I. Detailed Talmudic Overview

A. The Argument About a False Navi (last line on previous Amud)

1. Context
   • The Talmud is discussing a false prophet (navi sheker) who prophesies to either totally uproot a mitzvah or partially uproot it. There’s a difference between “idolatry” vs. “other mitzvot.”
   • Also, the Talmud references a Beraita explaining that “min ha’derech” in the verse about enticement to idolatry includes partial uprooting of God’s path.
2. Positions: R. Shimon vs. Chachamim
   • Rav Chisda:

R. Shimon and Chachamim argue when the false navi tries to uproot part of the idolatry prohibitions or tries to fully uproot them. Everyone agrees that if one fully uproots any other mitzvah, the punishment is chenek (strangulation). Partially uprooting other mitzvot leads to exemption.

• Rav Hamnuna:

R. Shimon and Chachamim argue about fully or partially uprooting idolatry or any other mitzvah,
but again the partial uprooting of other mitzvot does not lead to capital punishment.

1. Beraita Contradiction
   • The Talmud cites a Beraita:
     “One who prophesies to uproot a mitzvah from the Torah is liable; if he only partially uproots it,
     R. Shimon says he’s exempt. But if it concerns idolatry (even partial), he’s liable.”
   • This aligns with either Rav Chisda or Rav Hamnuna’s approach, each providing consistent ways to interpret whether the difference is partial vs. total uprooting and whether it’s idolatry or other mitzvot.
2. R. Avahu’s Statement

If a proven prophet tells you to transgress any mitzvah “hora’as sha’ah,” you obey him except if he tells you to do idolatry. Even if he makes the sun stand still, do not heed him.

1. False Navi Summaries
   • R. Yosi ha’Galili: The Torah gave power to idolatry (i.e. a sign performed by the enticer might be supernatural), but still “do not consent.”
   • R. Akiva: Hashem never truly lets a sinner do such wonders; rather, if a prophet once did wonders and then turned astray, we do not follow him.

B. Edim Zomemim of a Bas Kohen

1. Mishnah

Edim Zomemim who falsely convict a Bas Kohen of adultery receive chenek (strangulation), even though she is burned and the adulterer is burned if truly guilty. Typically, Edim Zomemim get the punishment they sought for the defendant, but not in this unique scenario.

1. Gemara – Rav Acha brei d’Rav Ika / R. Yosi
   • The Talmud clarifies the textual basis for this exception. We learn that “she is burned” but not the adulterer, nor the Edim Zomemim. Instead, the latter get his (the man’s) punishment of chenek – i.e. “Ka’asher zamam la’asot l’achiv,” not “la’achoto” (the Bas Kohen is singled out).

C. Perek Chelek – The Opening

1. Mishnah: “All Israel have a share in the World to Come.”
   • However, certain categories do not:
     1. One who denies that Torah alludes to a world to come (i.e. denies techiyas hameisim).
     2. One who says G-d did not give the Torah.
     3. An Apikorus.
   • R. Akiva adds: even one who reads “Sefarim Chitzonim.”
   • One who whispers a verse over a wound (like a superstitious incantation) also is excluded.
   • Aba Sha’ul includes pronouncing the Divine Name as spelled.
2. Three Kings, Four Commoners have no share:
   • Three Kings: Yeravam, Achav, Menashe (disputed).
   • Four Commoners: Bilam, Doeg, Achitofel, Gehazi.
3. Gemara Discussion
   • The Talmud clarifies that one who denies techiyas hameisim is punished measure-for-measure (he denies resurrection, so he’s denied resurrection). It cites scriptural and midrashic sources, exploring that even if a prophecy or sign by a false prophet occurs, we do not serve idolatry.

II. SWOT Analysis

A. Halakhic SWOT

Strengths (S)	Weaknesses (W)
Clarifies “partial” vs. “total” uprooting of mitzvot by a false navi, with distinct outcomes.	Complexity in detailing which claims lead to chenek, skilah, or no penalty can be intricate for novices.
Opportunities (O)	Threats (T)
Demonstrates Talmud’s thorough approach to nuance in prophecy laws, Edim Zomemim exceptions (Bas Kohen scenario).	If not explained, it may seem contradictory or confusing how partial uprooting leads to no liability except for idolatry.

