ARGUMENTS THAT A ZAKEN MAMREI IS LIABLE FOR
Regarding Tzara'as of garments, they argue as R. Noson ben Avtulmus and Chachamim do;
(Beraisa - R. Noson ben Avtulmus) Question: What is the source that if Tzara'as spreads and covers the entire garment, it is Tahor?
Answer: It says Karachas and Gabachas regarding people, and also regarding garments;
Just like if Tzara'as spreads and covers the entire person, he is Tahor, also regarding garments.
Regarding Erchin they argue as R. Meir and Chachamim do. (One who accepts to give the Erech of Ploni must pay to Hekdesh an amount based on Ploni's gender and age. The Torah specified Erchin for people above one month old.)
(Beraisa - R. Meir): If one vows to give the Erech of a baby less than a month old, he gives the monetary value (if he would be sold to be a slave);
Chachamim say, the vow is void.
Regarding Charamim they argue as R. Yehudah ben Beseira and Chachamim do:
(Mishnah - R. Yehudah ben Beseira): Unspecified Cherem is Hekdesh Bedek ha'Bayis (for upkeep of the Mikdash) - "Kol Cherem Kodesh Kodoshim Hu la'Shem";
Chachamim say, unspecified Cherem is given to Kohanim - "ki'Sdei Cherem la'Kohen Tihyeh."
Question: What do Chachamim learn from "Kol Cherem..."?
Answer: This teaches that Cherem takes effect on Kodshei Kodoshim (the most Kodesh Korbanos; even when they are permitted, only Kohanim in the Azarah may eat them) and Kodshei Kalim (Korbanos that become permitted in Yerushalayim, even to Yisre'elim. If one said about either of these 'it is Cherem', he must give the value to Kohanim).
Regarding Hekdesh they argue as R. Eliezer ben Yakov and Chachamim do:
(Beraisa - R. Eliezer ben Yakov): Ten are required to redeem even a tiny fork of Hekdesh.
Regarding giving a Sotah to drink, they argue as R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua do:
(Mishnah - R. Eliezer): One must warn his wife (not to be secluded with Ploni) in front of (at least) two witnesses. He can make her drink through one witness of seclusion, or if he himself says that he saw her secluded;
R. Yehoshua says, warning requires two witnesses. Two witnesses of seclusion are needed to make her drink.
Regarding Eglah Arufah they argue as R. Eliezer and R. Akiva do;
(Mishnah - R. Eliezer): We measure from the bellybutton of the Mes (to the nearest city);
R. Akiva says, we measure from the nose.
R. Eliezer ben Yakov says, we measure from the place he was killed, his throat.
Regarding Taharas Metzora, they argue as R. Shimon and Chachamim do:
(Mishnah): If a Metzora does not have a right thumb, big toe or ear (on which the blood of the Asham and oil must be put), he can never become Tahor;
R. Eliezer says, it suffices to put it in the place of the missing limb.
R. Shimon says, it suffices to put it on the left thumb, toe or ear.
Regarding Leket and Shichchah, they argue as Beis Shamai and Chachamim do:
If (one or) two ears fell (together during harvesting), they are Leket (one must leave them for the poor). If three fell, they are not Leket;
If (one or) two sheaves were forgotten (near each other during harvesting), they are Shichchah. If three were forgotten, they are not Shichchah;
Beis Shamai say, even if three fell (or were forgotten), they are Leket (or Shichchah). If four fell, they are not.
Regarding Pe'ah, they argue as R. Yishmael and Chachamim do:
(Beraisa): Pe'ah should be designated and left attached (the poor take it themselves). If the owner harvested his entire field, he separates (the amount that he should have left) from the sheaves (and gives it to the poor). If he did not, he separates from the stack before Miru'ach (final processing);
If Miru'ach was already done, he separates the proper amount, tithes it, and gives it to the poor.
R. Yishmael says, even if he made a dough (before giving), he separates from the dough and give to the poor (he still did not acquire it).
THE REBELLION OF ZAKEN MAMREI
(Mishnah): There are three Sanhedriyos...
(Rav Kahana): If the Zaken and the Sanhedrin both have traditions for their rulings, he is exempt. If both rule based on their own understanding, he is exempt, and all the more so if he has a tradition and they rule based on their own understanding;
He is liable only if they have a tradition and he rules based on his own understanding.
Support: This is why Akavya ben Mahalal'el was not killed (and why he was allowed to argue with the Great Sanhedrin about four things, some of which pertain to Kares).
(R. Elazar): Even if he has a tradition and they rule based on their own understanding (and all the more so, all the other cases) he is killed, lest there be many arguments in Yisrael;
Akavya was not killed because he did not instruct people to act against the Sanhedrin's opinion.
Question (against Rav Kahana - Mishnah): He says 'this is how I expounded, and this is how they expounded. This is how I learned, and this is how they learned.'
Suggestion: He has a tradition and they rule based on their own understanding.
Answer: No, they have a tradition, and he rules based on his own understanding.
