Today's daf is sponsored by Amy Goldstein in loving memory of her grandmother, Ann Barnett on her yahrzeit. "Her strength kept us going and she maintained her dedication to seeking knowledge all the days of her life."
How do all the cases in the previous braita accord with Rabbi Meir's opinion that a rebellious elder can only be in a case that can lead to a prohibition of karet?
In what way does a rebellious elder need to disagree with the court in order to be convicted? Rav Kahana rules that only if he dares to disagree based on his own logic with a tradition of the rabbis of the court, he is convicted. Rabb Elazar disagrees and says that the purpose of convicting a rebellious elder is to prevent debates and therefore any disagreement of any sort will lead to a conviction. Two sources (one of them from our Mishna) are brought to raise a difficulty with Rav Kahane's position and the second is left unresolved.
What is the hierarchy of the courts? How were judges chosen?
The rebellious elder is convicted only if he either goes back and teaches against the ruling of the High Court and he himself acts according to his ruling or people follow his ruling. A difficulty is raised on the former possibility as if he follows his own ruling, he should already be liable for the death penalty for the action, not for being a rebellious elder. The Gemara offers a few possibilities to resolve this difficulty.
The Mishna explains that there is a stringency with Rabbinic law for a rebellious elder - if he tells people to go against Torah law, he is not convicted, but if he differs from the court regarding the rabbinic definition of a Torah law and adds to it, like five compartments in the tefillin, he can be convicted. Rav Oshaya says that this would be the only possible case. Why not the four species? Why not tzitzit?
