According to Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi (who holds that the Rabbanan agree with Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah [as we just explained]), the author of the Beraisa 'Bein she'Yesh lo Umnus she'Lo hu, Bein she'Ein lo Umnus Ela hu, harei Zeh Pasul' is - Rebbi Yehudah in the name of Rebbi Tarfon.

And we prove this from another statement of Rebbi Yehudah in the name of Rebbi Tarfon, who presents a case where Reuven and Shimon, after arguing over whether Levi who is walking past, is a Nazir or not - then declare themselves to be a Nazir should the other prove to be right.

Rebbi Yehudah rules there that neither of them is a Nazir - because it does not fall into the category of 'Hafla'ah' (an unambiguous expression of Nezirus, in order that it should not be an 'Asmachta') ...

... proving that 'Asmachta extends even to cases that are not in one's hands, similar to 'Mesachek be'Kuvya', like Rami bar Chama.

Rava rules that a debtor who borrows on interest - is also disqualified from giving testimony or from judging (just like the creditor is), because, like the creditor, he is willing to sin for the sake of money.

Rava therefore interprets our Mishnah, which includes 'ha'Malveh be'Ribis' in the list, as if it read 'Milveh ha'Ba be'Ribis' (referring to the loan and both parties that are involved in it), and not 'ha'Malveh' (the creditor exclusively).

When two witnesses testified that bar Binitus lent money on interest, Rava disqualified him from being a witness or a judge. We query Rava's ruling however on the grounds that - one of the witnesses claimed that he was the debtor to whom bar Binitus lent the money (effectively disqualifying himself by his own testimony).

However, Rava already said in the first Perek - a. that a person is his own close relative, and is therefore not believed to incriminate himself, and b. 'Palginan Dibureih' (that we can believe a witness on one half of a testimony, but not on the other half).

After Rav Nachman removed a certain butcher's license for providing his customers with T'reifos, the latter - attempted to do penance by letting his hair and nails grow long.

Rava queried Rav Nachman's intention to reinstate him however - because who was to know that this was no more than a pretext in order to get back his license, and contained not a spark of sincerity.

In fact, the butcher's only recourse was to follow the advice of Rav Idi bar Avin, who prescribed such a sinner - to go to a place where he is unknown, and to return an expensive lost article that he finds or to sustain a heavy loss by declaring an animal of his to be a T'reifah.

In Bavel, we translate 'Mafrichei Yonim' (in our Mishnah) as pigeon racers (along with bets). Rav Chama bar Oshaya however, translates it as 'Ara' - luring other people's pigeons to one's own dovecotes using a decoy pigeon.

We decline to explain it as 'Ara' - because strictly speaking, pigeons remain Hefker, and stealing them from their owners, which the Chachamim forbade only because of 'Darkei Shalom', will not therefore invalidate a person from testifying.

And the reason that Rav Chama bar Oshaya declines to explain it as pigeon racers is - because then it is synonymous with 'Mesachek be'Kuvya', which is already included in the list.

We consider it necessary however, to present both cases. Even after having presented the case of ...

... gambling, the Tana nevertheless sees fit to add the case of pigeon racing - which is not in his hands at all, and where we might therefore have thought that he gives the money with a full heart (unlike gambling, where he thinks he has control, and plays only to win). Comes the Mishnah, and teaches us that this is not the case, and that it too, is considered 'Asmachta'.

... pigeon racing, the Tana find it necessary to add the case of gambling to teach us that - even though one may have thought that a person has more control over his pigeon (by banging with wooden sticks in a certain way) than over his dice), it is nevertheless considered Asmachta.

A Beraisa describing each of the cases in our Mishnah also explains what sort of Teshuvah is expected before they can be reinstated. Besides gambling with a dice, the Tana incorporates in 'Mesachek be'Kuvya' - gambling with nut-shells and pomegranate-peels.

Someone who transgressed ...

... demonstrates that he has done Teshuvah - by breaking his dice, and quits gambling completely, even when it is not for gain.

... lending or borrowing on interest, proves that he has done Teshuvah - by tearing up the Sh'tar that contains Ribis, and who quits lending on interest completely, even to a Nochri.

Besides pigeons, the Tana incorporates in 'Mafrichei Yonim' - animal-racing with any species of animal, beast or bird.

Besides not continuing with that practice even in the desert, the Tana requires 'mi'she'Yishberu es Pigmeihem' which means - breaking the wooden sticks which he bangs against one another.

The Tana Kama requires Sochrei Shevi'is to discontinue their sinful practice when the following Sh'mitah arrives. Rebbi Nechemyah adds to that the return of his gains - which constitutes announcing the amount that he gained, and donating it to the poor.

