When the Beraisa-expert cited the above Beraisa 'Mochro le'Aviv ... Chayav', Rav Sheishes objected from a Beraisa, where, based on the word "me'Echav" - Rebbi Shimon precludes a kidnapper who sells his victim to any of his relatives ('ad she'Yotzi'enu me'Reshus Echav').

He therefore amends the Beraisa to read - 'Patur'.

Rebbi Yochanan lists all the 'S'tams'. 'S'tam Masnisin Rebbi Meir, S'tam Tosefta Rebbi Nechemyah and 'S'tam Sifra - Rebbi Yehudah'.

S'tam Sifri - the Midrash on Bamidbar and Devarim, is Rebbi Shimon - whereas Sifra is the name of the Midrash on Vayikra.

The Rebbe of all the above-mentioned Tana'im was - Rebbi Akiva.

Rav Sheishes could therefore not have answered the above discrepancy by establishing the Beraisa (discussing "Ki Yimatzei Ish Gonev Nefesh me'Echav") like the Rabbanan of Rebbi Shimon - since it is a Sifri, and as we just learned, 'S'tam Sifri, Rebbi Shimon'.

The Rabbanan in our Mishnah exempt a father who kidnaps his son. Rav Papa objects by citing the Pasuk "Ki Yimatzei Ish Shochev im Ishah Be'ulas Ba'al". Because, he argues, by the same token, we ought also to declare Patur someone who commits adultery with a married woman whose company he constantly shares?

When he said 'K'gon Beis Peloni di'Shechichan Gabaihu', he meant that - here was an example of such a case, because it was a house where a number of couples lived together in the same house. And he declined to mention their names - since it was a well-known family, and he did not want to get into trouble by publicizing their illicit activities (see also Rashash).

Abaye conceded that Rap Papa was right - and that he had really meant to quote the Pasuk there "ve'Nimtza be'Yado" (which he derived not from the inference, but because it is superfluous).

Rava extrapolates from here that - by the same token, a Rebbe who kidnaps Talmidim with whom he is learning Chumash or Mishnah is Patur.

Rebbi Yehudah extrapolates from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "Ki Yinatzu Anashim Yachdav Ish ve'Achiv" that 'Avadim are not subject to Boshes' - from the word 'Achiv' which precludes Avadim.

The Pasuk is referring to a case - where Reuven and Shimon are fighting, and Reuven's wife, in an attempt to assist her husband, grabs Shimon by his Beitzim.

The Rabbanan refute Rebbi Yehudah's proof - by Darshening 'Achiv' to mean whoever is 'his brother in Mitzvos', thereby including Avadim (rather than precluding them).

Regarding the same Pasuk, Rebbi Yehudah (in our Mishnah) Darshens ...

... "me'Echav" - to preclude an Eved.

... "mi'B'nei Yisrael" - to preclude a Chatzi Eved va'Chatzi ben-Chorin, effectively including him, due to the principle 'Ein Miy'ut achar Miy'ut Ela Lerabos' (When one Miy'ut follows another, it comes to include).

The Rabbanan disagree with Rebbi Yehudah's D'rashah from "me'Echav" - seeing as they consider an Eved as a brother regarding Mitzvos, as we just explained.

In their opinion, the words "mi'b'nei Yisrael" and the 'Mem' in "mi'b'nei" come to preclude a. an Eved; b. someone who is a Chatzi Eved and a Chatzi ben-Chorin.

Rebbi Yashiyah learns the Azharah for Gonev Nefashos from "Lo Signov" (Yisro), and Rebbi Yochanan (presumably this ought to read Rebbi Yonasan), from "Lo Yimachru Mimkeres Aved" (B'har). In fact - they do not argue, only each one states the Azharah for a different section of the La'av.

The Beraisa's basis for interpreting ...

... "Lo Tignov" in the Asares ha'Dibros as an Azharah for kidnapping and not for stealing is - the principle 'Davar ha'Lameid me'Inyano' (we explain a thing according to its context), and the previous two cases mentioned there ("Lo Tirtzach" and "Lo Tin'af") are both Chayav Misas Beis-Din (like Gonev Nefashos, whereas Goneiv Mamon is not).

... "Lo Tignovu" in Kedoshim as an Azharah for stealing and not for kidnapping is - for the same reason, seeing as the previous case is "Lo Sa'ashok es Re'acha", which, like Goneiv Mamon, is a monetary issue and is not subject to Misas Beis-Din (whereas Gonev Nefashos is).

Chizkiyah absolves both the witnesses who saw the kidnapping only, and those who witnessed the sale, from the Din of Zom'min, because he holds like Rebbi Akiva, who, based on the Pasuk "al-Pi Shenayim Eidim Yakum Davar" - rules 'Davar ve'Lo Chatzi Davar'(One is Chayav for a complete testimony, but not a partial one).

And he applies the same principle to Gonev Nefashos - inasmuch as the kidnapper is Chayav neither for the Geneivah on its own nor for the Mechirah on its own.

This Halachah will affect the Din of the kidnapper himself inasmuch as - as long as the witnesses cannot become Zom'min, the sinner cannot be punished either, because of the principle 'Eidus she'I Atah Yachol Le'hazimah Lo havi Eidus' (the testimony of witnesses who cannot become Zom'min is not acceptable).

According to Chizkiyah therefore, the witnesses become subject to Hazamah and the kidnapper, to the death-sentence - only if the former testify on both the Geneivah and the Mechirah.

Rebbi Yochanan holds like the Rabbanan of Rebbi Akiva - who say 'Davar va'Afilu Chatzi Davar'.

Even Chizkiyah will agree that, in the case of a ben Sorer u'Moreh, the latter pair of witnesses can became Zom'min - because the first pair (unlike the first pair of witnesses by a kidnapper, whose testimony is only useful when it combines with that of the second pair) can say that they came to subject the boy to Malkos.

According to Rebbi Yochanan, witnesses who testify that Reuven kidnapped Shimon, are subject to Misah should they become Zom'min, as we just explained - but only if the Eidei Mechirah turn up and the Beis-Din sentenced the kidnapper to death before the Hazamah of the Eidei Geneivah.

Chizkiyah and Rebbi Yochanan argue over whether Eidei Geneivah alone are subject to Malkos (because of "Lo Signov"). Chizkiyah must be the one who holds 'Lokin' - because according to Rebbi Yochanan, they are subject to Misah, as we just explained, and based on the principle 'La'av she'Nitan le'Azharas Miysas Beis-Din Ein Lokin alav', they cannot therefore receive Malkos ...

... even if the Eidei Mechirah do not turn up.

Even though it is the kidnapper who is exempt from Malkos, seeing as he is subject to Misah - it stands to reason that, since the Chiyuv of the Zom'min is determined by "Ka'asher Zamam ... ", wherever the sinner himself is Patur, the witnesses are Patur too.

The witnesses are not Chayav Malkos for "Lo Sa'aneh", because, granted 'Lo Sa'aneh' serves as the Azharah for whatever punishment 'Ka'asher Zamam' would have resulted in - it cannot render someone Chayav Malkos in its own right, since it is a La'av she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh.

The Kashya this prompts Rav Papa to ask on Chizkiyah himself, who just described the very same Eidei Geneivah as 'Chatzi Davar' is - why then, the Eidei Mechirah should not be Chayav Misah, seeing as the Eidei Geneivah can claim that they came to be Mechayev the kidnapper Malkos (like he said by the second pair of witnesses of a ben Sorer u'Moreh).

Rav Papa therefore shifts the Machlokes to the other foot. Both parties agree, he says that - the Eidei Mechirah alone are Chayav Misah (in the event that the kidnapper is found guilty and sentenced before they become Zom'min).

But the Eidei Geneivah are not, according to Chizkiyah - because the Geneivah is a separate entity, for which the kidnapper receives Malkos (much like the first witnesses of a ben Sorer u'Moreh [and his Chiyuv Misah comes on account of the Mechirah alone]).

