We delve into the tractate, specifically a Baraita, which discusses various individuals disqualified from serving as witnesses. The Gemara then explores the necessary steps for these individuals to rehabilitate themselves, perform repentance, and regain their eligibility to testify. They must, for instance, break their dice and return ill-gotten gains, performing all necessary rectifications to become fit once more.
Among those discussed were "gazlanim" (robbers) and "hamsanim" (those who take by force). The Gemara clarifies that a "gazlan" is not merely a common thief. Rather, it refers to a specific case where someone steals an item found by a deaf person or a minor. While this might seem like an uncommon scenario, the bottom line remains that taking someone else's money, regardless of the specific circumstances, disqualifies one from being a witness. Regarding "hamsanim," these are individuals who seize an item but pay for it, albeit by force. Initially, one might think that since payment was made, the transaction was accepted, and thus no disqualification would apply. However, we learn that sometimes these individuals would simply throw money on a table, and the owner was not truly willing to accept it, making the act akin to theft. Therefore, the Sages included them in the list of disqualified individuals.
Our discussion today begins with "ro'im" (shepherds) and "mokhesim" (tax collectors). Initially, it was thought that shepherds might occasionally graze their animals in others' fields, but this was not a common occurrence. However, it became apparent that shepherds intentionally allowed their animals to graze in other people's fields and even sold animals belonging to others. Consequently, the Sages enacted a decree, disqualifying them from testimony. Similarly, tax collectors were initially assumed to collect only the prescribed taxes. Yet, it was observed that they would often collect extra and keep it for themselves. This act was considered theft, leading the Sages to disqualify them as well.
The disqualification of a shepherd applies regardless of whether they tend small animals, like sheep, or large animals, like cows. All are equally disqualified. A specific distinction is made concerning shepherds of sheep in the Land of Israel. The Gemara states that if sheep are raised and domesticated within one's home in the Land of Israel, they are considered acceptable, as there is no concern they will be taken to graze in others' fields. However, if they are raised outdoors in fields, there is a legitimate concern they will wander into someone else's property. The strictness applied to the Land of Israel stems from the desire to prevent theft from different fields. Even if sheep are raised in a house in the Land of Israel, Rashi explains that they might escape and run away, though this is less likely for large animals that can be better protected. However, for a regular shepherd tending animals outdoors, even in the Land of Israel, the concern of animals entering others' fields remains. Therefore, raising animals outside the house, even in the Land of Israel, leads to disqualification, while raising them within the house, where escape is less likely, does not result in disqualification from testimony.
The Gemara then recalls a teaching about trusting three shepherds of cattle, stating, "We trust three shepherds of cattle." This refers to a situation where litigants accept these shepherds as judges, even though shepherds are generally disqualified. The Gemara initially wondered if this acceptance applied to their capacity as witnesses. If so, it would imply that without such acceptance, they would be disqualified from giving testimony. However, the Gemara concludes that the acceptance pertains to their role as judges, not witnesses. This interpretation is more logical, as three individuals are typically required for a rabbinical court. Furthermore, the Mishnah specifically mentions "shepherds of cattle," implying a particular class of individuals. The Mishnah explains that these shepherds are considered worse than ordinary people because they live in fields, isolated from society, and thus lack knowledge of worldly affairs. Nevertheless, if litigants accept them as judges, even these isolated shepherds are deemed acceptable.
The Gemara then states that a regular, unspecified shepherd is disqualified from testimony, but an unspecified tax collector is generally considered acceptable. This leads to the story of Rabbi Zera's father, who served as a tax collector for thirteen years. When the head of the river, the tax assessor, would arrive to conduct a census and levy taxes, Rabbi Zera's father would warn the Sages to hide. He would quote the verse, "Go, my people, enter your rooms," intending to save them from taxes, as fewer people meant a lower assessment. However, to ordinary people, he would use a different tactic, scaring them with vivid descriptions of the assessor's ruthlessness, implying they should hide without explicitly telling them to cheat the system. His intention was to reduce the overall tax burden on the town by making it appear less populated. Ultimately, his efforts led to the town being exempted from high taxes.
Before his death, Rabbi Zera's father revealed that he had thirteen coins wrapped in his cloth, instructing his family to return them to a specific individual. He had collected this money from someone when the tax collector demanded more, but the tax collector later waived the additional payment. Rabbi Zera's father, being scrupulously honest, wanted to return the money, even though he could have easily kept it without anyone knowing. This story highlights his integrity.
The Mishnah also discusses individuals who sell produce during the Shemitah year, stating that they are forbidden and disqualified from testimony. Even though selling Shemitah produce is a rabbinic prohibition today, their willingness to transgress for money leads to their disqualification. The Gemara explains that originally, these individuals were called "Osefei Shevi'it" (gatherers of Shemitah produce), not sellers. One is permitted to gather Shemitah produce from the field for personal consumption as long as there is still food in the field. Therefore, those who merely collected Shemitah produce were initially considered acceptable as witnesses.
