Rebbi Akiva in our Mishnah learns from the Pasuk "ve'Chol ha'Am Yishme'u ve'Yira'u" that - the death-sentence of the Zakein Mamrei is carried out (not next to the Beis-Din in his home-town or in Yavneh), but in Yerushalayim, on Yom-tov (when all the people are there).
During the last forty years prior to the destruction of the second Beis-ha'Mikdash - the Beis-Din ha'Gadol sat in Yavneh.
Based on this fact, when the Tana mentions Yavneh, he is referring to a case - where a Zakein Mamrei initially came before the Beis-Din in the Lishkas ha'Gazis, but by the time he had returned to his town and continued to rebel against Beis-Din, they had already moved to Yavneh. The Tana now rules that they would have had to take him to the original location of the Beis-Din ha'Gadol in Yerushalayim, wait for Yom-Tov and kill him there (see also Tosfos and Rashash).
Rebbi Yehudah disagrees with Rebbi Akiva's basic ruling. According to him - the Sanhedrin of his town would sentence him to death immediately in his home-town ...
... to avoid transgressing 'Inuy ha'Din' (torturing the condemned man by delaying the death-sentence).
And as for the Pasuk - "ve'Chol ha'Am Yishme'u (and not Yir'u ve'Yira'u"), it will suffice to announce (Hachrazah) across the land explaining whom they had killed and why they had killed him.
Besides Zakein Mamrei and Meisis, the other two cases that require 'Hachrazah' are - a ben Sorer u'Moreh and Eidim Zom'min (see Rashash).
The Beraisa explains that, by Eidim Zom'min, the Torah changes from "ve'Chol ha'Am Yishme'u" or "ve'Chol Yisrael Yishme'u" to "ve'ha'Nish'arim Yishme'u". It omits "ve'Chol" - because not everybody is eligible to become a witness (and an Eid Zomem). Gazlanim for example, people who lend on interest and those who deal with Sh'mitah-produce are Pasul le'Eidus (see Rashash).
The two 'prophets' listed by our Mishnah under the category of a Navi Sheker, that are punished at the hand of Beis-Din - are one who prophesies a prophecy that was never said and one who prophesies a prophecy that was told to someone else but not to him.
The third category of Navi that belongs in this list is - one that prophesies in the name of Avodah-Zarah.
A Navi who withholds his prophecy on the other hand, receives - Misah bi'Yedei Shamayim ...
... as does a 'Navi' who disobeys his own prophety and one who fails to announce it altogether.
We learn from the Pasuk in Shoftim "Anochi Edrosh me'Imo" that - the latter group of prophets listed in the Mishnah receive only Misah bi'Yedei Shamayim.
Someone who prophesies in the name of an idol will receive Chenek - even if he presents Torah Halachos in its name.
The Tana also includes in the list of Chayvei Chenek, someone who commits adultery with a married woman - even if her marriage has not yet been consummated (which we know in a case where her father hands her over to the husband's Shali'ach, and she commits adultery before even seeing her husband).
The only case where a man and woman receive different deaths for committing an act of intimacy for which they are Chayav Misah is - someone who commits adultery with a married bas Kohen, where she receives Sereifah, whereas he receives Chenek.
Should the witnesses receive should they turn out to be Zom'min - they will receive Chenek, like the adulterer would have received.
Rav Yehudah presents the Pasuk "Ach ha'Navi asher Yazid Le'daber Davar bi'Shemi" as the source for a Navi who relates what he has not been told, and the continuation of the Pasuk "va'asher Lo Tzivisiv" - he presents as the source for a Navi who presents a prophesy that was said to somebody else, but not to him.
And he learns the Din of someone who prophesies in the name of other gods - from the continuation of the Pasuk "va'asher Yedaber be'Shem Elohim Acherim".
We know that all of these are subject specifically to Chenek - because of the principle 'S'tam Misah, Einah Ela Chenek'.
Rav Yehudah Amar Rav also quotes the Pasuk "ve'ha'Ish asher Lo Yishma el Divrei ha'Navi, Anochi Edrosh me'Imo", implying whoever disobeys the words of a Navi. He also Darshens the word "Yishma" - as if it had written "Lo Yashmi'a" (meaning that he does not announce his prophesy to others) and "Lo Yishama" (meaning that he does not obey his own prophesy).
Tzidkiyah ben Cana'anah transgressed the sin of - stating a prophesy that was never said.
We query his guilt - on the basis of his having been misled by a spirit, in which case he could not have known that it was not a prophesy.
We resolve the problem by citing Rebbi Yitzchak, who says that two prophets can never deliver exactly the same prophecy (and in the case of Tzidkiyah ben Cana'anah, there were many 'prophets' all making exactly the same prophesy as he was).
