Clarification: Arifah is 'Lalav Davka' (not literal), since it is the Medidah (the measuring) that requires three.

Source #1: For so we learned in the Mishnah in PerekEglah Arufah - 'Three Dayanim would go from the Beis-Din ha'Gadol in Yerushalayim (to measure) ... ', and later the Mishnah says 'The elders of Yerushalayim would take their leave, and the elders of that town would bring an Eglah Arufah'; And there it does not mention three.

Source #2: The Pesukim cited in the Gemara too, speak about the measuring.

Clarification: It is evident from this Gemara that "Ziknei" refers to Hedyotos (laymen).

Precedents: Similarly later, where, in connection with the 'Arifah', the Gemara says that, had it written "Ziknei", we would have thought that it meant 'elders from the street' (laymen); And so too at the beginning of 'Mitzvas Chalitzah', where the Gemara includes Hedyotos from the fact that the Torah writes "Ziknei Iro".

Question: But in Perek Eglah Arufah the Mishnah writes that if the corpse is found close to a town that has no Beis-Din, they did not measure. And the Gemara learns this from the Pasuk "Ziknei ha'Ir" (which implies Mumchim)?

Answer: The answer is that "Ziknei ha'Ir" (with a 'Hey') implies special elders in the city, just like we Darshen here "ha'Eidah" - 'people who are special in the community'.

Clarification: The Gemara implies that 'Sh'rak' and 'Pirchus' are two different things - not like Rashi in the first Perek of Kesuvos, who writes that 'Pokeses' is equivalent to smearing 'Sh'rak on the face, and it is evident there that 'Pokeses' and 'Pirchus' are one and the same. And this is not the time and place to elaborate.

Precedents: Similarly, in the first Perek of Sotah, where, in spite of the 'Vav' in the word "u'Tehorah Hi", R. Shimon maintains that merits do not prevent the water of the Sotah from taking effect immediately; and likewise in Perek ha'Techeiles, in connection with the word "u'Machtzisah".

Question #1: However, there appears to be a contradiction from the Gemara at the beginning of 'Merubeh', where R. Shimon does Darshen the 'Vav' of "ve'es Ashamo", and from Perek Kol ha'Asurim, in connection with the Pasuk "u'min ha'Tzon" - 'to preclude a goring ox from being brought as a Korban; and from Perek 'Arba Misos', where R. Akiva Darshens "Bas" "u'Bas", and where R. Shimon concurs with him?

Question #2: In similar vein, we can query R. Yehudah, who Darshens the 'Vav' here and in 'Eilu Metzi'os' (in connection with "u'Metza'sah" - 'de'Asa li'Yedeih Mashma') - from the Gemara at the beginning of Temurah, in connection with "ve'Im Hamer Yamir", and from the the Gemara in 'Taraf be'Kalpi', in connection with "ve'ha'Eish", where R. Yehudah does not Darshen the 'Vav',

Answer: When the Gemara says 'Lo Darish Lei', it does not mean that he does not Darshen it at all, but rather that he does not concur with the D'rashah that his disputant learns from it.

Question: If this is because our Mishnah does not mention 'Melech' and 'Kohen Gadol', neither does it mention them in connection with 'Ein Mosifin al ha'Ir', even though it too, requires 'Melech, Nasi, Urim ve'Tumim, Sh'tei Todos and Shir', as we learned in the second Perek of Shevuos (none of which are in fact mentioned in our Mishnah), nor 'Melech and Mashu'ach Milchamah' in connection with 'Motzi'in le'Milchemes ha'Reshus', even though we will learn in the Gemara shortly that they are required there?

Answer: That is because in the latter two cases, it does not reckon anything else, other than that they need seventy-one Dayanim. Here however, where three or five Dayanim will suffice, if it required Melach and Kohen Gadol, then it ought to mention them specifically.

Implied Question: Even though by Ma'aser Sheini too, the Torah writes "Makom", yet Ma'aser Sheini could be eaten anywhere in Yerushalayim.

Answer: 'Makom' in connection with Sanhedrin refers specifically to the Lishkas ha'Gazis, which was close to the Machaneh Shechinah.

