Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

August 3, 2017 | 讬状讗 讘讗讘 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Sanhedrin 25

If someone repents, how does the community/society know that he repented and can allow him to testify for others in court? 聽What were other categories of people that were originally allowed to testify but ultimately聽were not accepted as witnesses.

讗讬诪转讬 讜讘诪讛 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇驻专砖 讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐

When does this halakha apply, or: In what case is this statement said, he intends only to explain the statement of the Rabbis, not to disagree with them?

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讬诪转讬 诇驻专砖 讜讘诪讛 诇讞诇讜拽 讜讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬诪转讬 诇驻专砖 讛讜讗

Granted, Rabbi Yo岣nan disagrees with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, and says that only the term: When does this halakha apply, indicates that Rabbi Yehuda intends to explain the previous statement of the Rabbis, but the term: In what case is this statement said, indicates that he intends to disagree. But according to everyone, the term when indicates that he intends to explain the previous statement. This is difficult according to Rami bar 岣ma.

讙讘专讗 讗讙讘专讗 拽讗 专诪讬转 诪专 住讘专 驻诇讬讙讬 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬

The Gemara responds: Are you setting the statement of one man against the statement of another man? One Sage, Rami bar 岣ma, holds that Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree even when Rabbi Yehuda employs the term: When does this halakha apply, and one Sage, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, and similarly Rabbi Yo岣nan, holds that they do not disagree.

讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘讬谉 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗讜诪谞讜转 砖诇讗 讛讜讗 讘讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讗讜诪谞讜转 讗诇讗 讛讜讗 讛专讬 讝讛 驻住讜诇

The Gemara asks: And do they not disagree? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Whether a dice player has an occupation other than this one, or whether he does not have an occupation other than this one, he is disqualified from bearing witness? This baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rami bar 岣ma.

讛讛讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 谞讝讬专 诇驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转谞讛 谞讝讬专讜转 讗诇讗 诇讛驻诇讗讛

The Gemara answers: That baraita is not the opinion of the Rabbis in the mishna, but rather it is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in the name of Rabbi Tarfon. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Tarfon: In the case where two people quarreled and each of them declared that if the other is right he will become a nazirite, actually, neither of them becomes a nazirite, as naziriteship is determined only by explicitness. A vow of naziriteship does not take effect if the individual does not vow clearly and with certitude. Here too, Rabbi Tarfon maintains that one who bets on games played with dice is considered a thief, as one can acquire the money of another legally only if the latter gives it to him with certain and conclusive intent. Since one who plays dice is not certain that he will have to pay the other player, as he considers it likely that he will win, the transaction is an asmakhta and is legally invalid.

诪诇讜讛 讘专讘讬转 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讜讛 讘专讘讬转 驻住讜诇 诇注讚讜转 讜讛讗谞谉 转谞谉 诪诇讜讛 讘专讘讬转 诪诇讜讛 讛讘讗讛 讘专讘讬转

搂 The mishna teaches that one who lends money with interest is disqualified from bearing witness. Rava says: One who borrows money with interest is disqualified from bearing witness. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that specifically one who lends money with interest is disqualified? The Gemara answers: The reference in the mishna is to a loan that comes with interest, and is teaching that all those who participate in the loan are disqualified.

讘专 讘讬谞讬转讜住 讗住讛讬讚讜 讘讬讛 转专讬 住讛讚讬 讞讚 讗诪专 拽诪讬 讚讬讚讬 讗讜讝讬祝 讘专讬讘讬转讗 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诇讚讬讚讬 讗讜讝驻讬 讘专讬讘讬转讗 驻住诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇讘专 讘讬谞讬转讜住

The Gemara recounts: Two witnesses testified about bar Binittos. One said: He lent money with interest in my presence, and the other one said: He lent me money with interest. Rava rendered bar Binittos disqualified from bearing witness and from serving as a judge.

讜讛讗 专讘讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讜讛 讘专讘讬转 驻住讜诇 诇注讚讜转 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 专砖注 讜讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 讗诇 转砖转 专砖注 注讚

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 Rava the one who said that one who borrows money with interest is disqualified from bearing witness? And accordingly the latter witness is considered a wicked man, as by his own account he borrowed money with interest from bar Binittos, and the Torah states: Do not place a wicked man as a witness (see Exodus 23:1). Consequently, the testimony of that witness cannot be accepted, and bar Binittos should not have been disqualified.

专讘讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讚诐 拽专讜讘 讗爪诇 注爪诪讜 讜讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪砖讬诐 注爪诪讜 专砖注

The Gemara answers: Rava conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as Rava says: A person is his own relative and a person cannot make himself wicked. Consequently, the part of the testimony that relates to the witness鈥檚 own status is not accepted, while the part that relates to bar Binittos is accepted.

讛讛讜讗 讟讘讞讗 讚讗讬砖转讻讞 讚谞驻拽讗 讟专讬驻转讗 诪转讜转讬 讬讚讬讛 驻住诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜注讘专讬讛 讗讝诇 专讘讬 诪讝讬讛 讜讟讜驻专讬讛 住讘专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗讻砖讜专讬讛

There was a certain slaughterer about whom it was discovered that a tereifa, an animal with a wound that would have caused it to die within twelve months, emerged from his possession. In other words, he sold tereifa meat without informing the customers of its status. Rav Na岣an disqualified him from bearing witness and removed him from his position as a slaughterer. The slaughterer subsequently went and grew his fingernails and his hair out of remorse over his actions. Rav Na岣an thought to deem him fit again for bearing witness, as he clearly repented, and once someone repents for his sin, his status as a valid witness is restored.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讚讬诇诪讗 讗讬注专讜诪讬 拽讗 诪注专讬诐

Rava said to Rav Na岣an: Perhaps he is employing artifice, pretending to repent in order to be reinstated as a slaughterer.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 转拽谞转讬讛 讻讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讛讞砖讜讚 注诇 讛讟专讬驻讜转 讗讬谉 诇讜 转拽谞讛 注讚 砖讬诇讱 诇诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讻讬专讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讬讞讝讬专 讗讘讬讚讛 讘讚讘专 讞砖讜讘 讗讜 砖讬讜爪讬讗 讟专讬驻讛 诪转讞转 讬讚讜 讘讚讘专 讞砖讜讘 诪砖诇讜

Rather, what is his remedy? It is in accordance with the statement of Rav Idi bar Avin; as Rav Idi bar Avin says: One who is suspected of selling tereifot to others has no remedy to restore his fitness to bear witness until he goes to a locale where they do not recognize him and returns a lost item of substantial value that he finds, or removes his own tereifa meat of significant value from his possession. These actions demonstrate that he has repented, as he is willing to lose money for a mitzva. By contrast, if he does so in a place where he is recognized his fitness in not reinstated based on these actions, as perhaps he performed them only in order to be reinstated.

讜诪驻专讬讞讬 讬讜谞讬诐 诪讗讬 诪驻专讬讞讬 讬讜谞讬诐 讛讻讗 转专讙讜诪讛 讗讬 转拽讚诪讬讛 讬讜谞讱 诇讬讜谉 专讘讬 讞诪讗 讘专 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗诪专 讗专讗

搂 Among the list of those who are disqualified from bearing witness the mishna teaches: And those who fly pigeons. The Gemara asks: What is meant by: Those who fly pigeons? Here, in Babylonia, the Sages explained that these are people who gamble on pigeon races, i.e., one says to another: If your pigeon reaches a certain destination before my pigeon I will give you such and such an amount of money. Rabbi 岣ma bar Oshaya says: It is referring to an ara, i.e., one who trains his pigeons to bring him pigeons from the property of others.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬 转拽讚诪讬讛 讬讜谞讱 诇讬讜谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讗专讗

The Gemara asks: With regard to the one who says that it is referring to those who say: If your pigeon reaches a certain destination before my pigeon I will give you such and such an amount of money, what is the reason that he does not say that it is referring to an ara?

讗诪专 诇讱 讗专讗 诪驻谞讬 讚专讻讬 砖诇讜诐 讘注诇诪讗

The Gemara answers: He could say to you that an ara is not considered a robber, as the pigeons that he has his pigeons bring do not actually belong to those from whom he takes them. Rather, they dwell on the property of these individuals, and it is prohibited to take them merely due to the ways of peace.

讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗专讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讗讬 转拽讚诪讬讛 讬讜谞讱 诇讬讜谉 讗诪专 诇讱 讛讬讬谞讜 诪砖讞拽 讘拽讜讘讬讗

The Gemara asks: And with regard to the one who says that the mishna is referring to an ara, what is the reason that he does not say that it is referring to one who says: If your pigeon reaches a certain destination before my pigeon I will give you such and such an amount of money? The Gemara answers: He could say to you that this individual is the same as one who plays with dice; they both gamble on games of chance. This type of disqualification is already listed in the mishna.

讜讗讬讚讱

The Gemara asks: And how would the other Sage, who maintains that the expression: Those who fly pigeons, is referring to those who gamble on racing their pigeons, respond to this claim?

转谞讗 转讜诇讛 讘讚注转 注爪诪讜 讜转谞讗 转讜诇讛 讘讚注转 讬讜谞讜

The Gemara answers that it is necessary for the mishna to teach that both types of gamblers are disqualified. The mishna taught that one who bets on dice, making it dependent on his own decision, as he believes he has a method by which he will win, is disqualified, and the mishna taught that one who bets on pigeon races, making it dependent on the decision of his pigeon, is also disqualified.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 转谞讗 转讜诇讛 讘讚注转 注爪诪讜 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讙诪专 讜诪拽谞讬 讚讗诪专

The Gemara explains: And both are necessary. As had the mishna taught this halakha only with regard to one who bets on dice, making it dependent on his own decision, one might reason that it is specifically there that a gambler is considered a thief. The reason for this is that he presumably does not resolve to transfer the money if he loses; as he says to himself:

拽讬诐 诇讬 讘谞驻砖讗讬 讚讬讚注谞讗 讟驻讬 讗讘诇 转讜诇讛 讘讚注转 讬讜谞讜 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

I am certain of myself that I know better than my competitor how to win. But with regard to one who makes it dependent on the decision of his pigeon, say that he is not disqualified from bearing witness, as he is aware that he cannot guarantee the results and therefore resolves to transfer the money if he loses.

讜讗讬 转谞讗 转讜诇讛 讘讚注转 讬讜谞讜 讚讗诪专 讘谞拽砖讗 转诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讜讗谞讗 讬讚注谞讗 诇谞拽讜砖讬 讟驻讬 讗讘诇 转讜诇讛 讘讚注转 注爪诪讜 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And conversely, had the mishna taught this halakha only with regard to one who makes it dependent on the decision of his pigeon, one might assume that only this type of gambler is disqualified, as he presumably says: The matter, i.e., the race, is determined by knocking on trees and other objects to speed up the pigeons, and I know how to knock better than my opponent. Therefore, he does not resolve to transfer the money if he loses. But with regard to one who makes it dependent on his own decision, say that he is not disqualified from bearing witness, as the roll of the dice is pure chance. Therefore, it is necessary for the mishna to teach both cases.

诪讬转讬讘讬 壮讛诪砖讞拽 讘拽讜讘讬讗壮 讗诇讜 讛谉 讛诪砖讞拽讬诐 讘驻讬住驻住讬诐 讜诇讗 讘驻讬住驻住讬诐 讘诇讘讚 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 拽诇讬驻讬 讗讙讜讝讬诐 讜拽诇讬驻讬 专讬诪讜谞讬诐

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion that the expression: Those who fly pigeons, refers to an ara, from a baraita: With regard to the expression one who plays with dice, these are ones who play with pispasim, which are dice of marble or other types of stone. But the Sages did not mean to say that only one who plays with pispasim is disqualified from bearing witness, but rather even one who plays with nutshells or pomegranate shells is disqualified.

讜讗讬诪转讬 讞讝专转谉 诪砖讬砖讘专讜 讗转 驻讬住驻住讬讛谉 讜讬讞讝专讜 讘讛谉 讞讝专讛 讙诪讜专讛 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞谞诐 诇讗 注讘讚讬

And when is their repentance accepted, so that they may resume being fit to bear witness? Once they break their pispasim and repent of them completely, abandoning this occupation entirely, where they do not do this even for nothing, i.e., they do not play even without betting.

