Sanhedrin 49
גברא אגברא קא רמית מר סבר פליגי ומר סבר לא פליגי
he merely aims at explaining thewords of the Sages? [Whilst] R. Johanan said: 'When etc.' is explanatory,but 'In what case' indicates disagreement. Thus all agree that 'When etc.indicates explanation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that R. Judah does not differ from the Rabbis. Hence they too hold that the reason for disqualification is not 'Asmakta', but for 'the sake of the welfare of humanity'. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ההיא רבי יהודה משום רבי טרפון היא דתניא רבי יהודה אומר משום רבי טרפון לעולם אין אחד מהן נזיר לפי שלא נתנה נזירות אלא להפלאה:
toanother?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Joshua b. Levi and Rami b. Hama, who have equal authority. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
מלוה ברבית: אמר רבא לוה ברבית פסול לעדות והאנן תנן מלוה ברבית מלוה הבאה ברבית
One Master [Rami b. Hama]holds that they [the Rabbis and R. Judah] differ; the other [R. Joshua b.Levi] holds that they do not.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And that R. Judah's statement is merely explanatory. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
והא רבא הוא דאמר לוה ברבית פסול לעדות והוה ליה רשע והתורה אמרה אל תשת רשע עד
Whether he has another occupationor not, he is disqualified?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And presumably this is the view of the Rabbis, thus proving that they do differ from R. Judah. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
רבא לטעמיה דאמר רבא אדם קרוב אצל עצמו ואין אדם משים עצמו רשע
— Thatis the view of R. Judah, stated on the authority of R. Tarfon. For it hasbeen taught: R. Judah said on the authority of R. Tarfon: In truth, neitherof them is a <i>nazir</i>, because a vow ofneziruth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For nazir and neziruth, v. Glos. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
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>
א"ל רבא דילמא איערומי קא מערים
A LENDER ON INTEREST … Raba said: A borrower on interest is unfit toact as witness. But have we not learnt: A LENDER [malweh] ON INTEREST [isdisqualified]? — [It means] a loan [milweh]<a rel="footnote" href="#56a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
ומפריחי יונים: מאי מפריחי יונים הכא תרגומה אי תקדמיה יונך ליון רבי חמא בר אושעיא אמר ארא
Two witnesses testified against Bar Binithus. One said, 'He lent money oninterest in my presence.' The other said, 'He lent me money on interest.'[In consequence,] Raba disqualified Bar Binithus [from acting as witnessetc.]. But did not Raba himself rule: A borrower on interest is unfit toact as witness? Consequently he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The witness who testified that he had borrowed money from Bar Binithus on interest. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
מאן דאמר אי תקדמיה יונך ליון מ"ט לא אמר ארא
is a transgressor, and the Torah said: Do not accept the wicked aswitness?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXIII 1: this is not an exact quotation, but the general implication of the text. How, then, could the evidence of the latter be accepted? ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
ומאן דאמר ארא מאי טעמא לא אמר אי תקדמיה יונך ליון אמר לך היינו משחק בקוביא
here acted in accordance withanother principle of his. For Raba said: Every man is a relative in respectto himself, and no man can incriminatehimself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra 9b. Consequently, his evidence is valid only with regard to the accused but not with regard to himself. ');"><sup>15</sup></span>
תנא תולה בדעת עצמו ותנא תולה בדעת יונו
[as fit for food], so R.Nahman disqualified<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From acting as slaughterer. According to another version he excommunicated him. Cf. Alfasi a.l.; Kesef Mishneh on Maim. Yad, Talmud Torah, VI, 14. ');"><sup>17</sup></span>
וצריכא דאי תנא תולה בדעת עצמו התם הוא דלא גמר ומקני דאמר
and dismissedhim. Thereupon he went and let his hair and nailsgrow.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a sign of penitence. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> Then R. Nahman thought ofreinstating him, but Raba said to him: Perhaps he is only pretending[repentance]. What then is his remedy? — The course suggested by R. Iddib. Abin, who said: He who is suspected of passing terefoth cannot berehabilitated unless he leaves for a place where he is unknown and findsan opportunity of returning a lost article of considerable value, or ofcondemning as <i>terefah</i> meat of considerable value, belonging tohimself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So exhibiting his staunch observance of the law, even in the face of loss. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> AND PIGEON TRAINERS: What are PIGEON TRAINERS? —Here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Babylon. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> it has been interpreted, [ofone who says to another], 'If your pigeon passes mine [you win].'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A pigeon-racer. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> R. Hamab. Oshaia said: It means anAra.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or Ada, a fowler, one who puts up decoy-birds to attract other birds from another's dove-cote. [Ara is connected by Ginzberg, L., with the Assyrian aru, denoting by 'gin', 'snare'; v. Krauss, S., Sanhedrin-Makkot, p. 124.] ');"><sup>22</sup></span> On what ground does he whointerprets [the phrase to mean] 'pigeon-racer' disagree with him who interpretsit as Ara? — His answer is that the conduct of an Ara [is regarded as robbery]merely from the standpoint ofneighbourliness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'ways of peace', but not its law, since birds may, and often do change their homes of their own will. According to strict law, these birds are considered as semi-wild, and therefore ownerless. Yet it is robbery on account of 'the ways of peace'. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> And he who interpretsit as 'Ara', why does he not accept this view [sc. 'if thy pigeon etc.]?— His answer is, in that case it is identical with a dice player. And theformer?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How does he answer this objection? ');"><sup>24</sup></span> — He [the Tanna of theMishnah] deals with a case where he relies on his own capabilities. [i.e.,dice-playing] and a case where he relies on the capabilities of his pigeon.And both are necessary. For had he dealt only with the case where a man reliesupon himself, [I might have supposed that] only there was his promise withoutserious intent, since he thinks,