Inference: The wording connotes that [Abaye] says according to R. Meir, but he disagrees. Rather, even if he is Muchzak to transgress one matter, he is not suspected about the entire Torah.

Implied question: In Sanhedrin (27a), Abaye said that one who eats Neveilos to anger is disqualified from testimony, and we establish [his opinion] like R. Meir, and we hold like him, for this is among YA'AL K'GAM (an acronym of the six laws in which the Halachah follows Abaye against Rava)!

Answer: [We hold like Abaye] only regarding testimony, for the Torah said "Al Tashes Rasha Ed", but for other matters he is not suspected.

Implied question: However, R. Meir said there that an Ed Zomem is Pasul for [testimony about anything in] the entire Torah. Indeed, he could have another matter [that he transgressed]!

Answer: He mentioned Ed Zomem to teach unlike R. Yosi, who is Machshir even an Ed Zomem for capital cases if he was Huzam in monetary cases.

Correction: The text says Rabah, who was the Rebbi of Abaye (and his opinion is normally brought before Abaye's), and not Rava, for Rava explicitly holds in Bava Basra (33b) that we do not say Mah Lo Leshaker (Migo) against witness!

It says [there] "Abaye and Rava do not hold like Rav Chisda..."

Pesak: This is the Halachah. There is no distinction between a Chaver and an Am ha'Aretz;

Source: In Yoma (78a) regarding R. Yosi ben Zimra, who was a Kohen, and he asked whether the Halachah follows R. Meir, who says that one who is suspected about a matter may not judge it or testify about it, or if it follows R. Shimon ben Gamliel, who says that he is believed about his colleague. This shows that R. Meir would not permit, even though he was a Chaver!

Citation: In the Yerushalmi in Nedarim, it expounds from "v'Amdu Shnei ha'Anashim" with a Vov, that [also] one who asks Halachos or Agados must stand.

Correction: The text does not say "and they will testify about you", not here and not in Brachos (27b), for testimony does not apply here;

Rather, the text says so in Sanhedrin (19a) regarding the episode with Yanai [ha'Melech] "and they will testify about you", and amidst the flow of there it was [mistakenly] written here.

Explanation #1: I thought to conceal (what I said), but I cannot.

Explanation #2: Surely I said so, and I retracted.

Observation: One cannot explain so in Brachos (27b), for there [Rav] rules like [R. Yehoshua].

Explanation: He was one of the 10 [Chachamim] that [the Roman] king killed (like is brought in the Piyut Eleh Ezkerah in Musaf of Yom Kipur, and in Kinah 21 on Tish'ah b'Av, in Nusach Ashkenaz).

Observation: Even though here we rule that something Avida l'Igluyei (prone to become known), people do not lie about it, [Chachamim] did not believe one witness [who says that a man died, for he himself] to marry [the widow] because [sometimes] he loves her, and he is not meticulous.

And according to the opinion that he is not believed even about something Avida l'Igluyei, we can distinguish between this Kohen and a witness (we believe a witness to permit the widow to marry others).

Alternatively, regarding a woman they were lenient due to Iguna (lest she be unable to remarry, if we do not accept the testimony about her husband's death). Also, she checks carefully [that he truly died before she remarries].

Explanation #1: He saw it and recognized it. "B'Shakrei" is an expression of recognition, like "one who had Bi'ah with a Nochris, his Orlah extends, and [Avraham] Lo Mivshaker (does not recognize) him", in Eruvin (19a), and like "he passed in front of them, and Lo b'Shakrei (they did not recognize him - Yevamos 120a)."

Explanation #2: Rashi did not explain like this. (Rather, he explained that he saw the Sheker.)

Explanation: This is like it says below that three permit a Bechor in a place where there is no expert, but not in a place where there is an expert.

However, obviously it may not be slaughtered without a Heter, even if it has an overt Mum. It must be permitted through three, or an expert.

Question: For this reason we should permit without testimony all Bechoros that Kohanim bring in front of us with a Mum Muvhak!

Answer: A Kohen is different, for he is afraid to eat without a Chacham's Heter, lest amidst this the matter be revealed that he made a Mum;

However, this Yisrael, do not say that he brings it in front of the Chacham lest it become known that he wants to eat it and steal from the Kohen, for also now, due to this (testimony) it will not be clarified, for he himself will not eat it.

Implied question: We learn this from our Mishnah! (What is the Chidush of R. Simlai...? Even if the Mishnah discusses in Eretz Yisrael, all the more so three commoners can permit in Chutz la'Aretz! Below, Rava teaches that they permit only for obvious Mumim, and the Gemara asks what is the Chidush, for the Mishnah discusses only obvious Mumim.)

Answer #1: We could establish [our Mishnah] nowadays, but while the Mikdash stood, they should decree in Chutz la'Aretz due to Eretz Yisrael, lest one come to be lenient to permit based on three commoners.

Answer #2: There is an opinion in Temurah (21a) that Bechoros of Chutz la'Aretz, if they came to Eretz Yisrael Tam, they are offered. (One might have thought that our Mishnah discusses while the Mikdash stands, but it is unlike this opinion, for this opinion would be stringent in Chutz la'Aretz, just like in Eretz Yisrael. R. Simlai... teach that this is not so.)

Implied question: Why doesn't it answer here that [Rava] needs to teach that the Halachah does not follow R. Yosi, even though Nimuko Imo (R. Yosi always gave reasons for his laws), like it says below (37a)?

Answer: If so, Rav Yehudah should have said "the Halachah follows Rabanan", or "the Halachah does not follow R. Yosi."

Distinction: However, R. Chiya below (37a) taught two matters - one about permitting a Bechor, and one about permitting a vow. (This is why he did not simply say "the Halachah does not follow R. Yosi", even though this is the only Chidush of his first teaching.)

Explanation: "Expert" does not necessary mean that he received Semichah with the title "Rebbi", for it says about Rav Ashi above "they brought in front of him a Sharu'a, due to the Chacham's honor;

Anyone outstanding in Chachmah and he is expert, he is proper to permit a Bechor or a vow alone, like it connotes from Rav Ashi above.

And in Nedarim (8b) it says that Ravina's wife had a vow, and he came in front of Rav Ashi, and it says "we learn from this three matters... and a lone expert can permit Niduy." This connotes that a lone expert is [someone] like Rav Ashi.

And also in Sanhedrin (5b) "and if he was Mumcheh for the Rabim, he judges even alone - this is not necessarily an expert with Semichah with the title Rebbi, like Rav Nachman said there "someone like me can judge monetary cases alone."

Pesak: However, nowadays it seems that no one is considered an expert to permit a Bechor or vow alone, or to judge monetary cases alone.

Observation: Similar to this, in Nedarim (8b) we say that one may not permit a vow in his Rebbi's locale.

Distinction: However, that is even if there is another expert. That expert may not permit in his Rebbi's locale, like Ravina in Rav Ashi's locale.