壮诪诇讜讛 讘专讬讘讬转壮 讗讞讚 讛诪诇讜讛 讜讗讞讚 讛诇讜讛 讜讗讬诪转讬 讞讝专转谉 诪砖讬拽专注讜 讗转 砖讟专讬讛谉 讜讬讞讝专讜 讘讛谉 讞讝专讛 讙诪讜专讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讙讜讬 诇讗 诪讜讝驻讬

The baraita continues: The expression: One who lends with interest, is referring to both the lender and the borrower. Both are disqualified. And when is their repentance accepted? Once they tear their promissory notes and repent of them completely, abandoning this occupation entirely, where they do not lend with interest even to a gentile.

壮讜诪驻专讬讞讬 讬讜谞讬诐壮 讗诇讜 砖诪诪专讬谉 讗转 讛讬讜谞讬诐 讜诇讗 讬讜谞讬诐 讘诇讘讚 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讛诪讛 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讜讗讬诪转讬 讞讝专转谉 诪砖讬砖讘专讜 讗转 驻讙诪讬讛谉 讜讬讞讝专讜 讘讛谉 讞讝专讛 讙诪讜专讛 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪讚讘专 谞诪讬 诇讗 注讘讚讬

The expression: And those who fly pigeons, is referring to those who induce the pigeons to behave in this manner, i.e., they train them. And the Sages did not mean to say that only those who fly pigeons are disqualified; rather, even those who do this with a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, or any type of bird are disqualified. And when is their repentance accepted? Once they break their fixtures [pigmeihen] upon which they stand the competing animals, and repent completely, abandoning this occupation entirely, where they do not do this even in the wilderness, where there is no one from whom to steal.

壮住讜讞专讬 砖讘讬注讬转壮 讗诇讜 砖谞讜砖讗讬谉 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 讘驻讬专讜转 砖讘讬注讬转 讜讗讬诪转讬 讞讝专转谉 诪砖转讙讬注 砖讘讬注讬转 讗讞专转 讜讬讘讚诇讜

The expression: Merchants who trade in the produce of the Sabbatical Year, is referring to those who do business with the produce of the Sabbatical Year. And when is their repentance accepted? Once another Sabbatical Year occurs and they refrain from selling its produce or from assuming ownership of such produce.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 诇讗 讞讝专转 讚讘专讬诐 讘诇讘讚 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讞讝专转 诪诪讜谉 讻讬爪讚 讗讜诪专 壮讗谞讬 驻诇讜谞讬 讘专 驻诇讜谞讬 讻讬谞住转讬 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 讘驻讬专讜转 砖讘讬注讬转 讜讛专讬 讛谉 谞转讜谞讬谉 讘诪转谞讛 诇注谞讬讬诐壮

The baraita continues: And Rabbi Ne岣mya said: The Sages did not say that verbal repentance alone is sufficient for a merchant who traded in the produce of the Sabbatical Year to be reinstated as a valid witness; rather, returning the money is also necessary. How can one return the money he gained from selling produce of the Sabbatical Year? He says: I, so-and-so the son of so-and-so, gathered, i.e., profited, two hundred dinars from trading in the produce of the Sabbatical Year, and as I gained it improperly, this sum is hereby given as a gift to the poor.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 讘讛诪讛 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬 转拽讚诪讬讛 讬讜谞讱 诇讬讜谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讚诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘讛诪讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗专讗 讘讛诪讛 讘转 讛讻讬 讛讬讗

The Gemara explains the objection: In any event, it is taught in the baraita that the status of one who flies pigeons applies to one who uses a domesticated animal in the same manner. Granted, according to the one who says that the term: One who flies pigeons, is referring to those who race pigeons, saying: If your pigeon reaches a certain destination before my pigeon I will give you such and such an amount of money, this is how you find a parallel case of one who races a domesticated animal against another animal. But according to the one who says that the term pigeon flyer means an ara, is a domesticated animal capable of luring other domesticated animals?

讗讬谉 讘砖讜专 讛讘专 讜讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖讜专 讛讘专 诪讬谉 讘讛诪讛 讛讜讗 讚转谞谉 砖讜专 讛讘专 诪讬谉 讘讛诪讛 讛讜讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪讬谉 讞讬讛

The Gemara answers: Yes, the baraita states this with regard to the wild ox, which can be lured away from its owner鈥檚 property because it is not a completely domesticated animal. And the baraita states this according to the one who says that the wild ox is a species of domesticated animal, as we learned in a mishna (Kilayim 8:6): The wild ox is a species of domesticated animal. But Rabbi Yosei says: It is a species of undomesticated animal.

转谞讗 讛讜住讬驻讜 注诇讬讛谉 讛讙讝诇谞讬谉 讜讛讞诪住谞讬谉

搂 It was taught in a baraita: The Sages added the robbers and those who force transactions, i.e., who compel others to sell to them, to the list of those who are disqualified from bearing witness.

讙讝诇谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讜讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇诪爪讬讗转 讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉

The Gemara asks: A robber is disqualified by Torah law; why is it necessary for the Sages to add such an individual to the list? The Gemara answers: It is necessary only to add one who steals an item found by a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, who acquire those items by rabbinic law only (see Gittin 59b). Since these people are not considered halakhically competent, by Torah law they do not acquire an item that they find, and consequently one who steals such an item from them is not in violation of a prohibition by Torah law.

诪注讬拽专讗 住讘讜专 诪爪讬讗转 讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 诪驻谞讬 讚专讻讬 砖诇讜诐 讘注诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讜 讚住讜祝 住讜祝 诪诪讜谞讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 砖拽诇讬 驻住诇讬谞讛讜 专讘谞谉

One possibility is that taking such an item is prohibited by rabbinic law because it constitutes robbery. Nevertheless, initially the Sages did not disqualify such an individual from bearing witness, as they assumed that the case of an item found by a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor is uncommon. Therefore, it was not deemed necessary to disqualify one who robs them of such an item. Alternatively, the Sages may have reasoned that taking such an item is prohibited merely on account of the ways of peace, i.e., to foster peace and prevent strife and controversy, and is not considered actual robbery. When they realized that ultimately these people were taking property from others and were likely to perform actual robbery, the Sages disqualified them.