B. Conceptual / Aggadic SWOT

Strengths (S)	Weaknesses (W)
Emphasizes sincerity in prophecy; a “true Navi” with a short misstep doesn’t overshadow prior wonders.	The idea that a proven prophet can override mitzvot (hora’as sha’ah) might alarm those seeing it out of context.
Opportunities (O)	Threats (T)
Reinforces that even wonders cannot justify idolatry. Contrasted with The main principle of loyalty to G-d’s commands.	Minim or heretics could misunderstand the capacity for wonders, claiming Talmud endorses illusions.

III. NVC (OFNR) + SMART Goals

A. Halakhic Points

1. False Navi – Partial vs. Total Uprooting
   • Observation (O): The Talmud differentiates a false prophet who tries to remove a mitzvah wholly or partially. Partial removal outside of idolatry yields no capital punishment.
   • Feelings (F): This reveals nuanced approach: we only severely punish major subversions of halakhah.
   • Needs (N): Precise instruction so students see how partial vs. total abrogation is treated.
   • Request (R): Would you be willing to illustrate the difference with specific examples (e.g. a prophet says “Circumcision is null vs. half of circumcision details are no longer mandatory”) in your next halakhic overview?
     SMART Goals
   • Community: Host a class next month enumerating real or hypothetical cases of “partial uprooting” to clarify the standard for liability.
   • Individual: I will gather at least three examples from Rishonim applying partial vs. total uprooting in actual psak, finishing by next week.
2. Edim Zomemim in Bas Kohen Case
   • Observation (O): Typically Edim Zomemim get the punishment they intended for the innocent party, but not so for a Bas Kohen – they receive chenek instead of burning.
   • Feelings (F): Surprised that the Talmud breaks the “ka’asher zamam” principle. But the verse “Hi” signals the difference.
   • Needs (N): Clarify to advanced learners that ka’asher zamam is broad but not absolute; textual exceptions exist.
   • Request (R): Would you be open to including a textual deep-dive on “Hi” in Vayikra 21 or Devarim 19, explaining how it modifies the typical “ka’asher zamam” rule?
     SMART Goals
   • Community: Organize a one-day study workshop for participants to compare all Talmudic references to Edim Zomemim exceptions, within the next three months.
   • Individual: Review Rashi and Tosafot on Sanhedrin 51b regarding Edim Zomemim for a Bas Kohen within two weeks, summarizing the logic in a personal study guide.

B. Aggadic / Conceptual Points

1. Denying Techiyas hameisim
   • Observation (O): The Mishnah states that denying resurrection leads to losing one’s share in the World to Come. The Talmud underscores measure-for-measure: if one denies it, they do not experience it.
   • Feelings (F): Realizing how central techiyas hameisim is to Jewish faith.
   • Needs (N): Affirm that a fundamental principle is at stake – belief in God’s power over life and death.
   • Request (R): Would you be willing to highlight the moral dimension that “If you disclaim future life, measure-for-measure, you forfeit it,” in your next class on core Jewish beliefs?
     SMART Goals
   • Community: Create an educational program on Rambam’s Thirteen Principles, focusing specifically on “Techiyas hameisim,” within 2 months.
   • Individual: I plan to record personal notes analyzing all textual references to “techiyas hameisim” found in Talmudic passages to complete in a 3-week timeline.
2. Idolatry and Wonders
   • Observation (O): The Talmud states that even if a prophet performs wonders, we do not follow him to idolatry.
   • Feelings (F): Awe that no miraculous sign can override the fundamental monotheistic basis.
   • Needs (N): Stress the unwavering Jewish stance that “miracles” alone are insufficient to undermine cardinal beliefs.
   • Request (R): Please consider explaining the difference between “sign-based convictions” and “Torah-based convictions” in your next adult education session, clarifying that wonders do not overshadow halakhic fidelity.
     SMART Goals
   • Community: Publish a short pamphlet “Miracles vs. Torah: The Talmudic stance” for distribution among advanced learners, in next quarter.
   • Individual: Compose a short reflection by next week summarizing how Talmudic sources weigh any miraculous sign against unwavering loyalty to divine commandments.

IV. PEST Analysis

1. Political

The perspective on idolatry or rebellious prophecy is historical/religious. In modern states, capital punishment for false prophecy is not recognized. Politically, these remain theoretical.

1. Economic

Denying resurrection or forbidding partial mitzvot might not directly impact economic factors,
but historically, communal structure could revolve around these principles.

1. Social

Affirmation of communal standards: rebellious prophecy or encouraging partial mitzvah abrogation can undermine social unity. Public knowledge shapes social continuity.

