presents two things as their bone of contention; blood - and Nesachim (wine) ...

... since on the one hand, both blood and Nesachim are fit to go on the Mizbe'ach (like Rabban Gamliel), but on the other, they are not fire-offerings (like Rebbi Yehoshua), since neither is placed on the Ma'arachah (the area where the sacrifices are burned).

We have now proved that Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Yehoshua do not learn exactly the same Chidush from two different Pesukim, seeing as they disagree over the Limud.

So Rav Papa cites a Beraisa as an example of two Pesukim that teach us the same Chidush. To explain the Pasuk in Tetzaveh "Kol ha'Noge'a ba'Mizbe'ach Yikdash", Rebbi Yosi Ha'Glili learns from the Pasuk there "ve'Zeh asher Ta'aseh al ha'Mizbe'ach, Kevasim ... " that - whatever is fit to go on the Mizbe'ach becomes sanctified by touching it.

Yeast, honey, wild deer and Chulin are all examples of things that are not fit to go on the Mizbe'ach, and do not therefore become sanctified through contact with it.

Rebbi Akiva learns from the word "Olah" in the same Pasuk that - just as an Olah is fit to go on the Mizbe'ach, so too does anything that is fit to go on the Mizbe'ach become sanctified by having contact with it, but not things that are not.

Here too Rav Papa assumes that both the Tana of the Beraisa and Rebbi Akiva learn the same thing from their respective Pesukim.

We refute this suggestion too however, on the basis of a statement by Rav Ada bar Ahavah, who said 'Olas ha'Of Pesulah Ika Beinaihu' - by which he meant that they argue over a Pasul Olas ha'Of, which will become sanctified according to Rebbi Akiva (since an Olas ha'Of too, falls under the category of Olah), but not according to Rebbi Yossi Ha'Glili, since it is not similar to "Kevasim" (which are Shechted).

Rav Ashi finally finds a case of the same Chidush from two Pesukim. He cites a Beraisa where Rebbi Yishmael learns from the Pasuk "Dam Yechashev la'Ish ha'Hu Dam Shafach" 'Lerabos es ha'Zorek'. Rebbi Yishmael is coming to include - sprinkling the blood of a Korban outside the Azarah to the basic Isur of Shechting an animal of Kodshim there.

Rebbi Akiva learns from the Pasuk there "O Zevach" - 'Lerabos es ha'Zorek' (the same Chidush as Rebbi Yishmael).

We attempt to refute Rav Ashi's explanation by citing Rebbi Avahu, who says 'Shachat ve'Zarak Ika Beinaihu' - meaning that the difference between the two D'rashos lies in a case where one both Shechted the animal and sprinkled its blood outside the Azarah be'Shogeg, where one will be Chayav to bring one Chatas, according to Rebbi Yishmael, but two according to Rebbi Akiva.

According to ...

... Rebbi Yishmael, one is Chayav only one Chatas - due to the fact that he learns Zorek from the Pasuk of Shochet, which contains one La'av and one Kareis.

... Rebbi Akiva, one is Chayav two Chata'os - because "O Zevach" is written in connection with the Ha'ala'ah (sacrificing outside the Azarah), by which Kareis is mentioned independently.

We answer this by citing Abaye, who learns from the Pasuk "Sham Ta'aleh Olosecha ve'Sham Ta'aseh ... " that - all the Asiyos are one (since the Torah does not state an independent La'av by the sacrificing, relying only on this Pasuk to compare Ha'ala'ah to Shechitah in this regard.

Abaye ignores the fact that the Torah mentions two K'risos - since there is only one La'av (as we just explained).

The La'av incorporating all of the above is - "Hishamer L'cha Pen Ta'aleh Olosecha be'Chol Makom asher Tir'eh" (in Re'ei, written by Ha'ala'ah as clearly stated by the Torah).

Rebbi Acha bar Papa learns from the Pasuk ...

... in Yisro "ve'Shaftu es ha'Am be'Chol Eis" that - the G'mar-Din in Dinei Mamonos must take place by day.

... in Ki Seitzei "ve'Hayah be'Yom Hanchilo es Banav" that - the Techilas-Din (incorporating the Shakla ve'Tarya) can take place by night.

