Sanhedrin 25b (כה:) — the Talmud in English

But one who bases it on the judgment of his pigeon:

he had a doubt in his heart whether he would win, and nevertheless he makes the wager,

say

we might have thought to say,

it does not

constitute an asmachta, and he transfers ownership wholeheartedly. Therefore, the Mishna teaches us that nevertheless he is disqualified .

And

conversely,

if it taught: One who bases it on the judgment of his pigeon,

we might have thought to say that he does not transfer ownership wholeheartedly,

as he says

in his heart, according to his mistaken belief:

The matter depends on knocking

by striking wooden boards,

the matter depends,

because the pigeon hears their sound and recognizes that its mate is urging it on, and it hurries to fly,

and I know how to knock better,

and I know better how to strike the boards; therefore, when he in fact loses, he does not transfer ownership wholeheartedly

; but one who bases it on his own judgment

had a doubt in his heart whether he would win or lose

, say

we might have thought to say that

it does not

constitute an asmachta, and he transfers ownership wholeheartedly. Therefore, the Mishna teaches us that nevertheless he is disqualified.

The Gemara cites a beraita to challenge the one who says: “If your pigeon precedes my pigeon.”

It raises an objection

from a beraita:

One who gambles with dice

is disqualified.

Who are these? Those who play with pispיסim

pieces of wood.

And they said this not only with regard to pieces of wood, but even

those who play

with nutshells and pomegranate peels

although they are not made for this purpose, and they happened to play with them by chance, are nevertheless disqualified.

And when is their repentance

to their fitness—that is, what action must they take so that their deeds demonstrate that they have repented?

From

the time

that they break their pieces of wood, and

likewise

repent with complete repentance, so that even for free

without money [

another version: for gentiles ]]

they do not do so.

One who lends with interest

is disqualified.

Both the lender and the borrower

are disqualified.

And when is their repentance

to their fitness?

From

the time

that they tear up their documents

documents recording interest, and repent with complete repentance, so that even to a gentile

to whom it is permitted to lend with interest—they

do not lend

in order that the name of interest be forgotten from their mouths, and then they certainly will not return to their evil deeds.

And pigeon-racers

are disqualified. And who are they?

These are those who incite

agitate

the pigeons

against one another to fight.

And they said this not only with regard to pigeons, but even

one who incites

an animal, a wild animal, or a bird

against another is likewise disqualified, although this is not common and they did so only by chance.

And when is their repentance? From

the time

that they break their pegamim

the boards with which they urge on the pigeons and the like,

and repent with complete repentance, so that even in the wilderness

where settled pigeons are not found ,

they do not do so.

Sabbatical-Year produce merchants

are disqualified, and they are

those who buy and sell Sabbatical-Year produce.

And when is their repentance

to their fitness?

From

the time

that another Sabbatical Year arrives and they withdraw

from trading in Sabbatical-Year produce and render their gardens ownerless for the poor.

And Rabbi Nehemiah said

It is not merely verbal repentance

whereby they say, “We will not do so again,” that

the Sages said

would restore them to fitness, for that is insufficient,

but monetary repentance

in the actual sense, so that the repentance is evident: they must actually distribute Sabbatical-Year produce to the poor.

How so? He says: I, so-and-so son of so-and-so, gathered

produce worth

two hundred zuz in Sabbatical-Year produce,

and I now repent,

and here they are,

the two hundred zuz,

given as a gift to the poor .

This concludes the beraita, and now the Gemara raises a difficulty:

In any event, it teaches

in the beraita that not only pigeons but also

an animal,

which is difficult:

Granted, according to the one who says, “If your pigeon precedes my pigeon,”

it is understandable,

for this is how you can find

this reality with

an animal

that he trains to run when it hears his voice, and he conducts competitions with it.

But

it is difficult

according to the one who says ara,

for is

an animal capable of this

—that it would go out to hunt and bring animals from the ownerless domain? Surely this is impossible, for the wild animals would pursue it!

