Sanhedrin 48

מאי לאו באותן הנשבעין ולא משלמין דהוה ליה כמחול לך

But if so, has this not already been taught in the first clause [of theMishnah]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the explanation thereof by Raba. ');">⁴</span>

לא באותן הנשבעין ונוטלין דהוה ליה כאתן לך

— It [the Mishnah] teachesthe case where he [sc. the defendant] makes the irregular procedure dependon the judgment of others,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By accepting the judgment of people ineligible as judges. ');">⁵</span>

והא תנא ליה רישא

and alsowhere he makes it depend on his [sc. the plaintiff's] action. And both arenecessary. For had it taught only the case where he [the defendant] makesit depend on the judgment of others, [we might have assumed that] in thiscase alone does R. Meir hold that he can retract since he might not definitelyhave decided to abide by their decision, but [inwardly] argued, 'Who cansay that they will give judgment in the other's favour?' Whereas, if he makesit depend on his [sc. the plaintiff's] action, I might think that he [R.Meir] agrees with the Rabbis [that he cannotretract].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For he must have felt certain that the plaintiff would take up his challenge. ');">⁶</span>

תנא תולה בדעת אחרים ותנא תולה בדעת עצמו

Again, had he [the Tanna]stated the latter case alone, we might have assumed, only there do the Rabbisrule thus; but in the former case, we mightthink<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By inverting the preceding argument. ');">⁷</span>

וצריכא דאי תנא תולה בדעת אחרים בהא קאמר ר' מאיר דמצי הדר ביה משום דלא גמר ומקני דאמר מי יימר דמזכי ליה אבל תולה בדעת עצמו אימא מודי להו לרבנן

that they agree with R. Meir.Hence both are necessary.

ואי אשמעינן בהא בהא קאמרי רבנן אבל בההיא אימא מודו ליה רבנן לר' מאיר צריכא

Resh Lakish said: The dispute [between R. Meir and the Rabbis] is [over acase where the litigant retracts] before the rendering of the legaldecision:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 24. ');">⁸</span>

אמר ריש לקיש מחלוקת לפני גמר דין אבל לאחר גמר דין דברי הכל אין יכול לחזור בו ור' יוחנן אמר לאחר גמר דין מחלוקת

but once the decision hasbeen given, all [even R. Meir] agree that he cannot retract. While R. Johanansaid: They differ [where one retracts] after the decision is rendered.

איבעיא להו לאחר גמר דין מחלוקת אבל לפני גמר דין דברי הכל יכול לחזור בו או דילמא בין בזו ובין בזו מחלוקת

The scholars propounded [the following problem:] [Does this mean that] thedispute is [only where the litigant retracts] after the promulgation of thedecision; but before, all [even the Rabbis] agree that he can retract; ordo they differ in both instances? — Come and hear! For Raba said: If oneaccepted a kinsman or a man [otherwise] ineligible [as judge or witness],he may retract before the promulgation of the decision; but not after. Now,if you understand [R. Johanan to mean] that the dispute refers only to thetime after the decision; but that prior thereto, all agree that he may retract,it is correct: then Raba's statement agrees with R. Johanan's, and is basedon the view of the Rabbis. But should you say, The controversy holds goodin both cases, who is Raba'sauthority?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this case, it would only be R. Meir, in the opinion of Resh Lakish, who rules thus. But Raba could not abandon the majority ruling of the Rabbis and follow R. Meir. Nor can it be answered that Raba had an independent view of the circumstances in which they differ, as above, since his statement is not made regarding the Mishnah. ');">⁹</span>

ת"ש דאמר רבא קיבל עליו קרוב או פסול לפני גמר דין יכול לחזור בו לאחר גמר דין אין יכול לחזור בו

Hence it surely followsthat the dispute arises only after the decision has been given. This provesit.