To explain the similar prophesies of Ovadyah and Yirmiyah (who prophesied during the same period), who said "Z'don Libcha Hishi'echa", and "Tiflatzt'cha Hishi Osach Z'don Libecha" (respectively) - Rebbi Yitzchak differentiates between two prophets issuing the same prophesies using the same words (which is impossible), and two prophets issuing the same prophesies but using different words.
Hash-m was looking for a spirit - to entice Achav to go to war in the belief that he would win, even though in fact, he was destined to die on that occasion.
The spirit that volunteered was - that of Navos, whom Achav had murdered on that very spot.
After the spirit of Navos volunteered, Hash-m said "Tefateh ve'Gam Tuchal. Tzei va'Asei Kein". Rav Yehudah explains the word "Tzei" - as an order to leave Hash-m's presence (because Hash-m cannot countenance someone who lies).
To answer the Kashya that perhaps Tzidkiyah ben Cana'anah was not conversant with Rebbi Yitzchak's ruling, we cite Yehoshafat King of Yehudah, who was there at the time. When ...
... Yehoshafat asked whether there was no Navi present, Tzidkiyah pointed to all the false prophets who were prophesying like himself.
... Tzidkiyah did that - Yeshoshafat replied with Rebbi Yitzchak's principle (which Tzidkiyah chose to ignore).
Chananyah ben Ezor (a former prophet) transgressed the sin of - prophesying what was said to someone else.
Whilst ...
... Yirmiyah was prophesying in the upper Shuk - that Hash-m would destroy the might of Eilam (a small province near Bavel that came to help Bavel).
... Chananyah prophesied in the lower Shuk - by means of a 'Kal ve'Chomer' that He would destroy Bavel itself.
When Rav Papa asked Abaye how we coulf possibly refer to this as the same prophesy, he replied that - the prophecy of Chananyah was basically a replica of Yirmiyah's, only he added Bavel from a 'Kal va'Chomer' (which one has the right to Darshen on one's own).
The example we give of ...
... someone who prophesies in the name of idolatry - is the prophets of Ba'al (particularly prominent in the episode with Eliyahu at Har ha'Karmel).
... someone who withholds his prophesy is - Yonah ben Amitai.
The example of someone who refuses to obey the command of a Navi is the 'colleague' of Michayhu ben Yimla - who refused to strike him when ordered by him to do so.
This was symbolical of what had happened the same day with Achav, about whom Michayhu had prophesied that he would fall to ben Hadad of Syria - for sending him home in peace (and not killing him).
Ido ha'Navi is the example of a Navi who disregarded his own prophesy. Hash-m had ordered him - not to eat or drink in that place after having prophesied what would happen to the Mizbe'ach of Yeravam ben N'vat in Beis-Eil, in the days of Yoshiyahu.
He changed his mind and accepted the false prophet's invitation to eat with him - after the latter pestered him to stay, on the pretext that he too, was a Navi.
He (Ido) had barely left town - when he was killed by a lion.
A Beraisa-expert quoted a Beraisa in front of Rav Chisda. The Tana there states that - someone who withholds his prophesy receives Malkos (see Tosfos end of Amud Alef and Chamra ve'Chaye).
When Rav Chisda asked 'Tamri be'Arbeila Laki?' he meant to ask - why the Navi should receive Malkos any more than someone who eats dates in a dish (see Me'iri), because, seeing as nobody would have known about his prophesy, who would have warned him?
Abaye answered that his fellow-prophets warned him. They would have known that ...
... he had received a prophesy that he had quashed - because of the Pasuk in Amos "Ki Lo Ya'aseh Elokim Davar Ki-im Gilah Sodo".
... the Navi did not quash his prophesy because Beis-Din shel Ma'alah had retracted from the evil decree (in which case, they would not have the right to give him Malkos) - because then Hash-m would have informed them about that, too.
We try to - refute the previous answer from Yonah, where we see that Hash-m did not even inform Yonah that He had retracted (see Agados Maharsha and Aruch la'Ner), how much more so the other Nevi'im!
We refute that proof however, based on the fact that - there was nothing there from which to retract, seeing as Hash-m had never said that He would destroy Ninvei, only that it would be 'overturned' in forty days, by which He meant that they would do Teshuvah, and it was Yonah who had misunderstood Hash-m's words in the first place.
One is Chayav for disobeying a Navi - provided the Navi has proved (at some stage) that he is a Navi Hash-m, by performing a sign (either in the form of a miracle or by foretelling something that will happen before it does)
Despite the fact that Miychayhu ben Yimlah did not give a sign - his 'colleague' was Chayav for disobeying him, because he (Miychayhu) was already a proven Navi.