Bearing in mind the current Machlokes (whether 'Mafrichei Yonim' implies pigeon-racing or luring other people's pigeons to his own nest), we try and prove from this Beraisa - that it must mean pigeon-racing, because if it meant sending one's pigeons to lure other birds to one's dovecotes, since when does one send one's animals to lure wild beasts to one's own fields (leaving them to the mercy of the wild animals)?

We answer the Kashya - by establishing Beheimah in the Beraisa as a wild ox ([a buffalo] according to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa that we are about to quote, who holds that a wild ox is a Beheimah), which is capable of defending itself.

According to the Tana Kama of another Beraisa, a Shor ha'Bar is indeed a Beheimah. Rebbi Yossi considers a Shor ha'Bar - a Chayah.

Another Beraisa adds Gazlanim and Chamsanim (people who force the owner to give them their article, but who then pay for it) to the list of those whom Chazal disqualified.

Seeing as a regular Gazlan is Pasul min ha'Torah, 'Gazlanim' must mean - people who steal what a Cheresh, Shotah or Katan find (which is only subject to Gezel mi'de'Rabbanan [because of Darkei Shalom]).

The Tana did not include this case in our Mishnah - either because such a theft is unusual, or because, seeing as the initial Takanah is based on Darkei Shalom, it does not constitute Gezel.

The Chachamim changed their minds however, and decreed - because when all's said and done, stealing from a Katan is stealing just as is stealing from a grown-up.

And it is for similar reasons that they eventually included Chamsanim. They did not do so initially - because the 'thief' paid for the article that he stole (and the Chachamim thought that the Chamsanim forced the owners to relinquish their articles verbally, without actually taking them by force).

Later, they included shepherds, Gaba'in and Muchsin (different kinds of tax-collectors). They did they not initially disqualify ...

... shepherds - because they thought that allowing their sheep to graze in other people's fields was only a passing phase that would soon stop.

... Gaba'in and Muchsin - because they assumed that they were doing their job and charging the people their dues.

They changed their minds with regard to ...

... shepherds when they saw that - the trend continued.

... Gaba'in and Muchsin when they discovered that - they were making them pay more than their dues (see Rabeinu Chananel).

Rava draws a distinction between a shepherd of small animals (such as sheep) and large ones (such as cows) in Eretz Yisrael. He disqualifies the former (because they allowed their animals to graze in other people's fields), but not the latter.

In Chutz la'Aretz - he disqualifies neither of them (because the decree is based on 'Yishuv Eretz Yisrael').

To reconcile the previous ruling (in Eretz Yisrael) with Rava in our Sugya, who establishes 'Ro'eh' irrespective of whether he is looking after small animals or big ones, we establish it - where he is rearing the animals at home, where the small animals slip out and wander abound other people's property, but large animals don't; whereas our Sugya is speaking about a shepherd who takes the animals out of town to the public grazing-grounds.

We try to prove Rava's opinion in our Sugya from our Mishnah 'Ne'emanim Alai Sheloshah Ro'ei Bakar' - because assuming that the Tana is coming to disqualify them from testifying, it is clear that Ro'ei Bakar are Pasul too (like Rava says).

We refute the previous proof however, by establishing that they are Pasul (not from testifying, but) from judging - in which case, the reason that they are Pasul is (no longer as a result of theft, but) due to their incompetence in judging money-matters.

And we prove this from the fact that the Tana uses the term 'Sheloshah Ro'ei Bakar' - since for testimony, only two witnesses are required.

Nevertheless, the Tana mentions 'Ro'ei Bakar' and not any three unlearned people - to teach us that even they, who are rarely found in town (and therefore know less even than the average Am ha'Aretz about Torah-law), can be appointed by the litigants to serve as arbitrary judges, and that, according to the Chachamim, they cannot retract.

Rav Yehudah rules that - 'S'tam Ro'eh Pasul' (even though we have not yet seen his animals grazing in other people's fields), whereas a Gabai is Kasher (until such time as we discover that he is claiming more taxes than the people are due to pay).

Rebbi Zeira's father's profession was - a tax-collector for thirteen years.

When the Resh Nahara came to town, upon seeing any Rabbanan around, Rebbi Zeira's father would quote the Pasuk "Lech Ami Ba ba'Chadarecha" - meaning that they should make themselves scarce and not be seen in the streets ...

... because when handing over the taxes he had collected from the people to the Resh Nahara (who was also the town's mayor), he would attribute the small amount to the sparse Jewish population of the town. Consequently, if he would now see large crowds in the streets, there would be trouble.

He told the ordinary people that he met that - the Resh Nahara was coming to town and that he would claim a lot of taxes from them (to induce them too to go and hide).

On his death-bed, Rebbi Zeira's father issued instructions, that the thirteen Ma'ah that he had wrapped in a sheet - should be returned to so-and-so, from whom he had claimed it, but turned out not to have needed.