Sanhedrin 25a (כה.) — the Talmud in English

In the wording

“When”

and

in the wording

“In what”

the matter is speaking,

he does not

come to dispute the Sages [cited in the first clause],

but

comes

to interpret the words of the Sages,

and the Sages do not dispute him.

Rabbi Yohanan said:

Where Rabbi Yehuda says

“When,”

he comes

to interpret, and

where he says

“In what

the matter is speaking,” he comes

to dispute

the Sages [cited in the first clause].

And

in any event,

everyone—all the amoraim—hold that when Rabbi Yehuda says

“When,”

he comes to interpret,

and here, in our Mishna, when he said “When,” the Sages do not dispute him. This is difficult for Rami bar Hama, who holds that according to the Sages, one who plays dice is disqualified as a robber?

The Gemara answers:

Are you raising a contradiction

from one person—Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and Rabbi Yohanan—

against another person,

Rami bar Hama?

Are you raising

a contradiction?

For it can be said that

this master,

Rami bar Hama,

holds that the Sages dispute

Rabbi Yehuda, and according to the Sages one who plays dice is disqualified as a robber.

And

if

the masters,

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and Rabbi Yohanan,

hold

that they hold

that the Sages do not dispute

Rabbi Yehuda, and they hold that one who plays dice is disqualified because he is not engaged in the settlement of the world, and not because he is a robber, since it is not an asmakhta.

The Gemara raises an objection:

And

even

if the Sages do not dispute

Rabbi Yehuda!?

And

yet

it was taught

that we learned in a beraita that the Sages disqualify one who plays dice on account of robbery.

As it was taught:

Whether he has

another occupation besides playing dice,

or whether he has no occupation other than it—

he is disqualified.

This is difficult for Rav Sheshet.

Rav Sheshet answers: In our Mishna they did not dispute. And if the beraita taught this opinion, it is not the opinion of the Sages, but that beraita

is Rabbi Yehuda

himself

in the name of Rabbi Tarfon.

For according to Rabbi Tarfon, it is an asmakhta.

That is, from Rabbi Tarfon’s words concerning the laws of naziriteship, Rabbi Yehuda learned that the same law applies to playing dice.

As it was taught: There we learned: Two people are sitting, and one person passes by them. One of those sitting says: “That passerby is a nazirite,” and the other says: “He is not a nazirite.” One says: “I hereby accept naziriteship upon myself if he is like him, that is, if he is a nazirite.” And the other says: “I hereby accept naziriteship upon myself if he is like him, that is, if he is not a nazirite.” And it turns out that one of them is a nazirite, or it turns out that he is not a nazirite; concerning this case we learned:

Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Tarfon: Neither of them is ever a nazirite, because naziriteship is not established through an acceptance based on uncertainty,

but only through clear declaration,

through explicitness,

as it is written: “When a person clearly utters a vow” [ki yafli ish], which is translated as “he shall articulate”; and now, since he accepted it conditionally and uncertainly, it is not an acceptance.

Thus, Rabbi Tarfon holds that if one made his condition dependent on something beyond his control, and he does not know it with certainty—even though he knows that it is possible that the matter is not as he assumes—it is not an acceptance.

And similarly, in playing dice, although he knows that he may lose, nevertheless he does not truly accept upon himself the losses, and he does not wholeheartedly transfer ownership of the money he loses; consequently, according to Rabbi Tarfon it is an asmakhta, and the acquisition is not effective, so the money remains in his possession in a manner resembling robbery.

But according to Rav Sheshet, the תנאי of the Mishna hold that it is not an asmakhta, and that he is disqualified because he is not engaged in the settlement of the world.

We learned in our Mishna: And these are the disqualified…

And one who lends with interest.

Rava said: One who borrows

money from another

with interest—

is disqualified from bearing witness,

because the borrower, too, violates a negative commandment, as it is stated: “You shall not make your brother pay interest.” The verb “make pay interest” is in a causative form, indicating that he causes the lender to violate the prohibition. And since, because of his desire for money, he violates religion, he is considered a robber for monetary gain.

The Gemara raises an objection:

And

did

we not learn

in our Mishna: “One who lends with interest,” which apparently implies that only the lender is disqualified? The Gemara answers: The meaning of our Mishna is:

A loan

that is

made with interest,

which includes all those who violate the prohibition, both the lender and the borrower.

The Gemara relates an incident, which will constitute a difficulty for Rava.

