Talmudתלמוד

Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua's Disputes

These sources document the famous conflicts between Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua over halakhic matters—including the calendar calculation for Rosh Hashanah and whether evening prayer is obligatory—and explore the broader tensions between authority and dissent in the Beit Midrash, including the question of when a scholar must submit to the Great Court's rulings.

כָּל מַחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, סוֹפָהּ לְהִתְקַיֵּם

7 sources · verified

Opens as a working sheet — explore, annotate, and export.

Source 1 · Chazal
Verified

Mishnah Rosh Hashanah

Mishnah Rosh Hashanah 2:8-9

Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua dispute the calendar calculation for Rosh Hashanah; Rabban Gamliel orders Rabbi Yehoshua to appear before him on the day Rabbi Yehoshua calculated to be Yom Kippur, carrying his staff and wallet — a humiliating command that Rabbi Yehoshua ultimately obeys after counsel from Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas.

דְּמוּת צוּרוֹת לְבָנוֹת הָיוּ לוֹ לְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בַּטַּבְלָא וּבַכֹּתֶל בַּעֲלִיָּתוֹ, שֶׁבָּהֶן מַרְאֶה אֶת הַהֶדְיוֹטוֹת וְאוֹמֵר, הֲכָזֶה רָאִיתָ אוֹ כָזֶה. מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבָּאוּ שְׁנַיִם וְאָמְרוּ, רְאִינוּהוּ שַׁחֲרִית בַּמִּזְרָח וְעַרְבִית בַּמַּעֲרָב. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי, עֵדֵי שֶׁקֶר הֵם. כְּשֶׁבָּאוּ לְיַבְנֶה קִבְּלָן רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. וְעוֹד בָּאוּ שְׁנַיִם וְאָמְרוּ, רְאִינוּהוּ בִזְמַנּוֹ, וּבְלֵיל עִבּוּרוֹ לֹא נִרְאָה, וְקִבְּלָן רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. אָמַר רַבִּי דוֹסָא בֶּן הַרְכִּינָס, עֵדֵי שֶׁקֶר הֵן, הֵיאָךְ מְעִידִין עַל הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁיָּלְדָה, וּלְמָחָר כְּרֵסָהּ בֵּין שִׁנֶּיהָ. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, רוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת דְּבָרֶיךָ: שָׁלַח לוֹ רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, גּוֹזְרַנִי עָלֶיךָ שֶׁתָּבֹא אֶצְלִי בְּמַקֶּלְךָ וּבִמְעוֹתֶיךָ בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּחֶשְׁבּוֹנְךָ. הָלַךְ וּמְצָאוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מֵצֵר, אָמַר לוֹ, יֶשׁ לִי לִלְמוֹד שֶׁכָּל מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל עָשׂוּי, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כג), אֵלֶּה מוֹעֲדֵי יְיָ מִקְרָאֵי קֹדֶשׁ, אֲשֶׁר תִּקְרְאוּ אֹתָם, בֵּין בִּזְמַנָּן בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בִזְמַנָּן, אֵין לִי מוֹעֲדוֹת אֶלָּא אֵלּוּ. בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל רַבִּי דוֹסָא בֶּן הַרְכִּינָס, אָמַר לוֹ, אִם בָּאִין אָנוּ לָדוּן אַחַר בֵּית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, צְרִיכִין אָנוּ לָדוּן אַחַר כָּל בֵּית דִּין וּבֵית דִּין שֶׁעָמַד מִימוֹת משֶׁה וְעַד עַכְשָׁיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כד), וַיַּעַל משֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא וְשִׁבְעִים מִזִּקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְלָמָּה לֹא נִתְפָּרְשׁוּ שְׁמוֹתָן שֶׁל זְקֵנִים, אֶלָּא לְלַמֵּד, שֶׁכָּל שְׁלשָׁה וּשְׁלשָׁה שֶׁעָמְדוּ בֵית דִּין עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל, הֲרֵי הוּא כְבֵית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל משֶׁה. נָטַל מַקְלוֹ וּמְעוֹתָיו בְּיָדוֹ, וְהָלַךְ לְיַבְנֶה אֵצֶל רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בְּיוֹם שֶׁחָל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים לִהְיוֹת בְּחֶשְׁבּוֹנוֹ. עָמַד רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וּנְשָׁקוֹ עַל רֹאשׁוֹ, אָמַר לוֹ, בֹּא בְשָׁלוֹם, רַבִּי וְתַלְמִידִי, רַבִּי בְחָכְמָה, וְתַלְמִידִי שֶׁקִּבַּלְתָּ דְּבָרָי:

Rabban Gamliel had a diagram of the different forms of the moon drawn on a tablet that hung on the wall of his attic, which he would show to the laymen who came to testify about the new moon but were unable to describe adequately what they had seen. And he would say to them: Did you see a form like this or like this? There was an incident in which two witnesses came to testify about the new moon, and they said: We saw the waning moon in the morning in the east, and that same day we saw the new moon in the evening in the west. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said: They are false witnesses, as it is impossible to see the new moon so soon after the last sighting of the waning moon. However, when they arrived in Yavne, Rabban Gamliel accepted them as witnesses without concern. And there was another incident in which two witnesses came and said: We saw the new moon at its anticipated time, i.e., on the night of the thirtieth day of the previous month; however, on the following night, i.e., the start of the thirty-first, which is often the determinant of a full, thirty-day month, it was not seen. And nevertheless Rabban Gamliel accepted their testimony and established the New Moon on the thirtieth day. Rabbi Dosa ben Horkinas disagreed and said: They are false witnesses; how can witnesses testify that a woman gave birth and the next day her belly is between her teeth, i.e., she is obviously still pregnant? If the new moon was already visible at its anticipated time, how could it not be seen a day later? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: I see the logic of your statement; the New Moon must be established a day later. Upon hearing that Rabbi Yehoshua had challenged his ruling, Rabban Gamliel sent a message to him: I decree against you that you must appear before me with your staff and with your money on the day on which Yom Kippur occurs according to your calculation; according to my calculation, that day is the eleventh of Tishrei, the day after Yom Kippur. Rabbi Akiva went and found Rabbi Yehoshua distressed that the head of the Great Sanhedrin was forcing him to desecrate the day that he maintained was Yom Kippur. In an attempt to console him, Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Yehoshua: I can learn from a verse that everything that Rabban Gamliel did in sanctifying the month is done, i.e., it is valid. As it is stated: “These are the appointed seasons of the Lord, sacred convocations, which you shall proclaim in their season” (Leviticus 23:4). This verse indicates that whether you have proclaimed them at their proper time or whether you have declared them not at their proper time, I have only these Festivals as established by the representatives of the Jewish people. Rabbi Yehoshua then came to Rabbi Dosa ben Horkinas, who said to him: If we come to debate and question the rulings of the court of Rabban Gamliel, we must debate and question the rulings of every court that has stood from the days of Moses until now. As it is stated: “Then Moses went up, and Aaron, Nadav and Avihu, and seventy of the Elders of Israel” (Exodus 24:9). But why were the names of these seventy Elders not specified? Rather, this comes to teach that every set of three judges that stands as a court over the Jewish people has the same status as the court of Moses. Since it is not revealed who sat on that court, apparently it is enough that they were official judges in a Jewish court. When Rabbi Yehoshua heard that even Rabbi Dosa ben Horkinas maintained that they must submit to Rabban Gamliel’s decision, he took his staff and his money in his hand, and went to Yavne to Rabban Gamliel on the day on which Yom Kippur occurred according to his own calculation. Upon seeing him, Rabban Gamliel stood up and kissed him on his head. He said to him: Come in peace, my teacher and my student. You are my teacher in wisdom, as Rabbi Yehoshua was wiser than anyone else in his generation, and you are my student, as you accepted my statement, despite your disagreement.

Why it matters — One of the most famous confrontations between the two sages, touching on rabbinic authority, calendar sanctification, and submission to institutional leadership.

Source 2 · Chazal
Verified

Talmud Bavli, Berakhot

Berakhot 28a

After Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah is appointed Nasi in place of Rabban Gamliel, the Talmud describes how hundreds of benches were added to the Beit Midrash and the doors were opened to all students — a direct consequence of Rabban Gamliel's restrictive policy that Rabbi Yehoshua had suffered under.

אָמַר לוֹ רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: אָסוּר אַתָּה לָבֹא בַּקָּהָל. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: מוּתָּר אַתָּה לָבֹא בַּקָּהָל. אָמַר לוֹ רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר ״לֹא יָבֹא עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי בִּקְהַל ה׳״? אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: וְכִי עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב בִּמְקוֹמָן הֵן יוֹשְׁבִין? כְּבָר עָלָה סַנְחֵרִיב מֶלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר וּבִלְבֵּל אֶת כׇּל הָאוּמּוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאָסִיר גְּבֻלוֹת עַמִּים וַעֲתוּדוֹתֵיהֶם שׁוֹשֵׂתִי וְאוֹרִיד כַּבִּיר יוֹשְׁבִים״, וְכׇל דְּפָרֵישׁ — מֵרוּבָּא פָּרֵישׁ. אָמַר לוֹ רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר ״וְאַחֲרֵי כֵן אָשִׁיב אֶת שְׁבוּת בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן נְאֻם ה׳״, וּכְבָר שָׁבוּ! אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר ״וְשַׁבְתִּי אֶת שְׁבוּת עַמִּי יִשְׂרָאֵל״, וַעֲדַיִין לֹא שָׁבוּ. מִיָּד הִתִּירוּהוּ לָבֹא בַּקָּהָל.

Rabban Gamliel said to him: You are forbidden to enter into the congregation. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: You are permitted to enter into the congregation. Rabban Gamliel said to Rabbi Yehoshua: Wasn’t it already stated: “An Ammonite and a Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to the tenth generation shall none of them enter into the congregation of the Lord forever” (Deuteronomy 23:4)? How can you permit him to enter the congregation? Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabban Gamliel: Do Ammon and Moab reside in their place? Sennacherib already came and, through his policy of population transfer, scrambled all the nations and settled other nations in place of Ammon. Consequently, the current residents of Ammon and Moab are not ethnic Ammonites and Moabites, as it is stated in reference to Sennacherib: “I have removed the bounds of the peoples, and have robbed their treasures, and have brought down as one mighty the inhabitants” (Isaiah 10:13). And although it is conceivable that this particular convert is an ethnic Ammonite, nevertheless, there is no need for concern due to the halakhic principle: Anything that parts from a group parts from the majority, and the assumption is that he is from the majority of nations whose members are permitted to enter the congregation. Rabban Gamliel said to Rabbi Yehoshua: But wasn’t it already stated: “But afterward I will bring back the captivity of the children of Ammon, says the Lord” (Jeremiah 49:6) and they have already returned to their land? Therefore, he is an ethnic Ammonite and he may not convert. Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabban Gamliel: That is no proof. Wasn’t it already stated in another prophecy: “And I will turn the captivity of My people Israel and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them” (Amos 9:14), and they have not yet returned? In rendering the ruling, only proven facts may be taken into consideration. They immediately permitted him to enter the congregation. This proves that Rabban Gamliel did not absent himself from the study hall that day and participated in the halakhic discourse.

Why it matters — Illustrates how the conflict between the two leaders had broader communal and educational implications, with Rabbi Yehoshua's vindication opening Torah study to all.

Source 3 · Chazal
Verified

Mishnah Berakhot

Mishnah Berakhot 4:1

The Mishnah records the dispute between Rabban Gamliel and the Sages (including Rabbi Yehoshua) over whether Tefillat Maariv is obligatory (Rabban Gamliel) or optional (the Sages), the very disagreement that sparked the public confrontation in the Beit Midrash.

תְּפִלַּת הָעֶרֶב אֵין לָהּ קֶבַע.

The evening prayer may be recited throughout the night and is not fixed to a specific hour.

Why it matters — The underlying halakhic debate that ignited the famous power struggle between Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua.

Source 4 · Chazal
Verified

Talmud Bavli, Berakhot

Berakhot 27b:1

The dramatic account of Rabban Gamliel's humiliation of Rabbi Yehoshua over the evening prayer (whether Maariv is obligatory or optional), leading to Rabban Gamliel's temporary deposition and the appointment of Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah as Nasi in his place.

לֹא כְּנֶגֶד רַבּוֹ, וְלֹא אֲחוֹרֵי רַבּוֹ.

directly next to his rabbi, presumptuously indicating that he is his rabbi’s equal, and behind his rabbi as it creates the impression that he is bowing to him (Tosafot)?

Why it matters — This is the central narrative of the conflict between Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua, culminating in the only recorded deposition of a Nasi in Talmudic history.

Source 5 · Chazal
Verified

Pirkei Avot

Pirkei Avot 5:17

The Mishnah distinguishes between a dispute for the sake of Heaven (machloket leshem shamayim), exemplified by Hillel and Shammai, and one not for Heaven's sake, exemplified by Korach. The debate between Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua is often measured against this standard.

כָּל מַחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, סוֹפָהּ לְהִתְקַיֵּם. וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, אֵין סוֹפָהּ לְהִתְקַיֵּם. אֵיזוֹ הִיא מַחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, זוֹ מַחֲלֹקֶת הִלֵּל וְשַׁמַּאי.

Every dispute that is for the sake of Heaven, will in the end endure; But one that is not for the sake of Heaven, will not endure. Which is the controversy that is for the sake of Heaven? Such was the controversy of Hillel and Shammai. And which is the controversy that is not for the sake of Heaven?

Why it matters — Provides the canonical framework for evaluating whether the Gamliel–Yehoshua controversy qualifies as a dispute for Heaven's sake.

Source 6 · Chazal
Verified

Talmud Bavli, Rosh Hashanah

Rosh Hashanah 25a

The Gemara elaborates on the calendar dispute, discussing why Rabbi Yehoshua ultimately submitted to Rabban Gamliel's ruling and the principle that the Beit Din's sanctification of the month is binding even if made in error, derived from 'these are My appointed times.'

אָמַר רַבִּי דּוֹסָא בֶּן הוֹרְכִּינָס: עֵדֵי שֶׁקֶר הֵן, הֵיאַךְ מְעִידִים עַל הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁיָּלְדָה וּלְמָחָר כְּרֵיסָהּ בֵּין שִׁינֶּיהָ? אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: רוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת דְּבָרֶיךָ. שָׁלַח לוֹ רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: גּוֹזְרַנִי עָלֶיךָ שֶׁתָּבֹא אֶצְלִי בְּמַקֶּלְךָ וּבִמְעוֹתֶיךָ בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּחֶשְׁבּוֹנֶךָ. הָלַךְ וּמְצָאוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מֵיצֵר, אָמַר לוֹ: יֵשׁ לִי לִלְמוֹד שֶׁכׇּל מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל עָשׂוּי, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֵלֶּה מוֹעֲדֵי ה׳ מִקְרָאֵי קֹדֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר תִּקְרְאוּ אֹתָם״, בֵּין בִּזְמַנָּן בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנָּן — אֵין לִי מוֹעֲדוֹת אֶלָּא אֵלּוּ. בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל רַבִּי דּוֹסָא בֶּן הוֹרְכִּינָס, אָמַר לוֹ: אִם בָּאִין אָנוּ לָדוּן אַחַר בֵּית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, צְרִיכִין אָנוּ לָדוּן אַחַר כׇּל בֵּית דִּין וּבֵית דִּין שֶׁעָמַד מִימוֹת מֹשֶׁה וְעַד עַכְשָׁיו. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיַּעַל מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא וְשִׁבְעִים מִזִּקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״, וְלָמָּה לֹא נִתְפָּרְשׁוּ שְׁמוֹתָן שֶׁל זְקֵנִים? אֶלָּא לְלַמֵּד שֶׁכׇּל שְׁלֹשָׁה וּשְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁעָמְדוּ בֵּית דִּין עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל — הֲרֵי הוּא כְּבֵית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה. נָטַל מַקְלוֹ וּמְעוֹתָיו בְּיָדוֹ, וְהָלַךְ לְיַבְנֶה אֵצֶל רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בַּיּוֹם שֶׁחָל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים לִהְיוֹת בְּחֶשְׁבּוֹנוֹ. עָמַד רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וּנְשָׁקוֹ עַל רֹאשׁוֹ, אָמַר לוֹ: בּוֹא בְּשָׁלוֹם רַבִּי וְתַלְמִידִי! רַבִּי — בְּחׇכְמָה, וְתַלְמִידִי — שֶׁקִּבַּלְתָּ אֶת דְּבָרַי.

Rabbi Dosa ben Horkinas disagreed and said: They are false witnesses; how can witnesses testify that a woman gave birth and the next day her belly is between her teeth, i.e., she is obviously still pregnant? If the new moon was already visible at its anticipated time, how could it not be seen a day later? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: I see the logic of your statement; the New Moon must be established a day later. Upon hearing that Rabbi Yehoshua had challenged his ruling, Rabban Gamliel sent a message to him: I decree against you that you must appear before me with your staff and with your money on the day on which Yom Kippur occurs according to your calculation; according to my calculation, that day is the eleventh of Tishrei, the day after Yom Kippur. Rabbi Akiva went and found Rabbi Yehoshua distressed that the head of the Great Sanhedrin was forcing him to desecrate the day that he maintained was Yom Kippur. In an attempt to console him, Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Yehoshua: I can learn from a verse that everything that Rabban Gamliel did in sanctifying the month is done, i.e., it is valid. As it is stated: “These are the appointed seasons of the Lord, sacred convocations, which you shall proclaim in their season” (Leviticus 23:4). This verse indicates that whether you have proclaimed them at their proper time or whether you have declared them not at their proper time, I have only these Festivals as established by the representatives of the Jewish people. Rabbi Yehoshua then came to Rabbi Dosa ben Horkinas, who said to him: If we come to debate and question the rulings of the court of Rabban Gamliel, we must debate and question the rulings of every court that has stood from the days of Moses until now. As it is stated: “Then Moses went up, and Aaron, Nadav and Avihu, and seventy of the Elders of Israel” (Exodus 24:9). But why were the names of these seventy Elders not specified? Rather, this comes to teach that every set of three judges that stands as a court over the Jewish people has the same status as the court of Moses. Since it is not revealed who sat on that court, apparently it is enough that they were official judges in a Jewish court. When Rabbi Yehoshua heard that even Rabbi Dosa ben Horkinas maintained that they must submit to Rabban Gamliel’s decision, he took his staff and his money in his hand, and went to Yavne to Rabban Gamliel on the day on which Yom Kippur occurred according to his own calculation. Upon seeing him, Rabban Gamliel stood up and kissed him on his head. He said to him: Come in peace, my teacher and my student. You are my teacher in wisdom, as Rabbi Yehoshua was wiser than anyone else in his generation, and you are my student, as you accepted my statement, despite your disagreement.

Why it matters — Provides the Talmudic analysis of the authority of rabbinic courts and why Rabbi Yehoshua's submission was not mere capitulation but recognition of institutional halakhic authority.

Source 7 · Rishonim
Verified

Mishneh Torah, Laws of Rebels (Mamrim)

Mishneh Torah, Rebels 1:1-2

The Rambam codifies the obligation to follow the rulings of the Great Court and its head, and that a scholar who rules against them violates the prohibition of being a 'rebellious elder' — directly relevant to the question of whether Rabbi Yehoshua was obligated to follow Rabban Gamliel.

בֵּית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם הֵם עִקַּר תּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה. וְהֵם עַמּוּדֵי הַהוֹרָאָה וּמֵהֶם חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט יוֹצֵא לְכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל. וַעֲלֵיהֶן הִבְטִיחָה תּוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יז יא) "עַל פִּי הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר יוֹרוּךָ" זוֹ מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה. וְכָל הַמַּאֲמִין בְּמשֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ וּבְתוֹרָתוֹ חַיָּב לִסְמֹךְ מַעֲשֵׂה הַדָּת עֲלֵיהֶן וְלִשָּׁעֵן עֲלֵיהֶן: כָּל מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה כְּהוֹרָאָתָן עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יז יא) "לֹא תָסוּר מִכָּל הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יַגִּידוּ לְךָ יָמִין וּשְׂמֹאל". וְאֵין לוֹקִין עַל לָאו זֶה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּתָּן לְאַזְהָרַת מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין. שֶׁכָּל חָכָם שֶׁמּוֹרֶה עַל דִּבְרֵיהֶם מִיתָתוֹ בְּחֶנֶק שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יז יב) "וְהָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה בְזָדוֹן" וְגוֹ'. אֶחָד דְּבָרִים שֶׁלָּמְדוּ אוֹתָן מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה וְהֵם תּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה. וְאֶחָד דְּבָרִים שֶׁלְּמַּדוּם מִפִּי דַּעְתָּם בְּאַחַת מִן הַמִּדּוֹת שֶׁהַתּוֹרָה נִדְרֶשֶׁת בָּהֶן וְנִרְאָה בְּעֵינֵיהֶם שֶׁדָּבָר זֶה כָּךְ הוּא. וְאֶחָד דְּבָרִים שֶׁעֲשָׂאוּם סְיָג לַתּוֹרָה וּלְפִי מַה שֶּׁהַשָּׁעָה צְרִיכָה וְהֵן הַגְּזֵרוֹת וְהַתַּקָּנוֹת וְהַמִּנְהָגוֹת. כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מֵאֵלּוּ הַשְּׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה לִשְׁמֹעַ לָהֶן. וְהָעוֹבֵר עַל כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה. הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר (דברים יז יא) "עַל פִּי הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר יוֹרוּךָ" אֵלּוּ הַתַּקָּנוֹת וְהַגְּזֵרוֹת וְהַמִּנְהָגוֹת שֶׁיּוֹרוּ בָּהֶם לָרַבִּים כְּדֵי לְחַזֵּק הַדָּת וּלְתַקֵּן הָעוֹלָם. וְעַל הַמִּשְׁפָּט אֲשֶׁר יֹאמְרוּ אֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁיִּלְמְדוּ אוֹתָן מִן הַדִּין בְּאַחַת מִן הַמִּדּוֹת שֶׁהַתּוֹרָה נִדְרֶשֶׁת בָּהֶן. מִכָּל הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יַגִּידוּ לְךָ זוֹ הַקַּבָּלָה שֶׁקִּבְּלוּ אִישׁ מִפִּי אִישׁ:

The Supreme Sanhedrin in Jerusalem are the essence of the Oral Law. They are the pillars of instruction from whom statutes and judgments issue forth for the entire Jewish people. Concerning them, the Torah promises Deuteronomy 17:11: "You shall do according to the laws which they shall instruct you...." This is a positive commandment. Whoever believes in Moses and in his Torah is obligated to make all of his religious acts dependent on this court and to rely on them. Any person who does not carry out their directives transgresses a negative commandment, as Ibid. continues: "Do not deviate from any of the statements they relate to you, neither right nor left." Lashes are not given for the violation of this prohibition, because it also serves as a warning for a transgression punishable by execution by the court. For when a sage rebels against the words of the court, he should be executed by strangulation, as the following verse states: "A person who will act deliberately...." We are obligated to heed their words whether they: a) learned them from the Oral Tradition, i.e., the Oral Law, b) derived them on the basis of their own knowledge through one of the attributes of Biblical exegesis and it appeared to them that this is the correct interpretation of the matter, c) instituted the matter as a safeguard for the Torah, as was necessary at a specific time. These are the decrees, edicts, and customs instituted by the Sages. It is a positive commandment to heed the court with regard to each of these three matters. A person who transgresses any of these types of directives transgresses a negative commandment. This is derived from the continuation of the above verse in the following manner: "According to the laws which they shall instruct you" - this refers to the edicts, decrees, and customs which they instruct people at large to observe to strengthen the faith and perfect the world. "According to the judgment which they relate" - this refers to the matters which they derive through logical analysis employing one of the methods of Biblical exegesis. "From all things that they will tell you" - This refers to the tradition which they received one person from another.

Why it matters — The halakhic context within which Rabban Gamliel's authority over Rabbi Yehoshua must be understood, explaining why submission to the Nasi was legally mandated.