Rebbi Acha b'Rebbi Chanina quotes the Pasuk in Shir ha'Shirim "Sharerech Agan ha'Sahar, Al Yechsar ha'Mazeg". The Pasuk refers to the Sanhedrin as "Sharerech" (a navel) - because they sat in the Beis-Hamikdash, which was situated in the center of the world.

"Agan ha'Sahar" means a circular dish. The Pasuk uses the Lashon "Agan"(from the word'Magein' [a shield]) to describe the way they sat - to hint at their function of shielding over the whole world.

"Sahar" mean literally - a prison, which in turn, used to be in the form of a dungeon, circular like a full-moon ('Sihara').

And Rebbi Acha bar Chanina learns from "Al Yechsar ha'Mazeg" - that at least twenty-three judges (one third of the total number of seventy) had to remain in the courtroom, similar to diluted wine ('Mizug'), which was one third wine to two parts water.

We learn from the continuation of the above Pasuk ...

... "Bitnech Areimas Chitin" ('Your stomach is like a pile of wheat) that - everyone benefits from the Sanhedrin just as everyone benefits from a pile of wheat.

... "Sugah ba'Shoshanim" ('fenced with roses') that - K'lal Yisrael are so far removed from sin, that the slightest fence will prevent them from transgressing, like a fence of roses which keeps thieves out of an orchard.

Rav Kahana used the latter Pasuk to answer a dubious heretic, who asked him - how it is feasible for a man, who is permitted to be alone with his wife when she is a Nidah, to refrain from sinning with her.

Resh Lakish explained the Pasuk "ke'Pelach ha'Rimon Rakasech" ('Your forehead is like a segment of pomegranate') as a hint that - Yisrael are full of Mitzvos as a pomegranate is of pits.

And Rebbi Zeira explained the Pasuk (in connection with Ya'akov's entry to receive the B'rachos from Yitzchak) "va'Yarach es Re'ach Begadav" - as if it had written "va'Yarach es Re'ach Bogdav" ('and he smelt the smell of the treacherous ones'), teaching us that even the worst among them performs many Mitzvos.

Rebbi Zeira's motive in being Mekarev a group of trouble-shooters was - to influence them to do Teshuvah.

The Rabbanan reacted to that - with annoyance.

The trouble-shooters referred to Rebbi Zeira as 'Charicha Katin Shakeih' - the scorched one with short calves ...

... because a. he was short, and b. because he once jumped into a burning oven to test his level, and scorched his calves in the process.

After his death, realizing that there was nobody left to pray on their behalf - the trouble-shooters did Teshuvah (a proof that Tzadikim are even greater after their death than during their lifetime).

If a Talmid-Chacham who moved from his place at the head of the first row in the section of Talmidei-Chachamim, complained that he was now seated in the last place in the last row of the Sanhedrin, they would quote him the adage - that 'it is better to be the tail of a lion than the head of a fox'.

Beis-Din's objective in scaring the witnesses of Dinei Nefashos was (not to encourage them to withdraw but) - to stop them from presenting false testimony.

They first ask them whether they were perhaps testifying by estimation, or 'Eid mi'Pi Eid' - testimony that they themselves did not see, but that they heard from others else who claim that they did, or whether they did not realize that they would be cross-examined.

Beis-Din then draw a distinction between Dinei Mamonos - where it is possible to make up for false testimony by reimbursing the they cheated, and Dinei Nefashos - where the blood of the murdered man and the blood of the offspring that he would have fathered, will cry out forever.

To substantiate their warning, they quote the Pasuk in Bereishis "Kol D'mei Achicha Tzo'akim Elai min ha'Adamah" - with reference to Kayin's blood and that of his descendants ...

... from which we can learn that - a murderer (or someone who is responsible for another's death) will be taken to task, not only for the life that he curtailed, but for the lives of all the offspring that would have from him.

Alternatively, the Tana explains that the Torah used the plural in "D'mei Achicha'' - to teach us that Kayin's blood was spattered all over the local trees and stones (as will be explained later).

The Tana gives five reasons for Hash-m creating a single man (as opposed to the animals, which He created in pairs). First of all, this enables us to earn a great reward or a great punishment - when we realize that saving a fellow-Yisrael is like saving an entire world, and to kill him, like destroying an entire world ...

... specifically a Yisrael, because they were the only nation to accept the Torah, which in turn, is the purpose of the creation.

It also ...

... prevents strife - inasmuch as nobody is able to claim that his Father (in Heaven) is greater than so-and-so's father.

... heresy - inasmuch as the heretics cannot prove the existence of many gods, from the fact that each one created his champion on earth.

And it enhance our awe of Hash-m - because unlike man, who makes a mold which inevitably produces identical coins, Hash-m created a mold which produces offspring that are all different (as will be explained later).

The final reason is one based on Musar (ethics) to teach us - the deep responsibility that each of us carries, because just as Hash-m created the world for the sake of one man, so too, should a person believe that the world was created just for him, and that he is responsible for its upkeep.

The Tana cites all this here - because it is all part of what Beis-Din tell the witnesses to frighten them into telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Having explained how Beis-Din warned the Eidim so stringently, we learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra "ve'Hu Eid O Ra'ah O Yada" that - they cannot then withdraw for fear of the consequences, but are obligated to go ahead and testify.

And in response to the witnesses argument why enter into all this trouble, they quote them the Pasuk in Mishlei "ba'Avod Resha'im Rinah""ba'Avod Resha'im Rinah" meaning that - when Resha'im perish, there is cause for jubilation ...