However, these gatherers began hiring poor people to collect produce for them, paying them for their labor. This transformed the act of gathering into a business transaction, essentially making money from Shemitah produce. Consequently, the Sages decreed that "Osefei Shevi'it" were also disqualified, as they were now engaging in a forbidden commercial activity. The Gemara then clarifies the final interpretation of the Mishnah: it refers to those who sell Shemitah produce ("Socharei Shevi'it") and those who gather more than they need for personal consumption, even if they don't immediately sell it. This excessive gathering was seen as a precursor to selling, thus leading to disqualification.
A further development arose with the "Anona," a land tax levied on produce. To enable people to pay this tax, the Sages permitted working the fields during Shemitah, as the prohibition was rabbinic and the tax was a significant burden. This introduced a new category of "collectors" who gathered produce from the field specifically to pay taxes. These individuals were permitted, leading to a redefinition of terms. "Osefei Shevi'it" now referred to those gathering for tax payment, who were permitted, while "Socharei Shevi'it" (merchants selling Shemitah produce) remained disqualified.
The Gemara then recounts a story involving Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai and Rabbi Elazar, who were traveling to Asia to declare a leap year. Ishakish, a student, joined them. Along the way, Ishakish saw a man plowing his field during Shemitah and exclaimed, "A Kohen is plowing his field during Shemitah!" The rabbis, giving the man the benefit of the doubt, suggested he might be working for a non-Jew. Later, they encountered another Kohen pruning his vines during Shemitah. Ishakish again expressed suspicion, but the rabbis suggested he might be pruning for the wood, which is permitted, rather than for the grapes. Ishakish responded, "The heart knows if they are doing it for the vines or to be crooked," implying a hidden intention to transgress.
The Gemara discusses the order of these two incidents. If the plowing incident happened first, the rabbis' defense that he might be working for a non-Jew could also apply to the pruning incident. Therefore, the pruning incident must have occurred first, allowing the rabbis to offer the "pruning for wood" defense. When the plowing incident followed, the "working for a non-Jew" defense was then offered.
Ishakish's suspicion of Kohanim working during Shemitah is then explained. A Baraita teaches about a "se'ah" (measure) of Terumah that fell into 100 "se'ah" of Shemitah produce. If it fell into 100 parts, the Terumah is nullified, and the mixture can be eaten by anyone. However, if it fell into less than 100 parts (e.g., 99), the mixture retains the sanctity of Terumah. In such a case, the Baraita states that the entire mixture must be left to rot. The Gemara questions this, suggesting it could be sold to a Kohen at a discount, as Terumah is typically cheaper due to its restricted market. However, the Baraita insists on letting it rot. This is because Kohanim were suspected of being lax regarding Shemitah laws, specifically that they would keep Shemitah produce in their homes even after the time of bi'ur (disposal) had passed. Therefore, selling the mixture to a Kohen was not an option, as it would enable them to transgress. The Kohanim would rationalize their actions, believing that since they could eat Terumah and sacrificial offerings, Shemitah produce, which has a lesser sanctity, was also permissible for them. This Baraita thus demonstrates the suspicion surrounding Kohanim and Shemitah laws, which informed Ishakish's comments.
The rabbis eventually grew tired of Ishakish's constant suspicions and complaints. When they reached the location to declare the leap year, they went up to the roof and removed the ladder, preventing Ishakish from joining them. Ishakish, upset, went to Rabbi Yochanan and questioned how these rabbis, who were so lenient with those transgressing Shemitah, could be qualified to declare a leap year. He suggested that perhaps their role was merely to provide information, similar to the shepherds who observed the coldness of Adar, and the qualified rabbis would then make the actual calculation. Rabbi Yochanan, however, rejected this analogy, stating that in the previous case, the shepherds merely observed, while qualified rabbis made the decision. Here, the rabbis themselves were making the decision, and if they were disqualified, their decision would not count. Rabbi Yochanan then expressed regret for Ishakish's disrespectful words, calling the rabbis "shepherds." When the rabbis complained to Rabbi Yochanan about Ishakish's insult, Rabbi Yochanan defended Ishakish by saying he did not explicitly call them "shepherds of sheep" (which are disqualified), but merely "shepherds," a term that could also refer to those who are acceptable.
The Gemara then clarifies Ishakish's derogatory term, "kishrei resha'im" (a conspiracy of wicked people). This term is explained through a story about King Hezekiah and his treasurer, Shevna. Shevna, a great scholar, secretly plotted with Sancheiriv, the Assyrian king, to surrender Jerusalem. He sent a letter to Sancheiriv, claiming that the majority of the people were willing to make peace, but Hezekiah wanted to fight. Hezekiah feared that God would follow the majority. However, the prophet Isaiah came to Hezekiah and declared that Shevna and his followers were a "kishrei resha'im," a group of wicked people whose numbers do not count towards a quorum. Therefore, