Sanhedrin 25b — the Talmud in English

But one who makes it dependent on the judgment of his pigeon:

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

say

we might have thought to say,

it is not

an asmachta, and he transfers ownership wholeheartedly; therefore it teaches us in the Mishna that nevertheless he is disqualified.

And

on the other hand,

if it taught “one who makes it dependent on the judgment of his pigeon,”

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

for he says

in his heart, according to his error:

“with knocking”

by striking wooden boards

the matter depends,

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

“and I know how to knock more,”

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

, but one who makes it dependent on his own judgment

for there was a doubt in his heart whether he would win or lose

, say

we might have thought to say that

it is not

an asmachta, and he transfers ownership wholeheartedly; therefore it teaches us in the Mishna that nevertheless he is disqualified.

The Gemara brings a beraita to raise an objection against the one who says: “ara.”

It raises an objection

from a beraita:

One who plays with dice

is disqualified.

Who are these? Those who play with pieces of wood,

splinters of wood.

And they said this not only about pieces of wood, but even

those who play

with walnut shells and pomegranate shells

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

And when is their repentance

to fitness—that is, what action must they perform so that it will be recognized from their deeds that they have repented?

From

the time

that they break their pieces of wood, and

also

repent with complete repentance, so that even for free

without money [

another version: to non-Jews ]]

they do not do it.

One who lends with interest

is disqualified.

Both the lender and the borrower

both are disqualified.

And when is their repentance

to fitness?

From

the time

that they tear up their documents

the interest documents, and repent with complete repentance, so that even to a non-Jew

whom it is permitted to lend with interest—

they do not lend

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

And pigeon-flier

are disqualified. And who are they?

These are those who incite

provoke

the pigeons

one against the other to fight.

And they said this not only about pigeons, but even

one who incites

an animal, a wild animal, or a bird

one against the other is likewise disqualified, although this is not common and they did it only casually.

And when is their repentance? From

the time

that they break their boards

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 it.

Dealers in produce of the Sabbatical year

are disqualified, and they are

those who buy and sell produce of the Sabbatical year.

And when is their repentance

to fitness?

From

the time

that another Sabbatical year arrives and they withdraw

from commerce in produce of the Sabbatical year, and make their gardens ownerless for the poor.

And Rabbi Nehemiah said

Not merely repentance through words

when they say, “We will not do so again,”

did

the Sages say that they are restored to fitness, for that is not sufficient,

but repentance through money

itself, so that there will be recognizable repentance, namely, that in actual practice they distribute the produce of the Sabbatical year to the poor.

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

the value of

two hundred zuz in produce of the Sabbatical year,

and I am repenting,

and here they are,

the two hundred zuz

given as a gift to the poor .

Thus far the beraita, and now the Gemara raises an objection—

It teaches, in any event,

in the beraita that not only pigeons but also

an animal,

and this is difficult:

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

it is understandable,

for this is how you find it

that this situation exists with

an animal

which he trains to run when it hears his voice, and he conducts with it competitive games.

But

it is difficult

according to the one who says “ara,”

for

is an animal capable of this?

That it should go out to hunt and bring animals from the ownerless domain—can this be? Would not the wild animals chase it?!

The Gemara answers:

Yes,

indeed this situation exists,

with the wild ox,

which goes outside, into the wilderness, and resembles a wild animal; and if one raises it in his house, it is possible to teach it to bring wild animals from the wilderness. And the reason it 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.

For we learned

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 disagreement concerns its fat: if it is a species of animal, it is forbidden to eat it, and if it is a species of wild animal, it is permitted. And likewise concerning the mitzva of covering the blood, which applies to a wild animal but not to an animal.

The Gemara brings a beraita that adds further disqualified witnesses.

A tanna taught,

we learned in a beraita:

The Sages added

the Sages

to them,

to the disqualified persons taught in the Mishna,

the robbers

and the Gemara will explain

and the extortionists,

one who takes an object without the owner’s consent, even though he pays.

The Gemara wonders—

A robber:

do the Sages need to disqualify him? Is he not disqualified

by Torah law,

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

The Gemara answers—

It was necessary

for the beraita to teach this concerning 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, but they do not acquire the lost object, for they do not possess the legal capacity [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 forbidden to take it from them. As we learned (Gittin 59b): “The lost object of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor involves robbery because of the ways of peace,” so that his father or relatives will not quarrel with him.

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

originally

at first [at the time 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 concerning something uncommon the Sages did not disqualify.

Alternatively,

they thought that he was not an actual 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 [thought]

that in the end

it is money that they are taking,

and he transgressed the enactment of the Sages because of desire for money, they added and

the Sages disqualified them,

because they were suspected in their eyes of giving false testimony for monetary gain.

We learned further in the beraita:

the extortionists.