讛讞诪住谞讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗 住讘讜专 讚诪讬 拽讗 讬讛讬讘 讗拽专讗讬 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讜 讚拽讗 讞讟驻讬 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉

Similarly, with regard to those who force transactions, initially the Sages did not disqualify them, as they assumed that their behavior could be excused for two reasons: They would pay money for the items they took, and their forcing transactions was merely occasional; it was not a common practice. When they realized that these people were snatching items regularly, the Sages issued a decree that they are disqualified from bearing witness.

转谞讗 注讜讚 讛讜住讬驻讜 注诇讬讛谉 讛专讜注讬诐 讛讙讘讗讬谉 讜讛诪讜讻住讬谉

搂 It is taught in a baraita: The Sages further added the following to the list of those disqualified from bearing witness: The shepherds, who shepherd their animals in the fields of others and are therefore considered like robbers; the collectors of government taxes, who collect more than the amount that people are legally liable to pay; and the customs officials, who collect customs in an illegal manner.

专讜注讬诐 诪注讬拽专讗 住讘讜专 讗拽专讗讬 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讜 讚拽讗 诪讻讜讜谞讬 讜砖讚讜 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉 讛讙讘讗讬谉 讜讛诪讜讻住讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗 住讘讜专 诪讗讬 讚拽讬抓 诇讛讜 拽讗 砖拽诇讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讜 讚拽讗 砖拽诇讬 讬转讬专讗 驻住诇讬谞讛讜

The Gemara explains: Shepherds were not disqualified at first, as the Sages initially assumed it was merely incidental that they would let their animals graze in the fields of others. When they realized that they would intentionally send the animals to the fields of others from the outset, the Sages issued a decree that they are disqualified from bearing witness. The collectors of taxes and the customs officials were not disqualified at first, as the Sages initially assumed they would take the set amount they were instructed to take. When they realized that these officials were taking more than that, they disqualified them.

讗诪专 专讘讗 专讜注讛 砖讗诪专讜 讗讞讚 专讜注讛 讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 讜讗讞讚 专讜注讛 讘讛诪讛 讙住讛

Rava says: The shepherd that the Sages said is disqualified from bearing witness is referring to both a shepherd of small livestock and a herder of large livestock.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 专讜注讛 讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 驻住讜诇讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讻砖专讬谉 专讜注讛 讘讛诪讛 讙住讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讻砖专讬谉 讛讛讜讗 讘诪讙讚诇讬诐 讗讬转诪专

The Gemara asks: And does Rava say this? But doesn鈥檛 Rava say: Shepherds of small livestock in Eretz Yisrael are disqualified from bearing witness, as besides grazing in others鈥 fields they also ruin the land? Outside of Eretz Yisrael they are fit to bear witness. By contrast, herders of large livestock, even in Eretz Yisrael, are fit to bear witness. The Gemara answers: That was stated with regard to those who raise their animals on their own land, without herding them on land in the public domain.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 谞讗诪谞讬谉 注诇讬 砖诇砖讛 专讜注讬 讘拽专 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇注讚讜转

The Gemara suggests a proof for Rava鈥檚 opinion that a herder of large livestock is also disqualified: This too stands to reason, from the fact that the mishna (24a) teaches that a litigant may state: Three cattle herders are trusted for me in court; by inference, cattle herders are generally disqualified. What, is it not with regard to bearing witness that cattle herders are disqualified, in accordance with Rava鈥檚 statement?

诇讗 诇讚讬谞讗 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 砖诇砖讛 专讜注讬 讘拽专 讜讗讬 诇注讚讜转 砖诇砖讛 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara rejects this proof: No, it is with regard to sitting in judgment. The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise according to this interpretation, as it teaches: Three cattle herders are trusted for me. And if it is with regard to bearing witness, why do I need three witnesses? Two are enough.

讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 诇讚讬谞讗 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 砖诇砖讛 专讜注讬 讘拽专 讻诇 讘讬 转诇转讗 讚诇讗 讙诪专讬 讚讬谞讗 谞诪讬

The Gemara asks: But rather, with regard to what are cattle herders disqualified? If it is with regard to sitting in judgment, why does the mishna mention specifically three cattle herders? Any three people who did not study halakha are also disqualified from serving as a court.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讛谞讬 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 讘讬讬砖讜讘

The Gemara answers: This is what the mishna is saying: The litigants can accept as judges even those cattle herders who dwell in the fields and do not frequent the settled area, and are therefore not proficient in the ways of business.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 住转诐 专讜注讛 驻住讜诇 住转诐 讙讘讗讬 讻砖专

Rav Yehuda says: An ordinary shepherd is disqualified from bearing witness unless the court recognizes him as one who does not let his animals graze in the fields of others. An ordinary tax collector is fit unless the court determines he is one who collects more than people are obligated to pay.

讗讘讜讛 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 注讘讚 讙讘讬讜转讗 转诇讬住专 砖谞讬谉 讻讬 讛讜讛 讗转讬 专讬砖 谞讛专讗 诇诪转讗 讻讬 讛讜讛 讞讝讬 专讘谞谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讱 注诪讬 讘讗 讘讞讚专讬讱 讻讬 讛讜讛 讞讝讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讚诪转讗 讗诪专 专讬砖 谞讛专讗 讗转讗 诇诪转讗 讜讛讗讬讚谞讗 谞讻讬住 讗讘讗 诇驻讜诐 讘专讗 讜讘专讗 诇驻讜诐 讗讘讗

The Gemara relates a story about a tax collector: The father of Rabbi Zeira collected taxes for thirteen years. When the head tax collector of the river region would come to the city, Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 father would prepare the residents ahead of time. When he would see the rabbis, he would say to them as a hint: 鈥淐ome, my people, enter into your chambers, and shut your doors behind you; hide yourself for a little moment until the indignation has passed鈥 (Isaiah 26:20). He said this so that the head tax collector would not see the rabbis, and it would be possible to lower the taxes of the city. When he would see the ordinary people of the city, he would say to them: Beware, as the head tax collector of the river region is coming to the city, and will now slaughter the father, i.e., take one鈥檚 money, before the son, and the son before the father.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Sanhedrin 25

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sanhedrin 25

讗讬诪转讬 讜讘诪讛 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇驻专砖 讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐

When does this halakha apply, or: In what case is this statement said, he intends only to explain the statement of the Rabbis, not to disagree with them?