We prove that someone who is an established Navi does not need to substantiate his instructions with a sign - from the Akeidah of Yitzchak, where Yitzchak Avinu obeyed his father's instructions, even though he did nothing at that stage to prove that he was a Navi ...
... and from Eliyahu on Har ha'Carmel, whom the people obeyed by building a Bamah and bringing Korbanos on it (even though the Beis-Hamikdash was standing [despite the fact that he too, gave no sign at that stage to prove that he was a Navi. This was because both Avraham and Eliyahu were already proven Nevi'im.
The Torah writes in Vayeira (in connection with the Akeidah) "va'Yehi Achar ha'Devarim ha'Eileh". According To Rebbi Yochanan Amar Rebbi Yossi ben Zimra this means after the words of the Satan.
The Satan argued that - since Hash-m had blessed Avraham with a son and heir at the age of a hundred, the least he could have done was to bring a dove or a pigeon from all the feasts that he made, to celebrate (the B'ris and the weaning party).
Hash-m replied - bearing in mind that all the feasts were in honor of his son Yitzchak, if He were to ask him to sacrifice his son, he would do so willingly (prompting Hash-m to test him with the Akeidah).
Rebbi Shimon bar Aba explains the significance of the word "Na" (in the Pasuk "Kach Na es Bincha") in that - it served as a plea on the part of Hash-m not to fail this test, as this would cast doubts on the sincerity of the previous nine tests.
And he compares it to a king whose champion was about to fight the greatest battle of his successful career, with whom the king pleaded - not to let him down this time, as it would cast doubts on all his previous victories.
When Hash-m told Avraham to take ...
... his son, he replied - that he had two sons.
... his only son - he replied that both were only sons, one to Hagar and the other, to Sarah.
... whom he loved - he replied that he loved them both.
Hash-m chose to speak to him like that - to break the news of the Akeidah to him slowly, in order not to catch him by surprise and confuse him (see Rashi in Chumash), thereby minimizing the greatness of his actions.
On the way to the Akeidah, the Satan approached Avraham and asked him ...
... initially, whether, if Hash-m really loved him, it was right to test him in such a way that wore him down and destroyed his children, especially as he had brought so many people to believe in Hash-m and helped so many others.
... after Avraham replied 'Ani be'Tumi Eilech', that - surely, his fear of G-d ought to result in a stronger faith in Him. And if Avraham was righteous, he argued, then why was Hash-m destroying him?
And when the Satan told Avraham that he had heard from behind the curtain that it was not Yitzchak that was about to be sacrificed, but a lamb - Avraham replied that the punishment of a liar is that nobody believes him, even when he tells the truth.
According to Rebbi Levi, "Achar ha'Devarim ha'Eileh" refers to the conversation between Yishmael and Yitzchak. Yishmael boasted that he was greater than Yitzchak - inasmuch as, whereas Yitzchak was circumcised at eight days, he had been circumcised at the age of thirteen (requiring a degree of self-sacrifice to which Yitzchak had not been subjected).
Yitzchak replied - that if Yishmael was boasting about giving one limb to Hash-m, he would gladly give Him his entire body (hence the Akeidah).
We learned in a Beraisa 'Navi she'Hidi'ach bi'Sekilah; Madichei Ir ha'Nidachas bi'Sekilah'. According to Rebbi Shimon - both receive Chenek.
The Rabbanan's source for the former ruling is the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Hadachah" "Hadachah" from Meisis. Rebbi Shimon did not receive this 'Gezeirah-Shavah' (in this context) from his Rebbes. He therefore rules 'Navi she'Hidi'ach be'Chenek' - because of the principle 'S'tam Misah ha'Amurah ba'Torah Eino Ela Chenek.
The Rabbanan's source for the latter ruling 'Madichei Ir ha'Nidachas bi'Sekilah' is - the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Hadachah" "Hadachah", either from Meisis or from Navi she'Hidi'ach.
Rebbi Shimon now learns the Gezeirah-Shavah "Hadachah" "Hadachah" (which he did receive from his Rebbes with regard to Madichei Ir ha'Nidachas) from Navi she'Hidi'ach. He prefers to learn the Gezeirah-Shavah from Navi shi'Hidi'ach than from Meisis - since, unlike Meisis, they both speak about enticing many people into worshipping idols.
We counter this by arguing that it is preferable to learn Madichei Ir ha'Nidachas from Meisis - Hedyot from Hedyot, rather than from Navi she'Hidi'ach, who has a higher status.
Rebbi Shimon does not hold of this argument however - because, he maintains, a Navi who talks people into serving Avodah-Zarah, is no more than a Hedyot.