Rebbi Yochanan on the other hand, holds - that the Geneivah is the first stage of the sale, and it is for the combination of the two that the kidnapper is sentenced to death. Consequently, since it is a 'La'av she'Nitan le'Azharas Misas Beis-Din, there is no Malkos.

And the one who concedes by ben Sorer u'Moreh is - Rebbi Yochanan, who agrees that the first witnesses are not subject to Misah, because they can say that they came to sentence him to Malkos.

Abaye made three statement. When he said ...

... everybody agrees by ben Sorer u'Moreh (with regard to the first witnesses), he was referring to - the ruling that they are not Chayav Misah, because they can say that they came in order to sentence the boy to Malkos.

... everybody agrees by ben Sorer u'Moreh (with regard to the second witnesses), he was referring to - the ruling that they are Chayav Misah, since the first witnesses can say that they came to sentence the boy to Malkos.

... there is a Machlokes by ben Sorer u'Moreh, he was referring to - where one pair of witnesses testified that the boy stole money to buy meat and wine, and a second pair testified that he ate and drank what he purchased in somebody else's domain. He will be Patur according to Chizkiyah, (like Rebbi Akiva), and Chayav, according to Rebbi Yochanan (like the Rabbanan).

The reason Rav Asi gives for his ruling 'Eidei Mechirah be'Nefesh she'Huzmu Ein Neheragin' is - because, as long as there are no Eidei Geneivah, he can always say that the person that he sold was his own Eved.

Abaye refutes Rav Yosef, who establishes Rav Asi like Rebbi Akiva (who in turn says 'Davar ve'Lo Chatzi Davar') - because that does not tally with the reason that he gave.

Abaye therefore establishes Rav Asi - even like the Rabbanan, and he speaks in a case when no Eidei Geneivah at all came to testify.

Bearing in mind that this would be no Chidush, Abaye re-establishes the case - where Eidei Geneivah did eventually arrive, but only after the Eidei Mechirah testified (which means that when they did, the Din could not have been concluded, in which case, they could not become Zom'min).

Considering that this too is obvious, he finally adds that, although the Eidei Geneivah had not yet testified, they had been in the court-room, signaling to each other, and the Chidush is that - signaling has no Halachic ramifications (as long as the witnesses have not testified in Beis-Din).

Our Mishnah learns from the word "la'Mishpat (in the Pasuk in Parshas Shoftim "Ki Yipalei mimcha Davar la'Mishpat" that - a Zakein Mamrei is confined to one who argues verbally with the Beis-Din's rulings (and not just in theory).

The first of the three Batei-Din in the vicinity of the Beis-Hamikdash sit at the entrance of the Har ha'Bayis (within the Chil, in front of the entrance to the Ezras Nashim). The other two sit - at the entrance to the Ezras Yisrael and in the Lishkas ha'Gazis respectively.

A Zakein Mamrei - proceeds to the first Beis-Din together with the Beis-Din with which he disagrees. There he presents his argument and theirs. If that Beis-Din heard (from their Rebbes) the ruling of the relevant Halachah, they inform them, thereby settling the Machlokes. If not, they (the 'litigants') proceed to the second Beis-Din ... and in the event that they too, have not heard, to the Beis-Din ha'Gadol.

The Mishnah describes the Beis-Din ha'Gadol that sat in the Lishkas ha'Gazis - as the one from which Hora'ah emanated to the whole of Yisrael.

The distinction the Mishnah intimates between the first two Batei-Din and the Sanhedrin ha'Gadol is that - whereas the former are only permitted to say what they heard, the latter are permitted to rule from their own S'vara.

The Mishnah learns from the word "Ya'aseh" (in the Pasuk "ve'ha'Ish asher Ya'aseh be'Zadon") that - the Zakein Mamrei is only Chayav if he returns to his home-town and (not only continues to insist that he is right, but) actually issues rulings to that effect.

The Tana finally rules that a Talmid who behaves like a Zakein Mamrei - is Patur.

'Nimtzo Chumro Kulo' means that - the stringency concerning his lower status of a Talmid, serves as a leniency to save him from the death-sentence.