אי אמרת בשלמא לאחר גמר דין מחלוקת אבל לפני גמר דין ד"ה יכול לחזור בו רבא דאמר כרבי יוחנן ואליבא דרבנן אלא אי אמרת בין בזו בין בזו מחלוקת רבא דאמר כמאן

R. Nahman son of R. Hisda<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or R. Isaac, according to another version. ');">¹⁰</span>

אלא לאו ש"מ לאחר גמר דין מחלוקת ש"מ

sent aquestion to R. Nahman b. Jacob: Will our Master please inform us, Is thedispute before or after the verdict, and with whom does the <i>halachah</i> rest?— He sent back word: The dispute arises after the promulgation of the decision,and the <i>halachah</i> agrees with the Sages. R. Ashi said: This was the questionhe sent: — Do they differ in the case of 'I will pay thee,' or in respectto 'It be remitted to thee', and with whom does the <i>halachah</i> rest? To whichhe replied: The dispute refers to, 'I will pay thee;' and the <i>halachah</i> restswith the Sages. Thus they taught in Sura. But in Pumbeditha they taught asfollows: R. Hanina b. Shelamiah said: A message was sent from the schoolof Rab<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Be Rab. For another possible meaning, v. p. 89. ');">¹¹</span>

שלח ליה רב נחמן בר רב (חסדא) לרב נחמן בר יעקב ילמדנו רבינו לפני גמר דין מחלוקת או לאחר גמר דין מחלוקת והלכה כדברי מי שלח ליה לאחר גמר דין מחלוקת והלכה כדברי חכמים

to Samuel, saying: Will ourMaster please inform us, [If one of the parties pledged himself] byKinyan<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kinyan, lit., 'acquisition', is a formal act whereby one definitely pledges himself. V. Glos. ');">¹²</span>

רב אשי אמר הכי שלח ליה באתן לך מחלוקת או במחול לך מחלוקת והלכה כדברי מי שלח ליה באתן לך מחלוקת והלכה כדברי חכמים

[not to retract], what [ifhe seeks to retract] before the promulgation of the decision? — He returnedword, saying: After <i>Kinyan</i>, nothing [can be done to repudiate the transaction].

בסורא מתני הכי בפומבדיתא מתני הכי א"ר חנינא בר שלמיה שלחו ליה מבי רב לשמואל ילמדנו רבינו לפני גמר דין וקנו מידו מאי שלח להו אין לאחר קניין כלום:

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. AND THESE ARE INELIGIBLE [TO BE WITNESSES OR JUDGES]: A GAMBLERWITH DICE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. [G], Gr. [G] dice-playing, a popular game of antiquity. The term was applied by the Rabbis indiscriminately to any form of gambling. Cf. Shab. 149b. ');">¹³</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> ואלו הן הפסולין המשחק בקובי' והמלוה בריבית ומפריחי יונים וסוחרי שביעית

A USURER, APIGEON-TRAINER,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'pigeon flyers'. The exact meaning of 'pigeon-flyer' is discussed in the Gemara. The disqualification of these is based upon Ex. XXIII, 1: Put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness. In this case, though they cannot be considered actual robbers, since they do not appropriate their gain by violence, the Rabbis nevertheless held such gain a form of robbery. ');">¹⁴</span>

אמר רבי שמעון בתחילה היו קורין אותן אוספי שביעית משרבו האנסין חזרו לקרותן סוחרי שביעית

AND TRADERS [INTHE PRODUCE] OF THE SABBATICALYEAR.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Sages interpret Lev. XXV, 6: The Sabbath of the land shall be for food to you, to mean, 'for food' and not for 'commerce'. Cf. Bek. 12b. The transgressors of this enactment, because they showed so passionate a greed for gain, were not regarded as trustworthy to judge or testify. ');">¹⁵</span>

א"ר יהודה אימתי בזמן שאין להן אומנות אלא הוא אבל יש להן אומנות שלא הוא כשרין:

