Standing in the Sanhedrin 8.

Hello Rabbi Michael.
It would have been appropriate to include in my opening remarks, while taking the opportunity for minimal gratitude, service and praise for the excellent content on your site (and outside of it, and even before it existed), for your direct and reasoned style, and for the high accessibility and availability (great power to the site maintainers as well). We are happy that we have won. Unfortunately, time suppresses what the heart desires, and I will have to settle for these general sentences for now (I always prefer to be more specific, so that it does not appear to be just accepted etiquette, but rather that it is clear that it comes from a real place and so on). Thank you very much.
Following the fascinating article on validity (a Platonic view of validity), I was wondering what you think about the issue in Sanhedrin 8. – the Amoraim’s positions on the disagreement between the Sages and the Rabbis on the issue of calling out a bad name (in general, at the beginning of the Sanhedrin the Amoraim came with a lot of energy. For every question and difficulty there are many answers and excuses…). Apart from Ula and Rava (Rava), according to whom it is perhaps possible to explain that the Mishnah came to pronounce a principled law that is expressed specifically in the issue of calling out a bad name, the rest of the Amoraim base their disagreement on general issues (just warning, warning a friend, etc.), and my questions relate to their excuses:

• It is very difficult for me to see here a model of principled law that simply needs to be isolated to “laboratory conditions.” This is a complete displacement of the subject of the discussion.
• In terms of language, context, and structure, is it really clear to say that they disagreed, when the entire Mishnah deals with the number of judges needed for certain types of cases? (For example, if a mere warning requires death, then we will consider the case of a mere warning, and they will disagree on whether in this case there is a death requirement or not. The number of judges is a secondary and necessary consequence of the principled discussion, which is not at all specific to the one who brings bad name.) This question does not only concern the model proposed by you, but also the words of the Gemara themselves.

Thank you very much and many blessings!