ההוא טבחא דאישתכח דנפקא טריפתא מתותי ידיה פסליה רב נחמן ועבריה אזל רבי מזיה וטופריה סבר רב נחמן לאכשוריה
must be free fromdoubt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'applies only to distinct utterance.' This refers
to the following: A and B were sitting by the road-side, and a man passed
them. Whereupon A said to B: If the man who has passed is a Nazir, as I maintain
he is, then I too will take the vow of neziruth; and B said that he for his
part would take the vow if he were not. R. Tarfon ruled that the vow is not
binding even upon him whose view was subsequently found to be correct, for
the vow was based on a doubtful matter, whereas neziruth requires a distinct
and explicit pledge. (V. Nazir 34a). R. Judah himself may thus, notwithstanding
his statement in the Mishnah, which is only explanatory of the view of the
Rabbis, concur in R. Tarfon's view. With respect to the actual reasoning
of the Talmud, Rashi states: This proves that in R. Tarfon's opinion, an
undertaking dependent on an unknown circumstance is not binding, and therefore
the same applies to gambling, each gambler undertaking to pay his opponents
without knowing the latter's strength, and therefore the gambler is akin
to a robber, as explained on p. 143, n. 2, whether gambling, is his sole
occupation or not.
');"><sup>10</sup></span>
Sefer HaChinukh
From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Testimony 9:1) that there are ten [categories] that are disqualified from Torah writ. And they are women, slaves, minors, deaf-mutes, the mentally incapacitated, the blind, evildoers, especially disgraceful people, relatives, those that are invested in their testimony - behold, these are ten. And [those whose sex is unclear] are in the category of women (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Testimony 9:3), one who is half a slave is in the category of slaves and the epileptic is in the category of the mentally incapacitated at the time of his epilepsy. And even not during the time of his epilepsy, the judge must consider whether his mind is confused from the side of the sickness. And so [too,] the very dim-witted that do not understand [when] things contradict one another, and so [too,] people that are impulsive and rash in their thinking and very [unstable] - all of these are in the category of the mentally incapacitated. And so [too,] that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Sanhedrin 24b) [about] who is the one that is called an evildoer, such that he is disqualified by Torah writ, and who is the evildoer who is disqualified [rabbinically]. And among them is the dice player who does not have any other craft besides it, and the one who flies pigeons in the settlement, and those that raise [sheep and goats]. And the distinction between the [Torah's] disqualification and the [rabbinic] disqualification, that they, may their memory be blessed, said - that the Torah's disqualification is that [if] he testified, his testimony is void even before they have proclaimed [his status], but [with] the rabbinic disqualification, his testimony stands until they proclaim [his status]. And what repentance brings him back to his being fit - and it is like Rav Idi said in the the chapter [entitled], Zeh Borer (Sanhedrin 25a); as Rav Idi bar Avin said, "One who is suspected of [selling] 'torn' animals [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, or removes his own 'torn' animal of significant value from his possession"' and so [too] is it said similarly about another sin. And the rest of its details are elucidated there in Sanhedrin.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