The Gemara answers:

Yes,

this reality does indeed exist

with the wild ox

which goes out into the wilderness and resembles a wild animal. If one raises it in his home, it is possible to train it to bring wild animals from the wilderness. And the reason that this is prohibited is because of the ways of peace.

The reason the beraita called it an animal is that the beraita was taught

according to the one who says that the wild ox

is a species of animal.

As we learned

in our Mishna:

The wild ox is a species of animal

—these are the words of the first tanna.

Rabbi Yosei says

that it is

a species of wild animal.

Their dispute concerns its fat: If it is a species of animal, it is prohibited to eat it, whereas if it is a species of wild animal, it is permitted. Likewise, it concerns the mitzva of covering the blood, which applies to a wild animal but not to an animal.

The Gemara cites a beraita that adds other categories of disqualified witnesses.

A tanna taught,

we learned in a beraita:

The Sages added

the

following

to those disqualified who were taught in the Mishna:

robbers

[and the Gemara will explain],

and extortionists,

one who takes an object against its owner’s will, even though he pays for it.

The Gemara asks:

A robber

—did the Sages need to disqualify him? Is he not disqualified

by Torah law,

as it is stated: “Do not appoint a wicked person as a witness”?

The Gemara answers:

It was not necessary

for the beraita to teach this with regard to an ordinary robber

, but

it was necessary

to

disqualify one who robs

the lost object of a deaf-mute,

an imbecile, or a minor

who found a lost object. They do not acquire the lost object, since they do not have the legal capacity [the right] to acquire it. Therefore, one who takes it from them is not a robber by Torah law; rather, the Sages instituted that it is prohibited to take it from them. As we learned: “The lost object of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor involves robbery because of the ways of peace,” so that their father or relatives will not quarrel with him.

The Sages disqualified this robber after the Mishna had been taught. For

originally,

at first [when the Mishna was taught], they

thought

not to disqualify him, because

the lost object of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor is uncommon,

and the Sages did not disqualify a person on account of something uncommon.

Alternatively,

they thought that he was not a true robber, and that his entire transgression was robbery

merely because of the ways of peace,

and therefore they did not disqualify him .

Once they saw

the Sages [and concluded

that ultimately

it is money that they are taking,

and that he violated the Sages’ ordinance because of his desire for money, they further

disqualified them,

because they were suspected in the Sages’ eyes of giving false testimony for financial gain.

We learned further in the beraita:

The extortionists.

The Gemara explains why they were not disqualified initially and why the later Sages deemed it appropriate to disqualify them. For—

Originally, they thought

not to disqualify him, because

he gives money;

therefore,

it is merely an isolated occurrence

and he is not within the category of a robber .

Once they saw

that the Sages saw

that they seize

that people seize and take without the owners’ permission, even though they pay,

the Sages decreed concerning them

to disqualify them.

The Gemara cites another beraita, which adds further disqualified individuals.

A tanna

taught:

They further added to them shepherds, tax collectors, and customs officials,

who were appointed by the king to collect taxes and customs duties from the Jewish people.

The Gemara explains:

The

shepherds, originally thought

at first they thought that when the animals entered to graze in other people’s fields,

it was merely an isolated occurrence

and that the shepherds did not intend this, and therefore they did not disqualify them.

Once they saw

that the Sages saw

that they intentionally drive them there from the outset,

that they deliberately lead the animals into other people’s fields , and therefore

the Sages decreed concerning them

to disqualify them .

Likewise,

the tax collectors and customs officials, originally thought

that they

take whatever has been fixed for them

according to the amount fixed by the king,

they take

and therefore they did not disqualify them.

Once they saw

that the Sages saw

that they take extra

that they take more than the fixed amount . [ According to the version of the Maharshal:

and make the poor equal to the wealthy

and take the same amount from the poor as from the wealthy], and therefore

they disqualified them.

The Gemara discusses the statement we learned that a shepherd is disqualified.

Rava said: The shepherd of whom they said

that the Sages disqualified him—

both

a shepherd of

small livestock and also

a shepherd of

large livestock.