Question (against Rav Kahana): R. Yoshiyah said 'Ze'ira told me three Halachos from people of Yerushalayim:
If a husband made Kinuy (warned his wife against seclusion with a certain man) he may pardon it (and if she is secluded with him, she remains permitted to her husband);
Parents may pardon their son so he will not be killed for Ben Sorer u'Moreh;
Beis Din may pardon a Zaken Mamrei so he will not be killed.
My (R. Yoshiyah's) colleagues in the south agreed with the first two, but Beis Din may not pardon a Zaken Mamrei, lest there be many arguments in Yisrael. (This reason applies even if he has a tradition and they rule based on their own understanding.)'
Rav Kahana is refuted. (It is clear from the Yerushalmi that this R. Yoshiyah was a Tana. However, even if his words are as authoritative as a Beraisa, why can't we say that Rav Kahana holds like Anshei Yerushalayim? Perhaps they were not Tana'im, so their opinion is Batel to R. Yoshiyah's colleagues. R. Yoshiyah did not try to defend Anshei Yerushalayim. This suggests that he accepted his colleagues'opinion. Alternatively, his colleagues convinced him that he heard incorrectly (Anshei Yerushalayim never said this). Perhaps this is why he said 'they told me.')
(Beraisa - R. Yosi): At first there were no arguments. Any question would be brought to the local Sanhedrin. If they couldn't answer, it would be brought to the Sanhedriyos outside the Mikdash, and if needed, to the Great Sanhedrin;
The Great Sanhedrin was in Lishkas ha'Gazis from (the time of) the morning Tamid until the afternoon Tamid. On Shabbos and Yom Tov, they would sit in the Cheil (just outside the Azarah).
If they had no tradition about the matter, they would vote to decide.
After there were many Talmidim of Hillel and Shamai that did not learn enough from their Rebbeyim, many arguments arose, as if there were two different Toros in Yisrael (Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai).
From Lishkas ha'Gazis they would write and send messages to all places.
Any humble Chacham that people like, he can be a judge in his city. A judge could be elevated from a local Beis Din to the Sanhedrin at the entrance to Har ha'Bayis (when someone from this Sanhedrin died, to fill the vacancy), from there to the Sanhedrin at the entrance to the Azarah (when a vacancy arose), and from there to the Great Sanhedrin in Lishkas ha'Gazis.
(Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael): A Ben Olam ha'Ba is a humble person who bends down when he enters or leaves, is liked by people, is always learning Torah, and pride himself for his merits.
Everyone looked at Rav Ula bar Aba.
(Mishnah): If the Chacham returns to his city...
(Beraisa): He is not liable unless he or others act according to his ruling.
Question: We understand that if others act according to his ruling, he is killed only because he became a Zaken Mamrei;
We also understand that if he acted according to his ruling to permit Chelev or blood (which are only Chayavei Kerisus), he is Chayav Misah only because he became a Zaken Mamrei;
However, if he acted according to his ruling to permit a transgression of Misah, even had he not rebelled against the Great Sanhedrin, he would be Chayav Misah for the transgression!
Answer: Normally, one is liable only if he was warned. A Zaken Mamrei is liable (for following his own ruling) even without warning.
Question: This does not explain Mesis, who never needs to be warned!
Answer: Normally, if a Mesis gives a proper reason to defend himself, we accept it;
After he rebelled against the Great Sanhedrin, we do not accept his reasons.
A ZAKEN MAMREI WHO ADDS TO A MITZVAH
(Mishnah): There is a stringency of laws explained by Chachamim over laws explicit in the Torah;
If a Chacham says that there is no Mitzvah of Tefilin, which explicitly contradicts the Torah, he is exempt;
If he says that they are five Parshiyos in Tefilin, to add to what Chachamim explained, he is liable.
(Gemara - R. Elazar): He is liable only for (Mitzvos of Kares and Chatas, like R. Meir, or) a Mitzvah whose source is explicit in the Torah, and is explained by Chachamim, and it is possible (but forbidden) to add to the law, and by adding, he invalidates it;
The only such example is Tefilin, according to R. Yehudah (who says that one is liable (also) for a law whose source is in the Torah, but the explanation is through Chachamim).
Question: Also Lulav has an explicit source in Torah, it is explained by Chachamim, and if one adds (takes additional species with the four) he invalidates the Mitzvah!
Answer - part 1: If we hold that the species need not be tied, holding additional species at the same time has no consequence (Rashi; Teshuvas ha'Rashba - to invalidate the Mitzvah, but he does transgress Bal Tosif (adding to a Mitzvah));
Answer - part 2: If we hold that the species must be tied, the bundle (with the extra species) was invalid from the beginning (when he tied it; R. Elazar discusses disqualifying a Mitzvah that already was valid, by adding to it).
Question: Also Tzitzis has an explicit source in Torah, it is explained by Chachamim, and if one adds additional strings he invalidates the Mitzvah!
Answer - part 1: If we hold that the Torah does not require tying the strings even once (after inserting them through a hole in the corner), the extra strings do not invalidate the Mitzvah;
Answer - part 2: If we hold that the Torah requires tying the strings, it was invalid from the beginning (he tied too many strings)!