The Gemara explains why they did not disqualify him initially, and why the Sages of a later generation saw fit to disqualify him. For—

Originally they thought

not to disqualify him, because

he gives money,

therefore

it is merely an incidental occurrence

it is a chance occurrence, and he is not in the category of a robber .

Once they saw

that the Sages saw

that they seize,

that people seize and take without the owners’ permission, and although they pay, therefore

the Sages decreed concerning them

to disqualify them.

The Gemara brings another beraita, in which further disqualified persons were added.

A tanna

taught:

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

those appointed by the king to collect taxes and customs from Israel.

And the Gemara explains—

The

shepherds—originally they thought

at first they thought that when the animals enter to graze in other fields,

it is merely an incidental occurrence

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

Once they saw

that the Sages saw

that they intentionally send them there from the outset,

that they deliberately lead the animals to other fields , and therefore

the Sages decreed concerning them

to disqualify them .

And likewise,

the collectors and the customs officials—originally they thought

that they

take whatever has been fixed for them

according to the assessment 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 assessment . [ According to the version of the Maharshal:

and they treat the poor as the wealthy

and take equally from the poor as from the wealthy], and therefore

they disqualified them.

The Gemara discusses what we learned, that the shepherd is disqualified.

Rava said: The shepherd of whom they said

that the Sages disqualified him—

whether

he is a shepherd

of small livestock, and whether

he is

a shepherd of large livestock.

And although it is possible to guard large livestock so that it does not enter other fields, he is nevertheless disqualified.

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

But did Rava say this? Yet Rava said: A shepherd

of small livestock in the Land of Israel

who damages the settlement of the Land—

is disqualified; outside the Land—

is fit. A shepherd of large livestock, even in the Land of Israel—

is fit.

It is difficult: it is only a shepherd of small livestock, and only in the Land of Israel, who is disqualified?

The Gemara answers: that statement

that one

of Rava’s

was stated concerning raisers

of livestock

was stated.

They do not shepherd them, but raise them in their homes, and therefore they are fit. Only raisers of small livestock, which flee and run into other fields, are disqualified [and only in the Land of Israel], whereas large livestock is guarded and does not flee . But shepherds who take livestock outside, into valleys near the settled area, are disqualified both for small livestock and even for large livestock, which enters other fields [both in the Land of Israel and outside the Land of Israel].

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

This too is logically indicated. From

what

it teaches

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

Three cattle shepherds are trusted by me.” What

is the meaning of “trusted”? Does it

not

mean that he accepts them

for testimony

? It follows that only if he wishes to accept them do they testify, but if he does not wish to, they are disqualified—as Abba and your father are—for testimony, because they are shepherds of large livestock.

The Gemara rejects this, for 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 be judges. Without his accepting them, they are disqualified because they do not know how to judge.

The Gemara reinforces the rejection—

It can also be precisely inferred

that it is speaking of judges,

for it teaches: “three cattle herders,” and if

you say

for testimony,

it is not precise, because

why do I need three,

when two witnesses suffice?

And the Gemara objects that even if we say that he accepts them as judges, it is still not precise.

Rather, what

will you say, that it is speaking of accepting them

for judgment, why specifically

why does it speak of

three “cattle herders,”

when

every three

three people

who do not know how to judge

who do not know how to adjudicate,

also

are disqualified from judging?

And the Gemara answers:

This is what it says:

It is not only that he can accept just any three people upon himself, but

even these

cattle herders, who are inferior to ordinary people, because

they are not commonly found in the settled area,

and their place is in the fields, and they have neither seen nor heard matters of judgment between one person and his fellow, and it might occur to one to say that if he accepted them, he can retract, on account of their great inferiority; therefore the Mishna informs us that he cannot retract.

The Gemara continues to explain the laws of a herder, tax collectors, and customs officials.

Rav Yehuda said: An ordinary herder

whom we have not yet seen bringing his animals into the fields of others

is disqualified

. But an ordinary tax collector

is fit,

and is not disqualified until we have heard about him that he takes more than the king’s fixed assessment .

The Gemara relates an incident concerning the piety and integrity of the father of Rabbi Zeira, who was a tax collector .

The father of Rabbi Zeira performed tax collections

he collected taxes

for thirteen years

thirteen years.

And his practice was that

when there came

when he arrived

the head of the river

the city chief

to the city

to the city, he would tell the people of the city not to appear before him, so that he would think that the residents of the city were few and that there was no one from whom to collect.

And how did he act?

When

the father of Rabbi Zeira

saw

saw

sages

Torah scholars from among the city’s residents,

he said to them

he explicitly said to them 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 way of a hint

The head of the river has come to the city

the city chief has arrived in the city,

and today

and now,

he will slaughter

he will slaughter

a father before a son

the father before the son

and a son before a father”,

that is, he will collect money from them.