קִים לִי בְּנַפְשַׁאי דְּיָדַעֲנָא טְפֵי. אֲבָל, תּוֹלֶה בְּדַעַת יוֹנוֹ, אֵימָא לָא.

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.

וְאִי תְּנָא תּוֹלֶה בְּדַעַת יוֹנוֹ – דְּאָמַר: בְּנַקְשָׁא תַּלְיָא מִילְּתָא, וַאֲנָא יָדַעְנָא לְנַקוּשֵׁי טְפֵי. אֲבָל, תּוֹלֶה בְּדַעַת עַצְמוֹ, אֵימָא לָא. צְרִיכָא.

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.

מֵיתִיבִי: ״׳הַמְשַׂחֵק בְּקוּבִּיָּא׳ – אֵלּוּ הֵן הַמְשַׂחֲקִים בְּפִיסְפָּסִים; וְלֹא בְּפִיסְפָּסִים בִּלְבַד אָמְרוּ, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ קְלִיפֵּי אֱגוֹזִים וּקְלִיפֵּי רִימּוֹנִים.

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.

וְאֵימָתַי חֲזָרָתָן? מִשֶּׁיִּשְׁבְּרוּ אֶת פִּיסְפָּסֵיהֶן וְיַחְזְרוּ בָּהֶן חֲזָרָה גְּמוּרָה, דַּאֲפִילּוּ בְּחִנָּם לָא עָבְדִי.

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.

׳מַלְוֶה בְּרִיבִּית׳ – אֶחָד הַמַּלְוֶה וְאֶחָד הַלֹּוֶה. וְאֵימָתַי חֲזָרָתָן? מִשֶּׁיִּקְרְעוּ אֶת שְׁטָרֵיהֶן וְיַחְזְרוּ בָּהֶן חֲזָרָה גְּמוּרָה, אֲפִילּוּ לְגוֹי לָא מוֹזְפִי.

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.

׳וּמַפְרִיחֵי יוֹנִים׳ – אֵלּוּ שֶׁמַּמְרִין אֶת הַיּוֹנִים. וְלֹא יוֹנִים בִּלְבַד אָמְרוּ, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וְעוֹף. וְאֵימָתַי חֲזָרָתָן? מִשֶּׁיְּשַׁבְּרוּ אֶת פִּגְמֵיהֶן, וְיַחְזְרוּ בָּהֶן חֲזָרָה גְּמוּרָה, דַּאֲפִילּוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר נַמִי לָא עָבְדִי.

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.

׳סוֹחֲרֵי שְׁבִיעִית׳ – אֵלּוּ שֶׁנּוֹשְׂאִין וְנוֹתְנִין בְּפֵירוֹת שְׁבִיעִית. וְאֵימָתַי חֲזָרָתָן? מִשֶּׁתַּגִּיעַ שְׁבִיעִית אַחֶרֶת וְיִבָּדְלוּ.

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.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה: לֹא חֲזָרַת דְּבָרִים בִּלְבַד אָמְרוּ, אֶלָּא חֲזָרַת מָמוֹן. כֵּיצַד? אוֹמֵר: ׳אֲנִי, פְּלוֹנִי בַּר פְּלוֹנִי, כִּינַּסְתִּי מָאתַיִם זוּז בְּפֵירוֹת שְׁבִיעִית, וַהֲרֵי הֵן נְתוּנִין בְּמַתָּנָה לַעֲנִיִּים׳״.

The baraita continues: And Rabbi Neḥemya 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.

קָתָנֵי מִיהַת ״בְּהֵמָה״. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״אִי תִּקְדְּמֵיהּ יוֹנָךְ לְיוֹן״ – הַיְינוּ דְּמַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לָהּ בְּהֵמָה. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״אָרָא״, בְּהֵמָה בַּת הָכִי הִיא?

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?

אִין, בְּשׁוֹר הַבָּר. וּכְמַאן דְּאָמַר שׁוֹר הַבָּר מִין בְּהֵמָה הוּא. דִּתְנַן: ״שׁוֹר הַבָּר מִין בְּהֵמָה הוּא. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: מִין חַיָּה״.

The Gemara answers: Yes, the baraita states this with regard to the wild ox, which can be lured away from its owner’s 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.

תָּנָא: ״הוֹסִיפוּ עֲלֵיהֶן: הַגַּזְלָנִין וְהַחַמְסָנִין״.

§ 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.

גַּזְלָן דְּאוֹרַיְיתָא הוּא! לָא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לִמְצִיאַת חֵרֵשׁ, שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן.

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.