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讬诪转讬 诇驻专砖 讜讘诪讛 诇讞诇讜拽 讜讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬诪转讬 诇驻专砖 讛讜讗

Granted, Rabbi Yo岣nan disagrees with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, and says that only the term: When does this halakha apply, indicates that Rabbi Yehuda intends to explain the previous statement of the Rabbis, but the term: In what case is this statement said, indicates that he intends to disagree. But according to everyone, the term when indicates that he intends to explain the previous statement. This is difficult according to Rami bar 岣ma.

讙讘专讗 讗讙讘专讗 拽讗 专诪讬转 诪专 住讘专 驻诇讬讙讬 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬

The Gemara responds: Are you setting the statement of one man against the statement of another man? One Sage, Rami bar 岣ma, holds that Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree even when Rabbi Yehuda employs the term: When does this halakha apply, and one Sage, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, and similarly Rabbi Yo岣nan, holds that they do not disagree.

讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘讬谉 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗讜诪谞讜转 砖诇讗 讛讜讗 讘讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讗讜诪谞讜转 讗诇讗 讛讜讗 讛专讬 讝讛 驻住讜诇

The Gemara asks: And do they not disagree? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Whether a dice player has an occupation other than this one, or whether he does not have an occupation other than this one, he is disqualified from bearing witness? This baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rami bar 岣ma.

讛讛讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 谞讝讬专 诇驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转谞讛 谞讝讬专讜转 讗诇讗 诇讛驻诇讗讛

The Gemara answers: That baraita is not the opinion of the Rabbis in the mishna, but rather it is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in the name of Rabbi Tarfon. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Tarfon: In the case where two people quarreled and each of them declared that if the other is right he will become a nazirite, actually, neither of them becomes a nazirite, as naziriteship is determined only by explicitness. A vow of naziriteship does not take effect if the individual does not vow clearly and with certitude. Here too, Rabbi Tarfon maintains that one who bets on games played with dice is considered a thief, as one can acquire the money of another legally only if the latter gives it to him with certain and conclusive intent. Since one who plays dice is not certain that he will have to pay the other player, as he considers it likely that he will win, the transaction is an asmakhta and is legally invalid.

诪诇讜讛 讘专讘讬转 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讜讛 讘专讘讬转 驻住讜诇 诇注讚讜转 讜讛讗谞谉 转谞谉 诪诇讜讛 讘专讘讬转 诪诇讜讛 讛讘讗讛 讘专讘讬转

搂 The mishna teaches that one who lends money with interest is disqualified from bearing witness. Rava says: One who borrows money with interest is disqualified from bearing witness. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that specifically one who lends money with interest is disqualified? The Gemara answers: The reference in the mishna is to a loan that comes with interest, and is teaching that all those who participate in the loan are disqualified.

讘专 讘讬谞讬转讜住 讗住讛讬讚讜 讘讬讛 转专讬 住讛讚讬 讞讚 讗诪专 拽诪讬 讚讬讚讬 讗讜讝讬祝 讘专讬讘讬转讗 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诇讚讬讚讬 讗讜讝驻讬 讘专讬讘讬转讗 驻住诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇讘专 讘讬谞讬转讜住

The Gemara recounts: Two witnesses testified about bar Binittos. One said: He lent money with interest in my presence, and the other one said: He lent me money with interest. Rava rendered bar Binittos disqualified from bearing witness and from serving as a judge.

讜讛讗 专讘讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讜讛 讘专讘讬转 驻住讜诇 诇注讚讜转 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 专砖注 讜讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 讗诇 转砖转 专砖注 注讚

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 Rava the one who said that one who borrows money with interest is disqualified from bearing witness? And accordingly the latter witness is considered a wicked man, as by his own account he borrowed money with interest from bar Binittos, and the Torah states: Do not place a wicked man as a witness (see Exodus 23:1). Consequently, the testimony of that witness cannot be accepted, and bar Binittos should not have been disqualified.

专讘讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讚诐 拽专讜讘 讗爪诇 注爪诪讜 讜讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪砖讬诐 注爪诪讜 专砖注

The Gemara answers: Rava conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as Rava says: A person is his own relative and a person cannot make himself wicked. Consequently, the part of the testimony that relates to the witness鈥檚 own status is not accepted, while the part that relates to bar Binittos is accepted.

讛讛讜讗 讟讘讞讗 讚讗讬砖转讻讞 讚谞驻拽讗 讟专讬驻转讗 诪转讜转讬 讬讚讬讛 驻住诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜注讘专讬讛 讗讝诇 专讘讬 诪讝讬讛 讜讟讜驻专讬讛 住讘专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗讻砖讜专讬讛

There was a certain slaughterer about whom it was discovered that a tereifa, an animal with a wound that would have caused it to die within twelve months, emerged from his possession. In other words, he sold tereifa meat without informing the customers of its status. Rav Na岣an disqualified him from bearing witness and removed him from his position as a slaughterer. The slaughterer subsequently went and grew his fingernails and his hair out of remorse over his actions. Rav Na岣an thought to deem him fit again for bearing witness, as he clearly repented, and once someone repents for his sin, his status as a valid witness is restored.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讚讬诇诪讗 讗讬注专讜诪讬 拽讗 诪注专讬诐

Rava said to Rav Na岣an: Perhaps he is employing artifice, pretending to repent in order to be reinstated as a slaughterer.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 转拽谞转讬讛 讻讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讛讞砖讜讚 注诇 讛讟专讬驻讜转 讗讬谉 诇讜 转拽谞讛 注讚 砖讬诇讱 诇诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讻讬专讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讬讞讝讬专 讗讘讬讚讛 讘讚讘专 讞砖讜讘 讗讜 砖讬讜爪讬讗 讟专讬驻讛 诪转讞转 讬讚讜 讘讚讘专 讞砖讜讘 诪砖诇讜

Rather, what is his remedy? It is in accordance with the statement of Rav Idi bar Avin; as Rav Idi bar Avin says: One who is suspected of selling tereifot to others has no remedy to restore his fitness to bear witness until he goes to a locale where they do not recognize him and returns a lost item of substantial value that he finds, or removes his own tereifa meat of significant value from his possession. These actions demonstrate that he has repented, as he is willing to lose money for a mitzva. By contrast, if he does so in a place where he is recognized his fitness in not reinstated based on these actions, as perhaps he performed them only in order to be reinstated.

