Ravin explains our Mishnah differently than Rav Dimi. According to him, the Reisha speaks about Pasul witnesses and Kasher judges, meaning that - the defendant declares both to be Pasul, and his claim regarding the former is vindicated. Consequently, we believe him also with regard to the latter with a 'Migu'.

He then establishes the Seifa - in the same way, only there, it is with regard to the latter that his claim is vindicated, so we believe him with regard to the former as well.

The problem with the Seifa is - how we can accept the defendant's claim (even with a 'Migu') seeing as he is prejudiced (bearing in mind that, once the witnesses are disqualified, the claimant's claim will fall away).

This is not a problem in the Reisha, where we believe him to disqualify the judge - since there is no shortage of people who will qualify to replace him.

Ravin circumvents the problem in the Seifa - by adding a second pair of witnesses (much in the same way as Rav Dimi did earlier).

If there was no second pair of witnesses, then the defendant would not be believed, which in effect, is what Rav Dimi holds too. Nevertheless - Ravin and Rav Dimi argue over - whether we apply 'Migu' in such a case (Ravin) or not (Rav Dimi).

Ula described Resh Lakish in the Beis-Hamedrash as - 'Oker Harim ve'Tochnan Zeh ba'Zeh' (in his sharpness, he uproots mountains and grinds them one against the other).

This prompts Ido to ask - how Resh Lakish could refer to Rebbi Meir as 'Peh Kadosh' (which is a rather modest manner of speech for someone so formidable).

Ravina however, was surprised at the Kashya. Describing Rebbi Meir as - 'Oker Harei Harim ve'Tochnan Zeh ba'Zeh' (One who grinds mountains of mountains ... '), he considers it hardly surprising that Resh Lakish should speak about him with respect.

What Ido must really have meant to say was - to comment at the extent of the love of the b'nei Eretz Yisrael for one another, when we see how Resh Lakish (for all his sharpness) went out of his way to reconcile Rebbi Meir (and the humble way in which he did it).

We find a similar display of Midos with Rebbi, who himself - forbade 'Hatmanah' of something cold on Shabbos, to prevent it from becoming warm ...

... yet when Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi quoted his father who permitted it - he reacted with the words 'K'var Horeh Zakein! (the elder has already Paskened [and I cannot contradict him]).

Rav Papa comments on Rebbi's words that - they demonstrate the love the Talmidei-Chachamim (of Eretz Yisrael, see Megilah 28b) had for one another, bearing in mind that, had Rebbi Yossi been alive in the time of Rebbi, he would have sat in submission in front of Rebbi.

He learned that - from his son, Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi, who was his father's equal, yet he sat subdued before Rebbi (see Tosfos ha'Rosh).

The Navi Zecharyah took two sticks. The one that he called ...

... 'No'am' - represented the Talmidei-Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael, who would argue over maters of Halachah in a sweet manner.

... 'Chovlim' - represented the Talmidei-Chachamim of Bavel, who would argue vehemently.

He referred to the former as 'b'nei ha'Yitzhari' - because they were pleasant like oil, and the latter as 'Zayis' - because they were bitter like olives.

He also saw two women with wings like storks. Rebbi Yochanan in the name of Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai explain the significance of ...

... the storks ('Chasidah' [making themselves out to be pious]) as - flattery.

... the fact that the 'Eifah' (the Yeitzer-ha'Ra) lifted them up as - haughtiness.

These women were going to - Bavel.

We reconcile this with Mar, who said that nine-tenths of the Midah of haughtiness went to Eilam - by pointing out that although they were going to Bavel, one of them at least, did not remain in Bavel (but made its way to Eilam).

And we prove this from Zecharyah himself, who said "Li'venos lah (in the singular) Bayis be'Eretz Shin'ar (which is Bavel)" - implying that only one of the two women remained there.

Even though Mar said that poverty is a sign of haughtiness, and it was in Bavel that they were poverty-stricken, not in Eilam - the poverty that he was referring to was poverty in Torah.

And we prove this from Rebbi Yochanan's interpretation of the Pasuk in Shir Hashirim "Achos lanu Ketanah, ve'Shadayim Ein lah" - referring to Eilam, which merited to learn (in the form of Daniel, who studied Torah, but, unlike Ezra in Bavel, he did not teach it (hinted in the words "ve'Shadayim [breasts which feed] ein lah"), with the result that the following generation (in Eilam) was poor in Torah).