מֵעִיקָּרָא סְבוּר: מְצִיאַת חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן לָא שְׁכִיחָא – אִי נַמִי, מִפְּנֵי דַרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם בְּעָלְמָא. כֵּיוָן דַּחֲזוּ דְּסוֹף סוֹף מָמוֹנָא הוּא דְּקָא שָׁקְלִי, פָּסְלִינְהוּ רַבָּנַן.

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.

״הַחַמְסָנִין״ – מֵעִיקָּרָא סְבוּר: דָּמֵי קָא יָהֵיב; אַקְרַאי בְּעָלְמָא הוּא. כֵּיוָן דַּחֲזוּ דְּקָא חָטְפִי, גְּזַרוּ בְּהוּ רַבָּנַן.

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.

תָּנָא: ״עוֹד הוֹסִיפוּ עֲלֵיהֶן: הָרוֹעִים, הַגַּבָּאִין, וְהַמּוֹכְסִין״.

§ 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.

״רוֹעִים״ – מֵעִיקָּרָא סְבוּר: אַקְרַאי בְּעָלְמָא הוּא, כֵּיוָן דַּחֲזוּ דְּקָא מִכַּוְּונִי וּשְׁדוּ לְכַתְּחִילָּה, גְּזַרוּ בְּהוּ רַבָּנַן. ״הַגַּבָּאִין וְהַמּוֹכְסִין״ – מֵעִיקָּרָא סְבוּר: מַאי דְּקִיץ לְהוּ קָא שָׁקְלִי. כֵּיוָן דַּחֲזוּ דְּקָא שָׁקְלִי יְתֵירָא פָּסְלִינְהוּ.

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 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.

אָמַר רָבָא: רוֹעֶה שֶׁאָמְרוּ, אֶחָד רוֹעֶה בְּהֵמָה דַּקָּה וְאֶחָד רוֹעֶה בְּהֵמָה גַּסָּה.

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.

וּמִי אָמַר רָבָא הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רָבָא: רוֹעֶה בְּהֵמָה דַּקָּה בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, פְּסוּלִין; בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, כְּשֵׁרִין. רוֹעֶה בְּהֵמָה גַּסָּה, אֲפִילּוּ בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, כְּשֵׁרִין! הַהוּא בִּמְגַדְּלִים אִיתְּמַר.

The Gemara asks: And does Rava say this? But doesn’t Rava say: Shepherds of small livestock in Eretz Yisrael are disqualified from bearing witness, as besides grazing in others’ 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.

הָכִי נַמִי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, מִדְּקָתָנֵי: ״נֶאֱמָנִין עָלַי שְׁלֹשָׁה רוֹעֵי בָקָר״. מַאי לָאו לְעֵדוּת?!

The Gemara suggests a proof for Rava’s 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’s statement?

לֹא! לְדִינָא. דַּיְקָא נַמִי, דְּקָתָנֵי, ״שְׁלֹשָׁה רוֹעֵי בָקָר״, וְאִי לְעֵדוּת, שְׁלֹשָׁה לָמָּה לִי?!

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.

וְאֶלָּא מַאי – לְדִינָא? מַאי אִירְיָא ״שְׁלֹשָׁה רוֹעֵי בָקָר״? כָּל בֵּי תְלָתָא דְּלָא גָּמְרִי דִּינָא נַמִי!

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.

הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ הָנֵי דְּלָא שְׁכִיחִי בְּיִישּׁוּב.

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.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: סְתָם רוֹעֶה פָּסוּל; סְתָם גַּבַּאי כָּשֵׁר.

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.

אֲבוּהּ דְּרַבִּי זֵירָא עֲבַד גַּבָּיוּתָא תְּלֵיסַר שְׁנִין. כִּי הֲוָה אָתֵי רֵישׁ נַהֲרָא לְמָתָא, כִּי הֲוָה חָזֵי רַבָּנַן, אָמַר לְהוּ: ״לֵךְ עַמִּי בֹּא בַחֲדָרֶיךָ״! כִּי הֲוָה חָזֵי אֱינָשֵׁי דְּמָתָא, אָמַר: ״רֵישׁ נַהֲרָא אֲתָא לְמָתָא, וְהָאִידָּנָא נָכֵיס אַבָּא לְפוּם בְּרָא וּבְרָא לְפוּם אַבָּא״.

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’s father would prepare the residents ahead of time. When he would see the rabbis, he would say to them as a hint: “Come, my people, enter into your chambers, and shut your doors behind you; hide yourself for a little moment until the indignation has passed” (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’s money, before the son, and the son before the father.