There was a man named

Bar Binitus; testimony was given against him

by

two witnesses

to disqualify him from bearing witness.

One

witness

said: “In my presence

he

lent

money

with interest.”

And the other

witness

said: “

To me,

personally,

he lent

money

with interest.”

And Rava accepted their testimony and

Rava disqualified Bar Binitus

from being a valid witness.

The Gemara raises an objection: Why did Rava disqualify him? The second witness is not fit to testify, since he admits that he borrowed money with interest.

But Rava

himself

is the one who said: One who borrows with interest is disqualified from bearing witness, and he is

therefore

a wicked person. And the Torah said: “Do not place a wicked person as a witness”?

The Gemara answers: Since the second witness himself admitted about himself that he is wicked, and others did not testify concerning him, he is not a disqualified witness. And why did Rava do so?

Rava follows his own reasoning,

according to his method,

as Rava said: A person

is

“close” to himself,

and a close relative is disqualified from bearing witness; therefore, he cannot testify about himself, even to his own detriment,

and

it follows that

a person cannot render himself wicked.

This is the reason that Rava accepted his testimony concerning Bar Binitus, but did not accept his testimony concerning himself.

In connection with this matter, the Gemara relates another incident.

A certain slaughterer

who

was found

to have

had an unslaughtered carcass emerge from beneath his hand,

meaning that he sold non-kosher meat as though it were kosher—

Rav Naḥman disqualified him

and removed him

from his presumption of fitness.

He went

the slaughterer,

grew his hair and his nails

and disfigured himself in the manner of penitents.

Rav Naḥman considered restoring him to fitness.

Rava said to him,

to Rav Naḥman: What reliability does he have?

Perhaps

he is

acting deceitfully,

doing this cunningly so that they will declare him fit?

Rather, what is his remedy,

so that they may restore him?

As Rav Idi bar Avin said. For Rav Idi bar Avin said: One suspected of selling non-kosher meat—

has no remedy until he goes to a place where people do not know him,

where he cannot act deceitfully,

and

when he finds a lost object,

he returns the lost object

to its owner

if it is a valuable item,

an expensive object, for when he returns a lost object he demonstrates that he has repented of his desire for money,

or he removes non-kosher meat from beneath his hand

if it is a valuable item—

from his own property.

That is, he causes himself to lose the non-kosher meat, thereby proving that he has repented.

We learned in our Mishna: And these are the disqualified…

and pigeon racers.

The Gemara explains the meaning of “pigeon racers.”

What is the meaning of “pigeon racers”?

Here,

in Babylonia,

they interpreted it

as referring to a type of game in which one says to another:

“If your pigeon outruns

the other

pigeon to a specified place,

I will give you such and such.” [And the Gemara will explain: Surely “one who plays dice” has already been taught.]

Rabbi Hama bar Oshaya said: It means a pigeon snatcher.

A person skilled in bringing pigeons from their place to another owner’s house. He is not an actual robber, because the reference is to ownerless pigeons that nest in people’s dovecotes; the owners of the dovecotes have not acquired them, although taking them involves robbery for the sake of peaceful relations.

The Gemara explains:

According to the one who says that it means, “If your pigeon outruns the other pigeon to a specified place,” why did he not say that it means a pigeon snatcher?

He can say to you: A pigeon snatcher

is not disqualified from bearing witness

because

he is not a robber, but

only for the sake of peaceful relations.

And according to the one who says that it means a pigeon snatcher, why did he not say that it means: “If your pigeon outruns the other pigeon to a specified place”?

He can say to you:

“‘If your pigeon outruns the other pigeon to a specified place’”—

that is playing dice,

and it has already been taught.

And the other,

what will the one who says “If your pigeon outruns the other pigeon to a specified place” answer? Why was it taught twice?

He answers: There is a difference between them, and each contains a novel element not found in the other.

The tanna

taught the case of one who plays dice, who

bases the outcome on his own judgment,

and

afterward

the tanna

taught the case of pigeon racers, who

base the outcome on the judgment of their pigeon.

And it is necessary—

it was necessary to teach both.

For had it taught only the case of one who bases the outcome on his own judgment,

we would have thought:

There

he is like a robber, because

he does not wholeheartedly transfer ownership,

he does not transfer ownership wholeheartedly,

as he says

to himself, according to his mistaken belief,

“I know myself

I know myself

far better,”

and he had no doubt in his mind, and he plays in order to win; when he loses, he does not transfer ownership wholeheartedly,