讜诪驻专讬讞讬 讬讜谞讬诐 诪讗讬 诪驻专讬讞讬 讬讜谞讬诐 讛讻讗 转专讙讜诪讛 讗讬 转拽讚诪讬讛 讬讜谞讱 诇讬讜谉 专讘讬 讞诪讗 讘专 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗诪专 讗专讗

搂 Among the list of those who are disqualified from bearing witness the mishna teaches: And those who fly pigeons. The Gemara asks: What is meant by: Those who fly pigeons? Here, in Babylonia, the Sages explained that these are people who gamble on pigeon races, i.e., one says to another: If your pigeon reaches a certain destination before my pigeon I will give you such and such an amount of money. Rabbi 岣ma bar Oshaya says: It is referring to an ara, i.e., one who trains his pigeons to bring him pigeons from the property of others.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬 转拽讚诪讬讛 讬讜谞讱 诇讬讜谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讗专讗

The Gemara asks: With regard to the one who says that it is referring to those who say: If your pigeon reaches a certain destination before my pigeon I will give you such and such an amount of money, what is the reason that he does not say that it is referring to an ara?

讗诪专 诇讱 讗专讗 诪驻谞讬 讚专讻讬 砖诇讜诐 讘注诇诪讗

The Gemara answers: He could say to you that an ara is not considered a robber, as the pigeons that he has his pigeons bring do not actually belong to those from whom he takes them. Rather, they dwell on the property of these individuals, and it is prohibited to take them merely due to the ways of peace.

讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗专讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讗讬 转拽讚诪讬讛 讬讜谞讱 诇讬讜谉 讗诪专 诇讱 讛讬讬谞讜 诪砖讞拽 讘拽讜讘讬讗

The Gemara asks: And with regard to the one who says that the mishna is referring to an ara, what is the reason that he does not say that it is referring to one who says: If your pigeon reaches a certain destination before my pigeon I will give you such and such an amount of money? The Gemara answers: He could say to you that this individual is the same as one who plays with dice; they both gamble on games of chance. This type of disqualification is already listed in the mishna.

讜讗讬讚讱

The Gemara asks: And how would the other Sage, who maintains that the expression: Those who fly pigeons, is referring to those who gamble on racing their pigeons, respond to this claim?

转谞讗 转讜诇讛 讘讚注转 注爪诪讜 讜转谞讗 转讜诇讛 讘讚注转 讬讜谞讜

The Gemara answers that it is necessary for the mishna to teach that both types of gamblers are disqualified. The mishna taught that one who bets on dice, making it dependent on his own decision, as he believes he has a method by which he will win, is disqualified, and the mishna taught that one who bets on pigeon races, making it dependent on the decision of his pigeon, is also disqualified.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 转谞讗 转讜诇讛 讘讚注转 注爪诪讜 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讙诪专 讜诪拽谞讬 讚讗诪专

The Gemara explains: And both are necessary. As had the mishna taught this halakha only with regard to one who bets on dice, making it dependent on his own decision, one might reason that it is specifically there that a gambler is considered a thief. The reason for this is that he presumably does not resolve to transfer the money if he loses; as he says to himself:

拽讬诐 诇讬 讘谞驻砖讗讬 讚讬讚注谞讗 讟驻讬 讗讘诇 转讜诇讛 讘讚注转 讬讜谞讜 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

I am certain of myself that I know better than my competitor how to win. But with regard to one who makes it dependent on the decision of his pigeon, say that he is not disqualified from bearing witness, as he is aware that he cannot guarantee the results and therefore resolves to transfer the money if he loses.

讜讗讬 转谞讗 转讜诇讛 讘讚注转 讬讜谞讜 讚讗诪专 讘谞拽砖讗 转诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讜讗谞讗 讬讚注谞讗 诇谞拽讜砖讬 讟驻讬 讗讘诇 转讜诇讛 讘讚注转 注爪诪讜 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And conversely, had the mishna taught this halakha only with regard to one who makes it dependent on the decision of his pigeon, one might assume that only this type of gambler is disqualified, as he presumably says: The matter, i.e., the race, is determined by knocking on trees and other objects to speed up the pigeons, and I know how to knock better than my opponent. Therefore, he does not resolve to transfer the money if he loses. But with regard to one who makes it dependent on his own decision, say that he is not disqualified from bearing witness, as the roll of the dice is pure chance. Therefore, it is necessary for the mishna to teach both cases.

诪讬转讬讘讬 壮讛诪砖讞拽 讘拽讜讘讬讗壮 讗诇讜 讛谉 讛诪砖讞拽讬诐 讘驻讬住驻住讬诐 讜诇讗 讘驻讬住驻住讬诐 讘诇讘讚 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 拽诇讬驻讬 讗讙讜讝讬诐 讜拽诇讬驻讬 专讬诪讜谞讬诐

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion that the expression: Those who fly pigeons, refers to an ara, from a baraita: With regard to the expression one who plays with dice, these are ones who play with pispasim, which are dice of marble or other types of stone. But the Sages did not mean to say that only one who plays with pispasim is disqualified from bearing witness, but rather even one who plays with nutshells or pomegranate shells is disqualified.

讜讗讬诪转讬 讞讝专转谉 诪砖讬砖讘专讜 讗转 驻讬住驻住讬讛谉 讜讬讞讝专讜 讘讛谉 讞讝专讛 讙诪讜专讛 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞谞诐 诇讗 注讘讚讬

And when is their repentance accepted, so that they may resume being fit to bear witness? Once they break their pispasim and repent of them completely, abandoning this occupation entirely, where they do not do this even for nothing, i.e., they do not play even without betting.