Source: Like the Gemara in 'Eizehu Mekoman' which quotes a tradition that the Sanhedrin sat in the portion of Yehudah, and the Shechinah in that of Binyamin, but not in Beis Pagi.

Implied Question: Despite the fact that it had the Din of Yerushalayim (as we learned in 'ha'Socher es ha'Po'alim') 'But does it not require a wall? It speaks where they walked within the wall of Beis Pagi!' And in Perek ha'Todah too, we say that 'If someone Shechts a Torah whist its loaves are outside Beis Pagi, the loaves do not become sanctified'.

Conclusion: Likewise (see Maharsha), not only is Beis Pagi not the rightful location of the Beis-Din ha'Gadol, but neither is Yerushalayim.

Proof: Like we learned in the first Perek of Shabbos 'Forty years before the Beis-Hamikdash was destroyed, the Sanhedrin went into exile, and sat in 'Chanus' `and we learned in the last Perek of Rosh ha'Shanah 'The Sanhedrin was exiled ten times - from Lishkas ha'Gazis to Chanus and from Chanus to Yerushalayim.

Clarification: Neither can we establish it after the Tamid shel Bein ha'Arbayim, when they all went home, since each judge made his own way home, and it there is no way that they would have all met together.

Explanation #1: Like we will learn later, that if one Dayan needs to go out, then as long as twenty-three remain, he may leave, otherwise, he may not. And this is akin to 'Mezigah' (diluting wine), one part wine and two parts, water.

Implied Question: Even though, according to the Gemara in 'ha'Motzi Yayin', S'tam 'Mezigah' is one part wine, three parts water ...

Answer: That speaks specifically according to Rava (who was a wine-maker, and) who tended to dilute his wine one to three, whereas most people, who prefer their wine strong, are inclined to dilute it one to two, as we explained.

Proof #1: " means The Gemara in 'ha'Zahav', implies that Rava's wine was different than everybody else's, when it cites him as saying 'My dilution is recognizable!'.

Proof #2: And n 'Keitzad Me'abrin' too, it says 'This dilution resembles that of Rava b'rei de'Rav Yosef bar Chama'.

Explanation #2: Some commentaries interpret "Al Yechsar ha'Mazeg" to mean that there should never be missing the Gematriyah of "Mazeg", which is fifty. But if there are only forty-nine short, that would leave twenty-two, in which case, based on the principle "Ein Beis-Din Shakul" (A Beis-Din may never comprise an even number), they would have to add one (making up the required twenty-three).

Clarification: This does not apply to Neta Revai.

Proof: As is evident in the Gemara, which cites a Beraisa which defines Ma'aser Sheini whose value is not known, but not Neta Revai?

Reason: This is because seeing as the owner is impatient to eat from his tree for the first time, we are afraid even if their value is known (see Tosfos Yom-Tov).

Ruling: Nowadays however, when we do not redeem them for their full value anyway, three people are not required.

Explanation #1: Some say that the three purchasers refer to three people who wish to purchase the Ma'aser, and it goes to the highest bidder.

Explanation #2: The explanation of Rashi however (that the Ma'aser needs to be assessed by three merchants).

Refutation of #1: Because, according to the first explanation, how will we explain 'a man and his two wives' mentioned in the Beraisa (seeing that whatever a woman owns belongs to her husband)?

Implied Question & Refutation: Tosfos refute the suggestion that the Gemara is talking about where the owner gave it to the women on condition that her husband has no rights to it, as that would be a Dochek.

Explanation #1: Rashi defines 'Tzinura' as something with which one spins gold.

Proof: This conforms with the Mishnah in Keilim 'A spindle which 'swallowed' the Tzinora, and an ox-goad which 'swallowed' its metal tip ('Kush' is the spindle with which the women spin).

Explanation #2: There is also another kind of Tzinora - like the Gemara in 'R. Akiva' and 'in the last Perek in Menachos says, that is used to clean the top of the wick, and to clean out the lamp'.

Explanation #3: A third kind of Tzinora is mentioned in the first Perek of Yoma 'A Kohen Gadol wears eight Begadim and turns over the pieces of Korban with a pitch-fork.

Explanation #4: Whereas R. Chananel translates it according to its acronym 'Atzei Nura' - wood for the fire on the Mizbe'ach.