1)

(a)We learned in the Beraisa "Divrei", 'Eilu ha'Erchin, ha'Charamim ve'ha'Hekdeishos'. The Machlokes by Erchin revolves around a Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan, where Rebbi Meir rules that - if Reuven promises to give the Erech of a baby less than one month old - he is obligated to pay Hekdesh his regular value (Damav) ...

(b)... based on the principle 'Ein Adam Motzi Devarav le'Vatalah' (a person doesn't make declarations for nothing),

(c)Assuming that the treasurer of Hekdesh claims the money from Reuven, this involves a Chiyuv Kareis - if someone then uses the money to betroth a woman, in which case she is not Mekudeshes (according to Rebbi Meir [unless he is aware that the money is Hekdesh]), but who she is Mekudeshes according to the Rabbanan. Consequently, anyone who subsequently marries her will be Chayav Kareis according to thye Rabbanan, but not according to Rebbi Meir.

(d)It will also involves Kareis - if the person who uses it subsequently purchases an Asham Me'ilos for having used Hekdesh, which is a valid Asham according to Rebbi Meir (to be Mechayev Kareis anyone who eats from it be'Tum'ah), but not according to the Rabbanan ...

(e)... since the animal will be Chulin ba'Azarah (irrespective of his intentions), which is not subject to Kareis.

2)

(a)The Machlokes by Charamim is that of Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira, who learns from the Pasuk in Bechukosai "Kol Cherem be'Yisrael Kodesh Kodshim Hu la'Hashem" - that 'S'tam Charamim le'Bedek ha'Bayis' (and are therefore subject to Me'ilah), and the Rabbanan ...

(b)... who hold - 'S'tam Charamim le'Kohanim' (in which case there is no Me'ilah).

(c)They explain the Pasuk in Bechukosai to mean - that Cherem takes effect even on Kodshei Kodshim and on Kodshim Kalim.

(d)This case only involves Kareis and Chatas according to Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah (in the way that we explained by Erchin) - but not according to the Rabbanan.

3)

(a)And the Machlokes by Hekdeishos is based on that of Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov and the Rabbanan (that we discussed in the first Perek). Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov rules that - even assessing a golden fork of Hekdesh (in order to redeem) it requires ten people ...

(b)... whereas according to the Rabbanan - only Hekdesh Karka requires ten assessors.

(c)Kareis and Chatas will apply to this case - if less than ten people assessed Metalt'lin of Hekdesh, which remains Hekdesh according to Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, and is therefore subject to Kareis in the way that we explained by Erchin, but not according to the Rabbanan.

4)

(a)The Tana continued "Rivos" 'Zeh Hashka'as Sotah, va'Arifas Eglah ve'Taharos Metzora'. The Machlokes by Hashka'as Sotah is that of Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua, in the Mishnah in Sotah. According to Rebbi Eliezer, the Kinuy (husband's warning) requires two witnesses, the S'tirah (the seclusion with another man), one, or even the husband himself. Rebbi Yehoshua - requires two witnesses for the S'tirah as well.

(b)The monetary ramifications of this Machlokes - concern the woman's Kesubah, which, assuming there was only one witness for the S'tirah, she will lose, should she refuse to drink the water (in the Beis ha'Mikdash) according to Rebbi Eliezer, but not according to Rebbi Yehoshua.

(c)This will involve Kareis and a Korban Chatas in the event that she sells her Kesubah, and the purchaser seizes it from her husband. Should he then betroth a woman with the Kesubah, she is betrothed to him according to Rebbi Yehoshua, but not according to Rebbi Eliezer, with the obvious ramifications of Kareis that we have already discussed.

(d)The basis of the Machlokes by 'Arifas Eglah' is another Mishnah in Sotah. According to Rebbi Eliezer, they would measure the distance to the nearest town from the murdered man's navel, and according to Rebbi Akiva, from his nose. Whereas Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov holds - that they measure from his neck (from which he generally becomes a Chalal).

(e)This will lead to a Chiyuv Kareis and Chatas - if for example, the Zakein measured from his navel and the Beis-Din from his nose, and they each brought a calf (which is Asur be'Hana'ah according to the opinion that considers it valid). If two people then betrothed a woman with the two calves, the Kidushin of each would be valid according to the one opinion, but not according to the other.

5)

(a)A Mishnah in Nigmar ha'Din serves as the source of the Machlokes regarding 'Taharas Metzora'. The Tana Kama holds that if the Metzora has no right thumb or big toe (on which to place the blood of the Asham), he can never become Tahor, whereas according to Rebbi Eliezer, the Kohen places it on the spot where they ought to have been. Rebbi Shimon says - that if the Metzora has no right thumb or big toe, then they place the blood on his left right thumb or big toe.

(b)This Machlokes will lead to Kareis and a Chatas - if for example, the Kohen places the blood on the Metzora's left thumb ... like Rebbi Shimon, and the latter subsequently enters the Beis-Hamikdash or eats Kodesh, in which case he will be Chayav Kareis according to the Rabbanan, but not according to Rebbi Shimon.