Although it is possible to guard large livestock so that it does not enter other people’s fields, he is nevertheless disqualified.

The Gemara raises a contradiction from Rava’s own statement:

Did Rava really say this? But Rava said: A shepherd

of small livestock in Eretz Yisrael

who damages the settlement of the land—

is disqualified; outside Eretz Yisrael—

is fit; a shepherd of large livestock, even in Eretz Yisrael—

is fit.

This is difficult, for it implies that only a shepherd of small livestock, and only in Eretz Yisrael, is disqualified.

The Gemara answers: That statement

that

Rava made

was stated with regard to those who raise

livestock

in enclosures.

They do not shepherd them in the open; rather, they raise them in their homes, and therefore they are fit. Only those who raise small livestock, which escape and run into other people’s fields, are disqualified [and only in Eretz Yisrael], whereas large livestock is guarded and does not escape. But shepherds who take livestock out into the valleys near the settlement are disqualified, whether they shepherd small livestock or even large livestock, since it enters other people’s fields [both in Eretz Yisrael and outside Eretz Yisrael].

The Gemara seeks to prove Rava’s opinion that a shepherd of large livestock is disqualified.

This too is logically compelling. From

what

it teaches

in our Mishna, that one litigant says to the other: “

Three cattle shepherds are acceptable witnesses to me.” What

is the meaning of “acceptable”? Does it

not

mean that he accepts them

as witnesses?

This implies that only if he wishes to accept them do they testify, but if he does not wish to accept them, they are disqualified—like his father and your father—from giving testimony, because they are shepherds of large livestock.

The Gemara rejects this, saying that there is no proof from there:

No,

it is not referring to accepting them as witnesses. Rather, it is referring to accepting them

for judgment,

to serve as judges; and if he does not accept them, they are disqualified because they do not know how to adjudicate.

The Gemara reinforces the rejection:

It can likewise be inferred

that the reference is to judges,

as it teaches: “three cattle shepherds”; but if

you say

that it is referring to testimony,

it is not precise, because

why do I need three?

Two witnesses suffice.

The Gemara challenges this: even if we say that he accepts them as judges, it is still not precise.

Rather, what

will you say—that it is referring to accepting them

for judgment; why specifically

does it speak of

three “cattle shepherds”?

After all,

any three

people

who do not know how to judge

are unfit to adjudicate

as well

?

The Gemara answers:

This is what it is saying:

It is not only that he may accept three ordinary people upon himself, but

even these

cattle shepherds, who are inferior to ordinary people, because

they are not commonly found in settled areas

but live in the fields and have neither seen nor heard legal proceedings between one person and another. It might therefore occur to one to say that if he accepted them, he could retract because of their great deficiency. Therefore, the Mishna teaches us that he cannot retract.

The Gemara continues to explain the laws concerning shepherds, tax collectors, and customs officers.

Rav Yehuda said: An ordinary shepherd

who has not yet been seen bringing his animals into the fields of others

is disqualified

. But an ordinary tax collector

is fit,

and is not disqualified until we hear about him that he takes more than the amount fixed by the king .

The Gemara relates an incident concerning the righteousness and honesty of Rabbi Zeira’s father, who was a tax collector .

The father of Rabbi Zeira collected taxes

and was a tax collector

for thirteen years

—thirteen years.

His practice was that

when

the

head of the river

—the city official—

came to the city,

he would tell the townspeople not to appear before him, so that he would think that the city’s inhabitants were few and that there was no one from whom to collect.

And how did he do this?

When

Rabbi Zeira’s father

saw

the

Rabbis,

the Torah scholars among the city’s inhabitants,

he said to them

explicitly, in the language of the verse:

“Go, my people; enter your chambers.”

And

when he saw

ordinary

people of the city, he said

to them by allusion

The head of the river has come to the city

—the city official has arrived in the city—

and now

and now,

the father will slaughter for the son

—slaughter—

according to the son

—the father before the son—

and the son according to the father,”

meaning that he would collect money from them.