1. Technological

No direct impact – it’s about spiritual claims, not technology. Possibly, modern media can spread wonders or claims rapidly, but halakhic stance remains the same.

V. Porter’s Five Forces

1. Competitive Rivalry

Minimal – the standard approach that we do not accept a false prophet’s partial mitzvah abrogation is widely accepted. R. Shimon and Chachamim differ primarily on details, not core.

1. Supplier Power

Rabbinic authority is strong in shaping how to interpret “partial uprooting” vs. “total uprooting.”
The community typically defers to recognized halakhists.

1. Buyer Power

The laity or advanced students are mostly consumers of these texts academically,
with no direct push for alternative interpretations.

1. Threat of New Entrants

Secular frameworks about “religious freedom” do not overshadow the Talmud’s system.
The false navi law is internal to Jewish tradition.

1. Threat of Substitutes

No direct “substitute” for the Talmudic approach to prophecy and mitzvah-uplift.
Contemporary religious or philosophical systems do not quite replicate the Talmudic structure.

VI. Sociological Analyses

A. Conflict Analysis

• Conflict: Some might question the Talmud punishing a prophet simply for “partial abrogation” of a mitzvah.
  Or denying resurrection is a major theological stance.
• Resolution: The Talmud defends communal integrity – partial abrogation still undercuts the religion’s unity.
  And resurrection is fundamental enough that its denial excludes one from the afterlife.

B. Functional Analysis

Setting boundaries – no partial partial infiltration. The false prophet or rebellious stance is censured to keep halakhic authority robust. Affirming resurrection or unwavering monotheism fosters communal stability.

C. Symbolic Interactionism

“False prophet,” “Mitzvah uprooting,” “resurrection.” Each shapes how Jews interpret communal loyalty and religious identity. People unify behind an unwavering acceptance of Torah’s fullness.

D. Intersectional Analysis

• Gender: The discussion of prophecy or rebellious elder can apply to men. Typically, men are recognized as halakhic leaders/prophets, though the fundamental principles apply to all.
• Social Class: The Talmud doesn’t differentiate – a prophet or commoner encouraging partial abrogation is judged similarly.

VII. Six Thinking Hats

1. White Hat (Facts & Information)

Summaries: If a false prophet tries to uproot a mitzvah fully or partially, we see differences in punishments. Denying resurrection is self-defeating. The Bas Kohen scenario with Edim Zomemim is a unique textual exception.

1. Red Hat (Feelings & Emotions)

Awe at the Talmud’s stance that partial or total abrogation can be so serious (especially for idolatry). Compassion for the confusion around partial instructions from a “prophet.”

1. Black Hat (Caution & Critique)

We must keep clarity so that partial abrogation is not trivially punished – only in certain serious conditions do we impose capital punishment. Overly strict reading might cause fear or misunderstanding.

1. Yellow Hat (Optimism & Benefits)

Clarifies the unwavering stance on monotheism and mitzvot. Affirmation that if a prophet tries to undermine the system, the Talmud defends the integrity of the Torah.

1. Green Hat (Creativity & Alternatives)

We might glean deeper lessons about listening to recognized prophets or leaders in a modern sense – we do not follow partial suggestions that water down fundamental mitzvot.

1. Blue Hat (Process Control)

The Talmud organizes the categories (false prophet for idolatry vs. other mitzvot, partial vs. total uprooting, whether we impose chenek or none). This structured approach ensures consistent halakhic outcomes.

Conclusion

In Sanhedrin 90, we see:

• The question of partial vs. total uprooting of mitzvot by a false navi, with a distinction for idolatry (even partial abrogation is capital) vs. other mitzvot (partial abrogation leads to exemption, full abrogation is punishable).
• Edim Zomemim in the Bas Kohen adultery scenario, who receive chenek rather than the burning they intended for the Bas Kohen, “Ka’asher zamam la’asot l’achiv, v’lo l’achoto.”
• The Mishnah about those excluded from the World to Come, especially one who denies resurrection or denies that G-d gave the Torah. The Talmud discusses textual sources proving that Techiyas hameisim is found in the Torah.
• In sum, we glean that the Talmud’s approach to rebellious prophecy, partial mitzvah uprooting, Edim Zomemim exceptions, and fundamental beliefs about resurrection maintain the integrity of Torah, reaffirming the robust framework of classical Jewish law and theology.