We learn from the Pasuk in B'har "ve'Hayah lachem le'Ochlah" - that Sh'mitah-fruit is for eating only, and may not be used commercially.

Initially, we interpret Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah 'bi'Techilah Hayu Korin Osan Osfei Shevi'is' to mean that he invalidates 'Sochrei Shevi'is' - people who commercialize Sh'mitah produce, but validates 'Osfei Shevi'is' - those who merely gather it in bulk and horde it, since they are able to consume it before the time of Biy'ur arrives.

According to Rav Yehudah, the Chachamim decreed on the Osfei Shevi'is too - when they saw how people began paying the poor for the produce that they gathered during the Sh'mitah.

The b'nei Rachbah reject Rav Yehudah's explanation however - because Rebbi Shimon ought then to have said 'mi'she'Rabu ha'Tagarin' (the merchants) rather than 'mi'she'Rabu ha'Anasin'.

So we explain Rebbi Shimon to mean that they initially disqualified Osfei Shevi'is as well as Sochrei Shevi'is. They became lenient with the Osfei Shevi'is - after the king's tax-collectors began claiming a special produce-tax (known as 'Arnona') consisting of a certain number of Kurim per annum.

The Chachamim had the authority to permit what is basically a Torah prohibition for monetary considerations - because since the time of the Churban, Shevi'is is only mi'de'Rabbanan.

Rebbi Yanai even announced one Sh'mitah - 'Go and sow in the Sh'mitah!' (in order to cover the Arnona).

Resh Lakish met Rebbi Chiya bar Zarnuki and Rebbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak on their way to Asya - to work out a leap-year (see Tosfos DH 'le'Aber Shanah').

He decided to accompany them - in order to become acquainted with the procedure.

He announced 'Kohen ve'Choresh!' when he saw - a Kohen plowing a field in the Sh'mitah-year.

When Rebbi Chiya bar Zarnuki and Rebbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak vindicated the Kohen by stating 'Yachol Lomar Agiston be'Socho' they meant either that the land belonged to a Nochri and that he was merely hired to work there, or that - he was plowing in order to pay 'Arnona' (see Maharsha).

And when he spotted a man pruning his vineyard and announced 'Kohen ve'Chasach!' - meaning that - he was a Kohen pruning his vineyard in the Sh'mitah-year!

To which his companions replied that - it is possible that he (was not in fact, pruning his vines, but that he) needed the branches to tie the baskets (le'Akel) in his olive-press.

Resh Lakish responded with - 'G-d alone knows whether that is what he wanted or whether he meant to sin ('Im le'Akel Im le'Alaklakos' [to sin], a play on words).

We invert the order of the two incidents - because otherwise, why did they not answer 'Yachol Lomar Agiston Ani' (which is obviously a better answer) in the second case like they answered in the first case (Indeed, why did Resh Lakish not see that himself?).

In both of the above incidents, Resh Lakish assumed that the transgressors were Kohanim - because they were the ones who tended to sin with regard to Sh'mitah-produce, as we shall now see.

The Beraisa rules that if a Sa'ah of Terumah falls into ...

... a hundred Sa'ah of Sh'mitah-produce - it is permitted.

... less than a hundred Sa'ah of Sh'mitah-produce - it must be allowed to rot.

We would have expected the Tana - to permit even the latter case, to sell the mixture to Kohanim for the (cheaper) price of Terumah, deducting the value of the Sa'ah of Terumah from the sale-price.

Rav Chiya in the name of Ula explains that he didn't do so - because the Kohanim were suspect on transgressing Sh'mitah.

The Kohanim in particular, were lax in this regard - because they tended to equate Shevi'is (which is Kodesh, with Terumah and Kodesh Kodshim, which is Kodesh too and), which is permitted to them even after the time of Biy'ur.

Rebbi Chiya bar Zarnuki and Rebbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak considered Resh Lakish a trouble-maker. Consequently, after arriving in Asya and ascending (via the ladder) to the attic to work out the leap-year - they pulled-up the ladder into the attic, to prevent Resh Lakish from following them.

Resh Lakish subsequently asked Rebbi Yochanan - whether people who were suspect on Shevi'is were eligible to reckon leap-years.

He rejected his own suggestion that they were not worse than three Ro'ei Bakar (cowhands), and that the Rabbanan would accept their decision on the basis of their own calculations on the grounds that - these people were worse, inasmuch as they were a 'Kesher Resha'im', who could under no circumstances be considered a Beis-Din, and whose every decision was void.