In our Mishnah, in a case where one litigant says to the ...

... other 'Ne'eman alai Aba, Ne'eman alai Avicha, Ne'emanim alai Sheloshah Ro'ei Bakar' - Rebbi Meir permits him to retract, the Chachamim don't, and they argue the same Machlokes in a case where ...

... one litigant who is Chayav a Shevu'ah to another, declares 'Swear to me by the life of your head' (instead of making a real Shevu'ah).

When Rav Dimi b'rei de'Rav Nachman comments on the Reisha of our Mishnah 'K'gon de'Kiblei aleih be'Chad', he means that - he accepts him as one of the judges of Beis-Din.

Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel establishes our Mishnah where the claimant says 'Machul lach'. In a case where the defendant says 'Eten lach', both Tana'im will agree that - he may retract, because it is only by 'Machul lach', where the defendant immediately acquires what he already had, that the Chachamim forbid the claimant to retract (but not by 'Eten lach', where the defendant is merely retracting from an undertaking to pay).

Rebbi Yochanan says that - they are arguing over 'Eten lach'.

The two possible connotations of Rebbi Yochanan's statement are - either that they argue exclusively by 'Eten lach', but by 'Machul Lach' even Rebbi Meir will concede that he cannot retract, or that they argue even by 'Eten lach', and certainly by 'Machul lach'.

Rava states Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan are arguing by 'Eten lach', but by 'Machul lach', they will agree that he cannot retract. Assuming that he is referring to the above Machlokes, this proves - the first side of our She'eilah. Otherwise, Rava would hold neither like Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel nor like Rebbi Yochanan.

We refute this proof however - on the grounds that Rava might well be stating his own (third) opinion. (and is not referring to the above Machlokes at all).

In the case in the Seifa 'Dur li be'Chayei Roshcha ... ', it must be - the claimant who is speaking, because it is always the defendant who swears.

Rav Huna bar Tachlifa queried Rava from there - since we see that even by 'Machul lach' the Tana'im argue.

Rava replied - that the Tana is speaking about one of the cases where the claimant swears and takes (such as an employee who claims that he has not yet been paid or someone who claims from a thief), which is a case of 'Eten lach'.

Bearing in mind the Reisha, the problem with establishing the Seifa in this way is - why Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim then need to teach us their Machlokes with regard to 'Eten Lach' twice.

To reconcile the two Mishnahs, we establish ...

... the one by 'Toleh be'Da'as Acherim' - by a third party ('my father' or 'your father').

... and the other by 'Toleh be'Da'as Atzmo' - the other litigant himseelf ('Dur li be'Chayei Roshcha').

In spite of having presented the Machlokes by

... 'Toleh be'Da'as Acherim', the Tana nevertheless needs to repeat it by 'Toleh be'Da'as Atzmo' - to teach us that (not only by 'Toleh be'Da'as Acherim', where he cannot be sure that they will rule in his favor, does Rebbi Meir permit him to retract, but) even by 'Toleh be'Da'as Atzmo' (where he knows at the outset that he will accept his offer and swear), he will permit it.

... 'Toleh be'Da'as Atzmo', the Tana needs to repeat it by 'Toleh be'Da'as Acherim' - to teach us that (using reverse logic) even there, the Rabbanan will not even permit the defendant to retract (even though at the outset, he could not have been certain that 'Aba' or 'Avicha' would rule in his favor).

Rebbi Elazar confines the Machlokes to before the G'mar-Din (Beis-Din's final ruling). But after the G'mar-Din - everyone forbids him to retract.

Rebbi Yochanan says 'le'Achar G'mar-Din Machlokes', which means either that - before the G'mar-Din even the Rabbanan will agree that he can retract, or that - they even argue after the G'mar-Din, and certainly, before it.

Rava permits a defendant who undertook to accept the ruling of a Karov or Pasul, to retract before the G'mar-Din, but not afterwards. We prove from there - that Rebbi Yochanan concedes that he may retract before the G'mar-Din, because otherwise, Rava would hold neither like Rebbi Elazar nor like Rebbi Yochanan.

We do not answer that Rava holds like Rebbi Meir according to Resh Lakish - because he would not rule like Rebbi Meir against the Rabbanan.

Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda (or Rav Yitzchak) sent Rav Nachman bar Ya'akov a dual She'eilah. He asked him whether Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim argue before the G'mar-Din or after it - and like whom is the Halachah?.

Rav Nachman bar Ya'akov send him back - 'le'Achar G'mar-Din Machlokes, ve'Halachah ke'Divrei Chachamim'.

According to Rav Ashi, the She'eilah the one Rav Nachman sent the other was whether they argue (in the Reisha) about 'Eten lach' or 'Machul lach' and what is the Halachah. And he replied - 'be'Eten lach Machlokes, ve'Halachah ke'Chachamim (that he cannot retract)', but by 'Machul lach', even Rebbi will agree that he cannot retract (like Rava).

The above is the Suri'an version of the She'eilah. In Pumbedisa however, Rebbi Chanina bar Shalmaya cited bei Rav who sent to Shmuel the She'eilah what the Din will be before the G'mar-Din, but in the event that they made a Kinyan. To which Shmuel replied - 'Ein Achar Kinyan K'lum!' (an he cannot retract)

Three of the four kinds of people disqualified by our Mishnah from testifying in Beis-Din are 'ha'Mesachek be'Kuvya, ha'Malveh be'Ribis, and Mafrichei Yonim'. 'ha'Mesachek be'Kuvya' means - someone who plays dice (a cube [gambles]).

The fourth item on the list - is 'Sochrei Shevi'is' (people who do business with Sh'mitah-produce). The Tana disqualifies them all from testifying on the grounds that - they are all guilty of stealing in one form or another, and the Pasuk writes in Mishpatim "Al Tashes Yadcha im Rasha" (Do not testify together with a witness who is dishonest in money matters). Note, that this reason is one of two that appear in the Sugya.

They are also disqualified from - judging (via a 'Kal va'Chomer' from testifying).

According to Rebbi Shimon, before the Anasin came along, they called the 'Sochrei Shevi'is' - 'Osfei Shevi'is (all this will be explained later in the Sugya).

Rebbi Yehudah qualifies the Tana Kama's ruling - by confining it to cases of people who have no other trade or profession other than those listed.

According to Rami bar Chama, a gambler is Pasul due to the principle 'Asmachta Lo Kanya' - which means that since one only plays in order to win, the loser pays reluctantly, in which case the winner is guilty of Geneivah if he accepts the money.

Rav Sheishes disagrees with Rami bar Chama, because he does not consider 'Asmachta' anything that a person realizes is out of his hands. In his opinion, 'Asmachta' constitutes exaggeration, such as someone who undertakes a certain financial project and who volunteers to pay a fine or to lose financially in the event that he fails to fulfill what he undertook.

An example of the former is where he takes on a field as an Aris (a sharecropper), who promises to pay a fine should he not work the field; and an example of the latter is - a debtor who has paid half his debt and who then asks a third person to return the Sh'tar to the creditor, should he fail to pay the balance by a certain date.

The reason Rav Sheishes gives for the P'sul of 'Mesachek be'Kuvya' is - because the person concerned does not indulge in a regular occupation.

The ramifications of their Machlokes therefore are manifest - in a case where he has another occupation besides gambling (in which case he will be Pasul according to Rami bar Chama, but Kasher, according to Rav Sheishes).

We prove Rav Sheishes right from ythe Mishnah itself - from Rebbi Yehudah, who specifically supports his opinion.

This poses a Kashya on Rami bar Chama - who now clashes with Rebbi Yehudah.

Initially, we refute the suggestion that Rami bar Chama holds like the Chachamim, who argue with Rebbi Yehudah, because of a statement by Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who said that whenever Rebbi Yehudah says 'Eimasai' and 'Bameh Devarim Amurim' - he comes to explain the Tana Kama, and not to argue with him ...

... and even Rebbi Yochanan, who disagrees with Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi's opinion regarding 'Bameh Devarim Amurim' (which he maintains, comes to argue), agrees with him regarding 'Eimasai' (which is the Lashon used by our Mishnah).

And we reconcile Rami bar Chama with our Mishnah - by creating a Machlokes between him and Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi. According to him - the 'Eimosai' of Rebbi Yehudah comes to argue, whereas he holds like the Chachamim.