壮诪诇讜讛 讘专讬讘讬转壮 讗讞讚 讛诪诇讜讛 讜讗讞讚 讛诇讜讛 讜讗讬诪转讬 讞讝专转谉 诪砖讬拽专注讜 讗转 砖讟专讬讛谉 讜讬讞讝专讜 讘讛谉 讞讝专讛 讙诪讜专讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讙讜讬 诇讗 诪讜讝驻讬

The baraita continues: The expression: One who lends with interest, is referring to both the lender and the borrower. Both are disqualified. And when is their repentance accepted? Once they tear their promissory notes and repent of them completely, abandoning this occupation entirely, where they do not lend with interest even to a gentile.

壮讜诪驻专讬讞讬 讬讜谞讬诐壮 讗诇讜 砖诪诪专讬谉 讗转 讛讬讜谞讬诐 讜诇讗 讬讜谞讬诐 讘诇讘讚 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讛诪讛 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讜讗讬诪转讬 讞讝专转谉 诪砖讬砖讘专讜 讗转 驻讙诪讬讛谉 讜讬讞讝专讜 讘讛谉 讞讝专讛 讙诪讜专讛 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪讚讘专 谞诪讬 诇讗 注讘讚讬

The expression: And those who fly pigeons, is referring to those who induce the pigeons to behave in this manner, i.e., they train them. And the Sages did not mean to say that only those who fly pigeons are disqualified; rather, even those who do this with a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, or any type of bird are disqualified. And when is their repentance accepted? Once they break their fixtures [pigmeihen] upon which they stand the competing animals, and repent completely, abandoning this occupation entirely, where they do not do this even in the wilderness, where there is no one from whom to steal.

壮住讜讞专讬 砖讘讬注讬转壮 讗诇讜 砖谞讜砖讗讬谉 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 讘驻讬专讜转 砖讘讬注讬转 讜讗讬诪转讬 讞讝专转谉 诪砖转讙讬注 砖讘讬注讬转 讗讞专转 讜讬讘讚诇讜

The expression: Merchants who trade in the produce of the Sabbatical Year, is referring to those who do business with the produce of the Sabbatical Year. And when is their repentance accepted? Once another Sabbatical Year occurs and they refrain from selling its produce or from assuming ownership of such produce.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 诇讗 讞讝专转 讚讘专讬诐 讘诇讘讚 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讞讝专转 诪诪讜谉 讻讬爪讚 讗讜诪专 壮讗谞讬 驻诇讜谞讬 讘专 驻诇讜谞讬 讻讬谞住转讬 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 讘驻讬专讜转 砖讘讬注讬转 讜讛专讬 讛谉 谞转讜谞讬谉 讘诪转谞讛 诇注谞讬讬诐壮

The baraita continues: And Rabbi Ne岣mya said: The Sages did not say that verbal repentance alone is sufficient for a merchant who traded in the produce of the Sabbatical Year to be reinstated as a valid witness; rather, returning the money is also necessary. How can one return the money he gained from selling produce of the Sabbatical Year? He says: I, so-and-so the son of so-and-so, gathered, i.e., profited, two hundred dinars from trading in the produce of the Sabbatical Year, and as I gained it improperly, this sum is hereby given as a gift to the poor.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 讘讛诪讛 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬 转拽讚诪讬讛 讬讜谞讱 诇讬讜谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讚诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘讛诪讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗专讗 讘讛诪讛 讘转 讛讻讬 讛讬讗

The Gemara explains the objection: In any event, it is taught in the baraita that the status of one who flies pigeons applies to one who uses a domesticated animal in the same manner. Granted, according to the one who says that the term: One who flies pigeons, is referring to those who race pigeons, saying: If your pigeon reaches a certain destination before my pigeon I will give you such and such an amount of money, this is how you find a parallel case of one who races a domesticated animal against another animal. But according to the one who says that the term pigeon flyer means an ara, is a domesticated animal capable of luring other domesticated animals?

讗讬谉 讘砖讜专 讛讘专 讜讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖讜专 讛讘专 诪讬谉 讘讛诪讛 讛讜讗 讚转谞谉 砖讜专 讛讘专 诪讬谉 讘讛诪讛 讛讜讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪讬谉 讞讬讛

The Gemara answers: Yes, the baraita states this with regard to the wild ox, which can be lured away from its owner鈥檚 property because it is not a completely domesticated animal. And the baraita states this according to the one who says that the wild ox is a species of domesticated animal, as we learned in a mishna (Kilayim 8:6): The wild ox is a species of domesticated animal. But Rabbi Yosei says: It is a species of undomesticated animal.

转谞讗 讛讜住讬驻讜 注诇讬讛谉 讛讙讝诇谞讬谉 讜讛讞诪住谞讬谉

搂 It was taught in a baraita: The Sages added the robbers and those who force transactions, i.e., who compel others to sell to them, to the list of those who are disqualified from bearing witness.

讙讝诇谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讜讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇诪爪讬讗转 讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉

The Gemara asks: A robber is disqualified by Torah law; why is it necessary for the Sages to add such an individual to the list? The Gemara answers: It is necessary only to add one who steals an item found by a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, who acquire those items by rabbinic law only (see Gittin 59b). Since these people are not considered halakhically competent, by Torah law they do not acquire an item that they find, and consequently one who steals such an item from them is not in violation of a prohibition by Torah law.

诪注讬拽专讗 住讘讜专 诪爪讬讗转 讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 诪驻谞讬 讚专讻讬 砖诇讜诐 讘注诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讜 讚住讜祝 住讜祝 诪诪讜谞讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 砖拽诇讬 驻住诇讬谞讛讜 专讘谞谉

One possibility is that taking such an item is prohibited by rabbinic law because it constitutes robbery. Nevertheless, initially the Sages did not disqualify such an individual from bearing witness, as they assumed that the case of an item found by a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor is uncommon. Therefore, it was not deemed necessary to disqualify one who robs them of such an item. Alternatively, the Sages may have reasoned that taking such an item is prohibited merely on account of the ways of peace, i.e., to foster peace and prevent strife and controversy, and is not considered actual robbery. When they realized that ultimately these people were taking property from others and were likely to perform actual robbery, the Sages disqualified them.