When Resh Lakish referred to the two as 'Kesher Resha'im' - Rebbi Yochanan informed him that he gone too far.

When Rebbi Chiya bar Zarnuki and Rebbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak asked him why he remained silent when Resh Lakish had referred to them as 'Ro'ei Bakar', Rebbi Yochanan replied - that (seeing as this was a manner of speech), there would be little that he could do about it, even if he was to refer to them as 'Ro'ei Tzon', which, we have already learned, is even worse.

Shevna lived in the time of Chizkiyah Hamelech. If Chizkiyah would Darshen to a hundred and ten thousand Talmidei-Chachamim - a hundred and thirty thousand Talmidim would attend Shevna's D'rashos.

During Sancheriv's siege of Yerushalayim - Shevna shot a message attached to an arrow, informing Sancheriv that he (Shevna) and his followers were willing to make peace with him, but that Chizkiyahu and his followers refused to do so.

To dispel Chizkiyah's fear that the minority of the city would be delivered into the hands of Sancheriv together with the majority, the Navi told him - that seeing as they were a Kesher Resha'im, their numbers were insignificant (proving that a 'Kesher Shel Re'sha'im' means a group of evil men, whose numbers do not count).

The Pasuk in Tehilim "Ki hinei ha'Resha'im Yidrechun Keshes" (with reference to Shevna) uses the Lashon "Keshes" - because a. he used a bow to communicate with Sancheriv, and b. because of the Lashon ha'Ra (which is often referred to as a bow and arrow) that he 'spoke' about Chizkiyahu, as we just explained.

Shevna went and dug himself a grave among the kings of Malchei beis-David - because he arrogantly believed that he would overthrow Chizkiyah, and rule in his place.

The Navi however - informed him that he had no business to be there, and that for his pains, he would be sent into exile.

Rav extrapolates from the Navi's answer to Shevna "Hinei Hash-m Metaltelecha Talt'lah Gaver" - that it is more difficult for a man to move from place to place than it is for a woman.

Based on the Pasuk in Tazri'a "ve'Al Safam Ya'ateh", Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina learns from the conclusion of the Pasuk "ve'Otyach Atah" - that Shevna was stricken with Tzara'as.

He ended his days in disgrace - because that is what he tried to bring upon his master (Chizkiyah Hamelech).

Shevna alone surrendered to Sancheriv (and not his followers) - because the Angel Gavriel slammed the gates of the city shut before they were able to follow him out.

Sancheriv reacted to his claim that his followers had all betrayed him - by accusing him of mockery, and then by boring holes in his ankles, by which he then tied him to the tails of horses, which dragged him over thorns and thistles.

Rebbi Elazar learns from the Pasuk "Lech Na el ha'Sochen ha'Zeh" (based on the Pasuk (in connection with Avishag ha'Shunamis) "Vat'hi Lo Sochenes") - that Shevna indulged in physical pleasures (some interpret it with reference to homosexuality).

The Pasuk that we quoted earlier concludes "Ki ha'Shasos Yehareisun, Tzadik Mah Pa'al". Both Rav Yehudah and Rav Einah agree that "Tzadik Mah Pa'al" refers to Hash-m. According to the one who ascribes "Ki ha'Shasos Yehareisun" to ...

... Chizkiyahu, the Pasuk means that - if Chizkiyahu and his followers are killed, where is Hash-m's reward for great Tzadikim?

... the Beis-Hamikdash that - if the Beis-Hamikdash is destroyed, then where are Hash-m's wonders?

According to Ula, in whose opinion "Ki ha'Shasos Yehareisun" refers to Shevna" (who is mentioned in the previous phrase), the Pasuk means - that if the thoughts of Shevna are not negated, what did Hash-m do to reward Chizkiyahu the Tzadk and to punish Shevna the Rasha?

According to the one who ascribes it to the Beis-Hamikdash - "ha'Shasos" refers to the 'E'ven Shesiyah", the foundation-stone of the world, that is placed under the Aron.

And from the word "Vayashes" (in the Pasuk in Shmuel [with reference to the Tzadikim] "Ki la'Hashem Metzukei Eretz va'Yashes aleihem Teivel") - we learn that the Tzadikim (on whose merit the world rests) are referred to as "Shasos".

In the Pasuk "Hifli Eitzah Higdil Tushiyah", the Navi uses the word "Tushiyah" (which also has connotations of weakness - to hint that Torah weakens those who study it".

