Rabbi Yochanan says a Mishnah teaches the rules about giving respect to the president of the Sanhedrin. It was enforced when Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel was the Nasi (president.) When he walked into a room, everyone had to stay standing until he gave them permission to sit. His colleague Rabbi Meir was acknowledged as the greatest sage. Another scholar, Rabbi Nasan, was the Av Beis Din, the chief judge of the court but second in authority to the Nasi.
Tosfos on Bava Kama 94b notes there as well as here in Horayos 13b that Rabbi Yochanan uses the expression beemay “In the days of… the Mishnah was learned…” This is to teach us that the rulings that are applied in such cases are specific to the generation that enforces the law but not necessarily in other times.
Regardless of the rules, people would show Rabbi Meir and Nasan the same respect accorded Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. When either or both would enter a room, all others would rise and stay standing until given the signal to sit. Rabban Shimon Ben Gamliel felt that this was besmirching the respect reserved only for the Nasi and issued an edict establishing the rules. If another Talmid Chacham (Torah scholar) entered when the Nasi did, the people around were to stand only for the Nasi and wait for his permission to sit down. Both Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Nasan made it known that they thought Rabban Shimon was overstepping his authority. Rabbi Meir thought he was superior in Torah knowledge to him.
The two Rabbis decided to teach the Nasi a lesson and tried to embarrass him by asking him to give a lecture on the subject of Uktzin, which was not commonly studied and quite difficult. Rabbi Meir told Rabbi Nasan that once Rabban Shimon was exposed as lacking in knowledge that the two of them had, they would be able to have Rabbi Nasan appointed as the new Nasi, as he was from the House of David, the lineage required for being the president of the Sanhedrin. Rabbi Meir himself would then take over the position of Av Beis Din.
Uktzin is the very last Mishnah in all of Shas. It deals with the laws concerning food and how to keep it ritually clean. This is important for one who is a Kohen to ensure that he is ritually pure and eligible to perform service in the Holy Temple. Whatever he touches or puts into his mouth must also be pure. An apple usually has a stem, or Okatz (the root of the word Uktzin). The Mishnah states that the part of a food that is not eaten is not normally subject to becoming impure or a conduit to make other items impure. But, if the non-edible part such as an Okatz aids as a handle to conveniently hold the apple, then it will also be part of the same stringency involving purity. The outer skin of an apple is edible, so it is also capable of becoming tamei (impure). An orange peel is generally not edible, although it is used in baking. The question then is whether a natural food covering is also susceptible to tumah. The rule thus is if the part is a useful handle or acts a protection, then it is susceptible.
It is possible that Rabbis Meir and Nasan were sending a message to the Nasi that a teacher and a leader has the job of protecting and handling his students appropriately. The Nasi is susceptible to the same stumbling blocks of pride and other character flaws and mental impurities that their students have.
Rabbi Yaakov ben Karshi heard about the plot to embarrass the Nasi and informed Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Rabban Gamliel made an effort to study and review Uktzin over and over to be prepared for the ruse. The next day, Rabbis Meir and Nasan’s plan was exposed. Rabban Shimon decided to punish the two by not permitting them to enter the Beis Midrash as well as not give them recognition for their statements made in presenting rulings before the Sanhedrin. When Rabbi Nasan would utter a statement of law, it would henceforth be recorded as Yesh Omrim (“Some Say”) whereas Rabbi Meir would be identified in the Gemara as Acherim Omrim (“Others Say”).
Chidushei Ge’onim points out that there appears to be a little confusion as to whether Acherim Omrim is actually Rabbi Meir. There is at least one place where both Acherim Omrim and Rabbi Meir comment on the same issue. The suggestion given is that in this situation Acherim Omrim is Rabbi Meir saying over the words of his teacher Elisha ben Avuah, referred to as Acher (the other one) after he strays from practicing the religion. Until that time, Elisha is a noted scholar with Rabbi Meir his devoted student. In this case, he is both quoting his teacher as well as stating his own opinion. There is also the possibility that when he is quoted as Acherim Omrim, those are statements that are made after he is punished by Rabban Shimon Gamliel.
These two Rabbis were shortly afterward permitted to return to the Beis Midrash when Rabban Gamliel saw that colleagues and students were going to them to get the more difficult questions of law answered. Rabbi Nasan did show contrition, but not Rabbi Meir. This is why Rabbi Meir is often cited in Mishnah text as ryam ybr yrbd divrei Rabbi Meir (“the words of Rabbi Meir”) rather than ryam ybr rma Amar Rabbi Meir (“Rabbi Meir said”). Divrei Rabbi Meir is used to convey that the law is not like Rabbi Meir in this particular instance. However, he still deserves the respect of having his opinion recorded.
The second Mishnah in chapter two of Middos (Measurements at the Holy Temple) brings up the requirement of one who is put into cherem (excommunication) to follow a reverse path as he enters the Temple Mount. The normal direction is to enter to the right and continue in a counterclockwise movement until he gets to his destination. He exits reversing his path thereby returning to the same original entrance gate. In this method, he shows he is not using the Holy Grounds as a shortcut to another destination.
Those who are being ostracized are required to enter to the left and follow a reverse path of the normal flow of pedestrian traffic. This is to elicit sympathy from onlookers. Rabbi Meir comments that when one sees such a person, he should bless him by asking that Hashem should instill compassion into the hearts of his judges to again find favor and lift the ban of excommunication.
Rabbi Yosi, however, disagrees with Rabbi Meir since it seems as if he is finding fault with judges rather than the sinner. Instead, Rabbi Yosi suggests that the onlooker states that the person should learn his lesson to be more cooperative and hope that this will lead to lifting the ban of excommunication.
In Kidushin 33a , Rabbi Yochanan stood in the presence of all elderly people, non-Jewish ones as well. He said they also experienced the hardships of life and deserved honor. Other Rabbis disagreed. Rava would not stand but show some other form of recognition. Abaye, though, would give a helping hand if required. Rav Nachman would send his attendants to help an elderly person if it looked as if they needed it.
Bava Kama Yerushalmi chapter 8, halacha 4: What Rabbi Yochanan ate and drank he shared with his servants. He acted so because he contemplated the fifteenth verse in Chapter 31 of Iyov (Job): hawlo babeten osani asahu (have You not who have shaped me in the womb, shaped him, too?) This statement caused him to consider that all human beings deserved proper treatment, even servants.
There was debate among the Rabbis as to whether a master is obligated to provide his servants with the same level of comfort as himself. The Rabbis concluded that those who fed their servants without the need to earn it did so not out of obligation but as showing extra kindness.