讛讞诪住谞讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗 住讘讜专 讚诪讬 拽讗 讬讛讬讘 讗拽专讗讬 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讜 讚拽讗 讞讟驻讬 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉

Similarly, with regard to those who force transactions, initially the Sages did not disqualify them, as they assumed that their behavior could be excused for two reasons: They would pay money for the items they took, and their forcing transactions was merely occasional; it was not a common practice. When they realized that these people were snatching items regularly, the Sages issued a decree that they are disqualified from bearing witness.

转谞讗 注讜讚 讛讜住讬驻讜 注诇讬讛谉 讛专讜注讬诐 讛讙讘讗讬谉 讜讛诪讜讻住讬谉

搂 It is taught in a baraita: The Sages further added the following to the list of those disqualified from bearing witness: The shepherds, who shepherd their animals in the fields of others and are therefore considered like robbers; the collectors of government taxes, who collect more than the amount that people are legally liable to pay; and the customs officials, who collect customs in an illegal manner.

专讜注讬诐 诪注讬拽专讗 住讘讜专 讗拽专讗讬 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讜 讚拽讗 诪讻讜讜谞讬 讜砖讚讜 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉 讛讙讘讗讬谉 讜讛诪讜讻住讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗 住讘讜专 诪讗讬 讚拽讬抓 诇讛讜 拽讗 砖拽诇讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讜 讚拽讗 砖拽诇讬 讬转讬专讗 驻住诇讬谞讛讜

The Gemara explains: Shepherds were not disqualified at first, as the Sages initially assumed it was merely incidental that they would let their animals graze in the fields of others. When they realized that they would intentionally send the animals to the fields of others from the outset, the Sages issued a decree that they are disqualified from bearing witness. The collectors of taxes and the customs officials were not disqualified at first, as the Sages initially assumed they would take the set amount they were instructed to take. When they realized that these officials were taking more than that, they disqualified them.

讗诪专 专讘讗 专讜注讛 砖讗诪专讜 讗讞讚 专讜注讛 讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 讜讗讞讚 专讜注讛 讘讛诪讛 讙住讛

Rava says: The shepherd that the Sages said is disqualified from bearing witness is referring to both a shepherd of small livestock and a herder of large livestock.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 专讜注讛 讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 驻住讜诇讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讻砖专讬谉 专讜注讛 讘讛诪讛 讙住讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讻砖专讬谉 讛讛讜讗 讘诪讙讚诇讬诐 讗讬转诪专

The Gemara asks: And does Rava say this? But doesn鈥檛 Rava say: Shepherds of small livestock in Eretz Yisrael are disqualified from bearing witness, as besides grazing in others鈥 fields they also ruin the land? Outside of Eretz Yisrael they are fit to bear witness. By contrast, herders of large livestock, even in Eretz Yisrael, are fit to bear witness. The Gemara answers: That was stated with regard to those who raise their animals on their own land, without herding them on land in the public domain.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 谞讗诪谞讬谉 注诇讬 砖诇砖讛 专讜注讬 讘拽专 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇注讚讜转

The Gemara suggests a proof for Rava鈥檚 opinion that a herder of large livestock is also disqualified: This too stands to reason, from the fact that the mishna (24a) teaches that a litigant may state: Three cattle herders are trusted for me in court; by inference, cattle herders are generally disqualified. What, is it not with regard to bearing witness that cattle herders are disqualified, in accordance with Rava鈥檚 statement?

诇讗 诇讚讬谞讗 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 砖诇砖讛 专讜注讬 讘拽专 讜讗讬 诇注讚讜转 砖诇砖讛 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara rejects this proof: No, it is with regard to sitting in judgment. The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise according to this interpretation, as it teaches: Three cattle herders are trusted for me. And if it is with regard to bearing witness, why do I need three witnesses? Two are enough.

讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 诇讚讬谞讗 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 砖诇砖讛 专讜注讬 讘拽专 讻诇 讘讬 转诇转讗 讚诇讗 讙诪专讬 讚讬谞讗 谞诪讬

The Gemara asks: But rather, with regard to what are cattle herders disqualified? If it is with regard to sitting in judgment, why does the mishna mention specifically three cattle herders? Any three people who did not study halakha are also disqualified from serving as a court.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讛谞讬 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 讘讬讬砖讜讘

The Gemara answers: This is what the mishna is saying: The litigants can accept as judges even those cattle herders who dwell in the fields and do not frequent the settled area, and are therefore not proficient in the ways of business.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 住转诐 专讜注讛 驻住讜诇 住转诐 讙讘讗讬 讻砖专

Rav Yehuda says: An ordinary shepherd is disqualified from bearing witness unless the court recognizes him as one who does not let his animals graze in the fields of others. An ordinary tax collector is fit unless the court determines he is one who collects more than people are obligated to pay.

讗讘讜讛 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 注讘讚 讙讘讬讜转讗 转诇讬住专 砖谞讬谉 讻讬 讛讜讛 讗转讬 专讬砖 谞讛专讗 诇诪转讗 讻讬 讛讜讛 讞讝讬 专讘谞谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讱 注诪讬 讘讗 讘讞讚专讬讱 讻讬 讛讜讛 讞讝讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讚诪转讗 讗诪专 专讬砖 谞讛专讗 讗转讗 诇诪转讗 讜讛讗讬讚谞讗 谞讻讬住 讗讘讗 诇驻讜诐 讘专讗 讜讘专讗 诇驻讜诐 讗讘讗

The Gemara relates a story about a tax collector: The father of Rabbi Zeira collected taxes for thirteen years. When the head tax collector of the river region would come to the city, Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 father would prepare the residents ahead of time. When he would see the rabbis, he would say to them as a hint: 鈥淐ome, my people, enter into your chambers, and shut your doors behind you; hide yourself for a little moment until the indignation has passed鈥 (Isaiah 26:20). He said this so that the head tax collector would not see the rabbis, and it would be possible to lower the taxes of the city. When he would see the ordinary people of the city, he would say to them: Beware, as the head tax collector of the river region is coming to the city, and will now slaughter the father, i.e., take one鈥檚 money, before the son, and the son before the father.

Scroll To Top