According to Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa, the Pasuk in Shoftim (in connection with Kohanim) "ve'al Pihem Yihyeh Kol Riv ve'Chol Naga" compares ...

... Ribin (Dinei Mamonos) to Nega'im - regarding judging by day, and the disqualification of someone who is blind (even in one eye, as we shall see shortly) from judging.

... Nega'im to Ribin - regarding the disqualification of relatives.

And he learns from the Pasuk in Tazri'a "ve'Huva el Aharon ha'Kohen O el Achad mi'Banav ... " that - we do not compare Nega'im to Ribin with regard to requiring a Beis-Din of three (since it is clear from the Pasuk that one Kohen will suffice).

The author of our Mishnah cannot therefore be Rebbi Meir, who learns from Nega'im that even G'mar-Din must take place by day, whereas our Mishnah permits G'mar-Din by night as well.

The Mishnah in Nidah rules 'Kol ha'Kasher Ladun Kasher Leha'id; ve'Yesh she'Kasher Leha'id, ve'Ein Kasher Ladun'. According to Rebbi Yochanan - the Seifa is referring to someone who is blind in one eye.

Despite the fact that Rebbi Yochanan rules 'Halachah ki'Stam Mishnah', he remained silent when a blind man was judging in his vicinity - because he relied on our Mishnah here (also a S'tam Mishnah), which permits a blind man to judge.

Our Mishnah permits G'mar-Din by night (even though Rebbi Meir forbids it, as we learned earlier), from which we can extrapolate that a blind man is permitted too.

We conclude that Rebbi Yochanan chooses to rule like our Mishnah for one of two reasons. One of them is because it is the opinion of the Rabbanan, whilst the Mishnah is the opinion of Rebbi Meir the other - because it is a S'tam in its rightful place (which deals with similar issues, whereas the S'tam in Nidah, is talking about other issues, citing this Halachah only because it belongs in one of the lists there).

Rebbi Meir learns from the Pasuk "ve'Shaftu es ha'Am be'Chol Eis" that - Beis-Din are permitted to judge on a cloudy day.

We might have thought otherwise, based on a Mishnah in Nega'im - which forbids a Kohen to examine Nega'im in the morning, at dusk, in a house or on a cloudy day.

A Kohen may not examine Nega'im ...

... in the above cases - because things look brighter than they really are, and the Kohen is likely to proclaim someone a Metzora, who is really Tahor.

... at mid-day - because then things look paler than they really are, and the Kohen is likely to declare Tahor someone who is really Tamei.

We equate Rebbi Meir's interpretation of the Pasuk "ve'Hayah be'Yom Hanchilo es Banav" like the Beraisa cited by Rabah bar Chanina in front of Rav Nachman. The problem Rav Nachman has with the initial version of the Beraisa 'be'Yom atah Mapil Nachalos, ve'I atah Mapil Nachalos ba'Laylah' is that - this suggests that if someone dies at nighttime, his heirs will not inherit him.

So he suggested amending the Beraisa to read - 'be'Yom atah Mapil Din Nachalos ... '.

When Rabah bar Chanina heard Rav Nachman's amendment, he commented that - this was precisely what he had meant.

The source for this lies in the Pasuk in Pinchas (written in connection with the laws of inheritance) "ve'Haysah li'Venei Yisrael le'Chukas Mishpat" from which the Beraisa learns that - the distribution of inheritance is considered Mishpat (meaning that it requires three Dayanim, and now that the Torah requires it to be done by day, we learn Techilas Din by all Dinei Mamonos from it).

The above also concurs with a ruling by Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, who stated that if ...

... three people paid a Sh'chiv-Mera a visit - they have the option of acting as judges and distributing his property, or of merely transcribing the Shechiv-M'ra's instructions, in their capacity as witnesses.

... two people who did the same thing - can only act in the latter capacity.

Rav Chisda qualified the first half of Rav Yehudah's statement - by restricting it to where they arrived in the day, but if they arrived in the night, when there is no judgment, they can only act as witnesses, but not as judges ...

... because they are witnesses - and 'a witness cannot be a judge'.