Chapter 4: By what disputes is a person deemed a Zakein Mamrei

Halacha 1: The manner of dispute which deems one a Zakein Mamrei

• If he is lenient while the Supreme Court is stringent: A person is deemed a Zakein Mamrei whether he argues for leniency or stringency regarding a law that carries a penalty of excision. Meaning, whether he is the one who rules to permit the matter while the Supreme Court rules to prohibit it, or vice versa, that he is the one who rules to prohibit the matter and the Supreme Court is the one who rules to permit it, he is nonetheless deemed a Zakein Mamrei.
• If he bases his opinion on tradition: He is deemed a Zakein Mamrei even if he claims his opinion is based on tradition from his teachers, while the Supreme Court bases their decision on their personal opinion.
• If he argues against a rabbinical decree: He is deemed a Zakein Mamrei if he argues on then regarding a decree they made in order to protect a prohibition which carries a penalty of excision.
• An example by Chametz: For example, if he argued on the decree to prohibit Chametz from the sixth hour of the day of the 14^th of Nisan, and ruled to permit it then he is deemed a Zakein Mamrei and is liable for death.

Halacha 2: The disputed subjects which deems one a Zakein Mamrei

• A matter which can eventually lead to Kareis: If the dispute surrounds a law which can eventually lead to a penalty of excision, even though it itself does not contain a penalty of excision, nonetheless the dissenting sage is liable for death.
• Therefore, the court must contemplate by every subject of dispute as to whether the matter can eventually lead to a penalty of excision, and if so then he is deemed a Zakein Mamrei, even if can only lead to this in a very far-fetched case, after 100 causes and effects.
• This includes the following examples:
  • Erva and Nida: If they debated regarding this certain woman is an Erva, or is a Nida, then he is liable.
  • Cheilev: Likewise if they debated regarding if a certain food is Cheilev, then he is liable.
  • Leap year: Likewise if they debated regarding if a certain year should be a leap year, then he is liable, as this effects the prohibition of Chametz.
  • Monetary cases: Likewise if they debated regarding the ruling in a monetary case, then he is liable, as this effects the status of a marriage that will take place with this money.
  • Lashes: Likewise if they debated regarding if a person is liable for lashing, then he is liable, as this effects the status of a marriage that will take place with the money that would need to be paid by the executioner of the lashes if he was not liable.
  • Erechin and Charamim: Likewise if they debated regarding if a person is liable for a Cherem or Erechin payment, then he is liable, as this effects the status of a marriage that will take place with this money. The same applies regarding all the following cases as well, due to that the status of the money would affect the status of a marriage:
  • Pidyon Kodshim
  • Egla Arufa
  • Arla
  • Leket, Shichicha and Peiah
  • Tuma Vetaharah: Likewise if they debated regarding if a person is pure or impure with an Avi Avos Hatuma, then he is liable, as this effects whether one who enters the Temple is liable for excision.
  • Metzora
  • Sotah

Halacha 3: A dispute regarding the mitzvah of tefillin

• If the subject in dispute cannot lead even in a far-fetched manner to a penalty of excision, then the elder is exempt from liability, with exception to the Mitzvah of Tefillin.
• For example, if he says that one needs to make a fifth compartment in the head tefillin, then he is liable.
• This law that a person is liable for matters relating to tefillin laws, is a tradition for Moses on Sinai.
• He is not held liable for disputing any other law, whether it be relating to the Lulav, Tzitzis, Shofar, or anything of the like.