R. SIMEON SAID: AT FIRST THEYCALLED THEM 'GATHERERS OF [THE PRODUCE OF] THE SABBATICAL YEAR.' BUT WHENTHE OPPRESSORS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Government officials who spared no means of extorting heavy taxation from the people. As a result, even the Sabbatical year produce had to be given in payment. ');">¹⁶</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> משחק בקוביא מאי קא עביד אמר רמי בר חמא משום דהוה אסמכתא ואסמכתא לא קניא

GREW IN NUMBER, THEYCHANGED THEIR NAME TO TRADERS IN THE SABBATICAL PRODUCE.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The meaning of this is discussed in the Gemara. ');">¹⁷</span>

רב ששת אמר כל כי האי גוונא לאו אסמכתא היא אלא לפי שאין עסוקין ביישובו של עולם

R. JUDAH SAID:WHEN IS THIS SO? — IF THEY HAVE NO OTHER OCCUPATION BUT THIS. BUT IF THEYHAVE OTHER MEANS OF LIVELIHOOD, THEY ARE ELIGIBLE.

מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו דגמר אומנותא אחריתי

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. What [wrong] does the dice player do? — Rammi b. Hama said: [Heis disqualified] because it [sc. gambling] is anAsmakta,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] 'speculation', from [H], 'to rely,' 'to support', is a term in civil law denoting a contract wherein each party promises to pay, on fulfilment of a certain condition which he expects will not be fulfilled. It is not binding according to some teachers, because the obligation has not been assumed with serious intent, since each hopes that his promise will be nullified by the non-realization of the condition. Gambling, as in this case, is an excellent example, for in it, A promises B to forfeit a certain object or amount on the realization of a condition which he hopes and expects will not occur. ');">¹⁸</span>

(ותנן) א"ר יהודה אימתי בזמן שאין להן אומנות אלא הוא אבל יש להן אומנות שלא הוא (הרי זה) כשרים אלמא טעמא דמתניתין משום יישובו של עולם הוא קשיא לרמי בר חמא

and <i>Asmakta</i> is not legallybinding.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., does not create an actual obligation. Hence, the receiver is regarded as having taken illegal possession, and so is akin to a robber. ');">¹⁹</span>

וכי תימא פליגי רבנן עליה דר' יהודה והא"ר יהושע בן לוי כל מקום שא"ר יהודה

R. Shesheth said: Such cases do not come under the category ofAsmakta;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His definition of Asmakta is illustrated in B.B. 168a: If, for instance, A paid a fraction of his debt on a note to B, and told him to deposit the note with C, adding that if he did not pay the note by a certain date, C should return the note to B who would then collect the amount in full; and if on the due date A did not pay, R. Judah says that B may collect only the amount which was not paid, and not its full value, because A's promise is not valid, seeing that at the time he made it, he assumed that failure to pay would not occur. But in the case under consideration, where it is a game of chance, the odds in either case are equal, and A's intent to pay must be taken seriously. Consequently, the gain cannot be considered as a form of robbery. ');">²⁰</span> but the reason is thatthey [sc. dice players] are not concerned with the generalwelfare.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., they do not contribute to the stability of civilised society. ');">²¹</span> Wherein do they differ?— If he [the gambler] acquired anothertrade.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When, according to R. Shesheth, he should not be disqualified. ');">²²</span> Welearnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [So Ms.M. introducing a refutation of Rami b. Hama. Cur. edd. read, 'and we learnt'.] ');">²³</span> R. JUDAH SAID: WHEN IS THISSO? — IF THEY HAVE NO OTHER OCCUPATION BUT THIS. BUT IF THEY HAVE OTHERMEANS OF LIVELIHOOD, THEY ARE ELIGIBLE. This proves that the ruling of theMishnah is for the sake of the welfare, of humanity, which refutes Rami b.Hama.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he holds that the reason for their disqualification is Asmakta, irrespective of whether they have another trade or not. ');">²⁴</span> And should you answer, TheRabbis dispute R. Judah'sopinion:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case his argument agrees with that of the Rabbis, representing the anonymous opinion cited first in the Mishnah. ');">²⁵</span> did not R. Joshua b. Levisay, Wherever R. Judah observes,