Alternatively, it means that the Torah was given secretly, so that the Satan should not prosecute Yisrael (see Tosfos cited by Mesores ha'Shas). And according to a third explanation, based on the acronym of its root letters 'Taf' and 'Shin' - it means that the world is based on 'nothing' (words alone [since it is the acronym of 'Tohu Meshusas'])

When Ula says that thoughts are efficient, even for words of Torah, he means that - sometimes even mere thoughts are efficient too, because worries about Parnasah are enough to cause a person to forget his learning.

According to Rabah, those thoughts will not be able to do that - if a person is learning Torah 'li'Shemah', for the sake of fulfilling Hash-m's will (and in order to put what he learns into practice). Then, his Torah will prevail.

Rebbi Avahu amar Rebbi Elazar rules like Rebbi Yehudah, who restricts the Pesulim in our Mishnah to those who have no other occupation. He also requires 'Hachrazah' (an announcement at the hand of Beis-Din), for most of the Pesulim to take effect.

The sole exception might be - a shepherd, because it is subject to a Machlokes between Rav Acha and Ravina (and according to one of them, he is automatically Pasul).

The one who learns that he does require Hachrazah, explains Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, who rules 'S'tam Ro'eh Pasul' to mean that - Beis-Din automatically announces that he is Pasul (without waiting to see whether his animals graze in someone else's fields, as we explained earlier).

When Rav Papa bar Shmuel wanted to validate the written testimony of two Gazlanim because Beis-Din had not yet announced them to be Pasul, Rava objected on the grounds that - 'Hachrazah' only pertains to the cases in our Mishnah, which are Pesulim mi'de'Rabbanan, but not to a Gazlan d'Oraysa ...

... who robs openly, like Benayahu ben Yehoyada (who snatched the spear from the hand of the Egyptian in broad daylight), as opposed to a Ganav who steals discreetly.

When Rav Nachman declares that 'Ochlei Davar Acher' are Pasul to testify, he is referring to - people who accept Tzedakah from Nochrim ...

... because it is a Chilul Hash-m, and therefore, gives them the stamp of a 'Rasha de'Chamas'.

Rav Nachman's ruling does not apply to those who does so discreetly, nor even to those who do it openly - if they do so for lack of choice.

When Rav Nachman ruled that the testimony of someone who was suspect of having committed adultery is valid, Rav Sheishes commented - 'Answer me, my master, how can someone who is subject to Malkos (mi'de'Rabbanan) be eligible to testify?'

Rav Nachman validates it - because it is not 'Rasha de'Chamas' (he is not a Rasha on account of monetary issues).

According to Rava, even Rav Nachman will agree with Rav Sheishes - with regard to someone who is suspect of adultery, who testifies that a man's wife died or that he divorced her (because we suspect that he wants to live with her).

Ravina (or Rav Papa) restricts Rava's ruling to testifying about a woman's divorce, but not about her marriage (regarding which he is believed). We might have thought otherwise - because of the Pasuk in Mishlei "Stolen waters taste sweet", and that he will therefore derive more pleasure out of committing adultery with a woman who is married than with one who is not.

Nevertheless, this is not so - because at the end of the day, Lechatchilah he would prefer her to be unmarried and constantly available.

Rav Nachman rules that a 'Ganav Nisan' - who steals a little corn during the harvest season, and a Ganav Tishri - who steals a few grapes during the picking season or during the in-gathering of the grapes, are not considered thieves.

Given that Rav Nachman is talking specifically about an Aris (a share-cropper), he does not consider him a Ganav (with regard to testifying or judging exclusively) - because seeing as in both cases, there is plenty left for the owner, the Aris, who worked to hard to cultivate the crops and the grapes, allows himself the concession of taking a little extra for himself, provided ...

... that a. he only helps himself to a little, and that b. the fruit has reached a stage where it is ready to eat.

In spite of Rav Nachman's previous ruling, Rav Z'vid disqualified one of his workers for stealing a Kav of barley, and another, for stealing a ball of wool - because they were not Arisin.

Rav Papa - placed a Niduy on those two undertakers who buried someone on the first day of Shavu'os, and when they did it again, he disqualified them from testifying.

Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua explained to Rav Papa that he overturned his ruling and permitted them to testify - because they thought that they were performing a Mitzvah, in which case they could not be considered Resha'im.

And when Rav Papa asked him further why they had not realized from the Niduy that he placed on them after the first time, that they must have sinned, he replied - that in fact they had not, because they thought that the Niduy was an atonement for having buried someone on Yom-Tov, even though it was permitted (like someone who needs to fast for having fasted a Ta'anis Chalom on Shabbos or Yom-Tov, even though he is permitted to do so).