6)

(a)"bi'She'arecha", 'Zeh Leket, Shikchah u'Pe'ah'.= The first two revolve around a Machlokes Tana'im in a Mishnah in Pe'ah, where the Tana Kama considers two grains Leket, and two sheaves Shikchah, whereas three remain the owner's. According to Beis Shamai in both cases - three is still considered Leket and Shikchah, and it is only four that still belongs to the owner,

(b)The Machlokes by Pe'ah is based on a Machlokes in another Mishnah there, where the Tana Kama permits the owner to separate Pe'ah even from the sheaves, from the pile, and even after Miru'ach (the flattening of the pile), if need be. Before separating Pe'ah however, he must be careful to separate Ma'asros.

(c)Rebbi Yishmael adds that - the owner can separate Pe'ah even after it has been made into a dough, despite the fact that he acquires the dough with Shinuy Ma'aseh (for which reason the Chachamim's disagree).

(d)Should the Ani seize the dough as Pe'ah or take three grains as Leket and Shikchah and the owner takes it back from him and then betroth a woman (see Maharsha), the woman will be Mekudeshes according to the Tana Kama and the Rabbanan of Rebbi Yishmael respectively (but not according to Beis Shamai and Rebbi Yishmael) ...

(e)... due to the principle 'he'Mekadesh be'Gezel Einah Mekudeshes).

7)

(a)According to Rav Kahana, the Zakein Mamrei is not Chayav Misah if both he and the Beis-Din say that they received their respective rulings from their Rebbes, or if they both said it from a 'S'vara' - only if he states his opinion from a S'vara, and the Beis-Din, from their Rebbes.

(b)And he proves this from Akavya ben Mahalalel - who instructed his son before he died, to retract from the four rulings in which he disagreed with the Chachamim in the Lishkas ha'Gazis (yet who was not considered a Zakein Mamrei).

(c)He himself did not retract, he told his son - because he, like the Chachamim, had heard the rulings from his Rebbes (unlike his son, who had heard it only from him) ...

(d)... which must be the reason that he was not a Zakein Mamrei.

8)

(a)According to Rebbi Elazar - a Chacham has the Din of a Zakein Mamrei even if he received his ruling from his Rebbe ...

(b)... in order to minimize Machlokes in Yisrael.

(c)And the reason that Akavya ben Mahalalel was not a Zakein Mamrei is - because he only argued with the Chachamim in theory, but did not issue rulings to conform to his theories.

(d)Initially, we establish our Mishnah 'Kach Darashti ve'Kach Darshu Chaverai, Kach Limadti ve'Kach Limdu Chaverai' - where he quoted his Rebbes and they ruled from a S'vara, a proof for Rav Elazar.

(e)To concur with Rav Kahana, we therefore establish it - in the opposite case, when he ruled from a S'vara and they quoted their Rebbes.

9)

(a)We query Rav Kahana from a Beraisa, where Rebbi Yashiyah quotes three things that he heard from Ze'eira of Yerushalayim. He said that ...

1. ... a husband cannot be Mochel (forego) the Kinuy of his Sotah wife, but that ...

2. ... the parents of a ben Sorer u'Moreh can be Mochel their son (even after he has already received Malkos) and that Beis-Din can be Mochel a Zakein Mamrei.

(b)His colleagues in the south disagreed - with the latter ruling. They deny Beis-Din the right to be Mochel a Zakein Mamrei 'in order to minimize Machlokes in Yisrael'.

(c)The reason of the Rabbanan in the Beraisa - indicates that the Zakein Mamrei is sentenced to death, irrespective of in whose name they argue (like Rebbi Elazar), leaving us with a Kashya on Rav Kahana.

10)

(a)We cite a Beraisa, where Rebbi Yossi discusses the early generations until that of Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel. The advantage they enjoyed over subsequent generations was - the fact that their conclusions in Halachah were unanimous (free of Machlokes).

(b)This was ensured - by means of the various Sanhedriyos in the towns that would pass on all their doubts to the Sanhedrin of the nearest town, who if necessary, would turn to the Sanhedrin which sat at the entrance to the Har ha'Bayis ... to the Sanhedrin which sat at the entrance of the Azarah and from there to the Beis-Din ha'Gadol in the Lishkas ha'Gazis (the ultimate authority).

(c)Besides the Beis-Din of his town - the Beis-Din which sat at the entrance to the Azarah accompanies the Zakein Mamrei to the Beis-ha'Din ha'Gadol.

(d)In the event that they have not heard it from their Rebbes, the Beis-Din ha'Gadol decide the Halachah - by taking a vote based on their own S'varos, and by following the majority.

11)

(a)The Beis-ha'Gadol in the Lishkas ha'Gazis convene each day - from the time of the Korban Tamid shel Shachar until that of the Korban Tamid shel Bein ha'Arbayim.

(b)On Shabbos and Yom-Tov - they relocate to the Chil.

(c)Besides the possible reason that there are a lot of visitors then and it will be too squashed in the Lishkas ha'Gazis, they change their location on those days - to convey the message that they are not actually judging (since Chazal forbade judging on Shabbos and Yom-Tov).