... to demonstrate to the witnesses that far from being destructive, their testimony is of great benefit to mankind.

The example given by the Beraisa of witnesses in a murder case testifying by estimation is - where the witnesses, who are running after Reuven who is chasing Shimon with the intention of killing him, and they find him, holding a sword dripping with blood, standing over Shimon who is lying on the ground bleeding to death.

When Rebbi Shimon ben Shetach encountered just such a scenario, he said to the murderer - 'Rasha, is it you or I who killed this man (there is nobody else other than the two of us, and I certainly didn't kill him)? But what can I do (seeing as there are no witnesses)?

And he quoted the Pasuk in Shoftim - "al-Pi Shenayim Eidim Yumas ha'Meis".

He pronounced - that Hash-m who knows the thoughts of man will punish the man who murdered his friend. The two of them were still standing there when a snake came and bit the murderer and killed him.

We query the fact that he died from snakebite - on the grounds that the punishment due to a murderer is death by the sword, for which snakebite is not the equivalent, as we shall now see.

This is based on a statement of Rav Yosef as well as Tana de'bei Chizkiyah, who both say - that someone who is Chayav Misas Beis-Din nowadays will die in one of two ways both of which are similar to the one that he would have received at the hands of Beis-Din.

The alternative death that a person who is Chayav ...

... Sekilah (stoning) will suffer, other than falling off a roof (or a cliff) is - being knocked down and trampled to death by a wild beast.

... S'reifah (burning) will suffer, other than being burned alive is - being bitten by a snake.

... Hereg (killed by the sword) will suffer, other than being captured and killed by the ruling power is - being attacked and killed by armed robbers.

... Chenek (strangled) will suffer, other than choking - is drowning.

The reason that the murderer in the case of Rebbi Shimon ben Shetach was ...

... bitten by a snake and not slain by the ruling power or by robbers is - because he must have performed another sin that was punishable by S'reifah.

... punished by the equivalent of S'reifah and not of Hereg (for which he was now eligible) is - because someone who deserves two Misos Beis-Din, receives the more stringent of the two (as we shall learn later in 'Eilu hein ha'Nisrafin'), and S'reifah is more stringent than Hereg).

Rebbi Acha rules that if a camel is walking around biting the other camels and a dead camel is found lying beside it - then we presume it to be the guilty animal, and charge the owner accordingly.

Alternatively, 'Gamal ha'Ocher' might mean a camel in heat.

We try and prove from there that - the author of our Mishnah, which forbids such disqualifies circumstantial evidence regarding Dinei Nefashos but accepts themt in cases of Dinei Mamonos must be Rebbi Acha).

We refute this however, by citing the Mishnah in 'Zeh Borer'. The Tana there rules - that 'Eid mi'Pi Eid' by Dinei Mamonos is not believed (despite the fact that it is mentioned in our Mishnah by Dinei Nefashos).

So we conclude - that the two are not interdependent, as we thought, but that the Tana mentions the P'sul of circumstantial evidence by Diynei Nefashos, even though (like 'Eid mi'Pi Eid') it is also unacceptable by Diynei Mamonos, like the Chachamim of Rebbi Acha.

Rebbi Yehudah b'rei de'Rebbi Chiya ...

... explains that - Kayin inflicted many wounds on Hevel before killing him - because he did not know from which part of his body his soul would depart. So he struck him in many areas, until finally, he hit him on the neck, fatally wounding him.

... says that - from moment the earth opened its mouth to accept Hevel's blood - it never opened it again.

We reconcile this with the Pasuk in Korach "vaTiftach ha'Aretz es Pihah" - by restricting that to opening it for a bad purpose (swallowing Korach and his men alive), whereas Rebbi Yehudah b'rei de'Rebbi Chiya is speaking about opening it for the good (such as singing Shirah to Hash-m).

And the same author extrapolates from the two Pesukim "Na va'Nad Tih'yeh ba'Aretz" and "va'Yeishev be'Eretz Nod" that exile atones half of one's sins - from the fact that the latter Pasuk omits "Na" (indicating that the punishment of "Na va'Nad" before the Galus, was commuted to just "Nod" after it.

Rav Yehudah Amar Rav extrapolates from the Pasuk in Yirmiyah "ha'Yoshev ba'Ir ha'Zos Yamus be'Cherev, be'Ra'av, u've'Daver, ve'ha'Yotze ve'Nafal el ha'Kasdim ha'Tzarim aleichem Yichyeh ... " (from the fact that whoever surrenders to the Kasdim and is taken into exile will survive) - that Galus atones for death by the sword, starvation and pestilence.

Rebbi Yochanan goes still further. According to him - Galus atones for everything.

And he learns that from Yechonyah ha'Melech - who had been previously told by the Navi that he would have no children to succeed him on the throne, yet after going into Galus, his wife gave birth to a son ...

... whom they called Asir She'altiel - Asir, because he was conceived in prison, and She'altiel (the acronym of 'she'Shaslo Keil', meaning planted by G-d) - because, based on the fact that, due to the narrowness of the prison cell, they were forced to have relations standing (which cannot normally result in childbirth), the conception was a miracle.

He may also have been called She'altiel, because he was born after the Heavenly Court released Hash-m's oath ('Nish'al al Alaso') - that Yechonyah would not have children.

She'altiel's son was called Zerubavel - because he was conceived (seeded) in Bavel.

Zerubavel is better known as - Nechemyah...

... in which case She'altiel's real name was Chachalyah.