(d)The increase in Machlokes among Talmidei-Chachamim from the time of Beis-Shamai and Beis Hillel - was caused by the Talmidim not serving their Rebbes (incorporating learning from them) with sufficient diligence).

(e)'Two Toros' (an off-shoot of those Machlokos) means - that some Dayanim said 'Chayav', and others 'Patur', some said 'Asur', and others said 'Mutar' ... (their rulings were no longer unanimous).

12)

(a)We have already learned that the Beis-Din ha'Gadol was responsible for appointing the members of the Sanhedriyos in the towns. Besides wisdom and humility, candidates for that post - needed to be well-liked by the people.

(b)The procedure regarding the appointment to the Beis-Din of Har ha'Bayis, of the Azarah and of the Lishkas ha'Gazis - would follow the death of a member of member, following which the Sanhedrin ha'Gadol would appoint someone from the Beis-Din immediately below that one, to take his place (and a new Dayan from the lower-Beis Din, to fill his.

13)

(a)They pointed out Rav Ula bar Aba in Eretz Yisrael - as being a ben Olam ha'Ba.

(b)Besides constantly learning, he was also 'Lo Machzik Tivusa le'Nafsheih' - he thought that he owed Hash-m more than Hash-m owed him.

(c)He also possessed the qualities of - internal and external humility.

14)

(a)The Beraisa requires either that the Zakein Mamrei puts his theories into practice or that others do. The problem with the first possibility is that - seeing as he goes on to perform a Chiyuv Misas Beis-Din, he would be Chayav even if he was not a Zakein Mamrei (so what is the Chidush of Zakein Mamrei?).

(b)There is no problem - if we are speaking about a Zakein Mamrei who ruled on Cheilev or blood - since these are not subject to Misas Beis-Din (only Kareis).

(c)We query the suggestion that had he not been a Zakein Mamrei, he would have required a warning, which is not now necessary - from a case of a Meisis (which is not precluded from our Mishnah and) for which he would be Chayav Misah anyway (even without a warning).

(d)We finally answer the Kashya - by pointing out that, since he went against the explicit ruling of Beis-Din, he is denied the right to present any arguments in his own favor, something which he would have been able to do had he not been a Zakein Mamrei.

15)

(a)Our Mishnah states 'Chomer be'Divrei Sofrim mi'Divrei Torah'. In this context, the definition of 'Divrei ...

1. ... Torah' is - what the Torah writes specifically.

2. ... Sofrim' is - what the Chachamim extrapolate from the Pasuk).

(b)The Mishnah goes on to explains that - if he teaches that there is no such thing as Tefilin, he is Patur; and that he is only Chayav if he teaches that there are five Parshiyos instead of four.

(c)Rebbi Alazar Amar Rebbi Oshaya adds to 'Ikro mi'Divrei Torah, u'Pirusho mi'Divrei Sofrim' that - it is possible to add to the Mitzvah, and that, if he does, it is as if had subtracted from it(because the addition invalidates the rest).

(d)The only possible case is that of Tefilin according to Rebbi Yehudah - who stated (on the previous Daf) 'ad de'Ika Torah ve'Yorucha' (as opposed to Rebbi Meir ['Zedono Kareis ve'Shigegaso Chatas'] and Rebbi Shimon ['Afilu Dikduk Echad mi'Divrei Sofrim']) See Tosfos DH 've'Ein Lanu Ela ... '.

(e)Rebbi Elazar cannot be referring to Rebbi Yehudah in Menachos, who says 'Tzarich Le'hadbik (to stick together the Parshiyos of the shel Yad, in the event that one wrote the four Parshiyos on different pieces of parchment instead of one) - because our Mishnah, which mentions "Totafos", is clearly speaking about the shel Rosh (and not the shel Yad), and this is corroborated by the Sugya which mentions four Batim (compartments), which can only refer to the shel Rosh.

16)

(a)We query Rebbi Elazar's statement that the four requirements of Rebbi Yehudah pertain exclusively to Tefilin with the Kashya 've'ha'Ika Lulav (if one added a fifth species)' We refute this Kashya however, according to the opinion that holds ...

1. ... 'Lulav Ein Tzarich Eged' - because one would be holding the extra species independently of the others, which would therefore not be affected by it.

2. ... 'Lulav Tzarich Eged' - because then they would be Pasul from the outset (and would conform to the last two requirements 've'Yesh bo Le'hosif ... '.

(b)And we ask exactly the same set of questions on Tzitzis (assuming that one added a fifth thread). The criterion there is - whether the top knot is d'Oraysa or not (depending on which, the four threads are either independent of the fifth thread, or Pasul at the outset, like we asked on Lulav).

(c)We ask that by Tefilin too, adding a fifth compartment afterwards (without actually affixing it) ought not to invalidate the other four, whereas if he initially made five compartments, 'Garu'a ve'Omed hu'. In answer to this Kashya, we cite Rebbi Zeira, who says that - if the outer compartment is not open to the air, it is Pasul.

(d)Consequently, we will establish the case by Tefilin - where one initially made four compartments and added a fifth one later, thereby invalidating the Tefilin (like Rebbi Zeira) even though he did not affix the extra compartment to the other four.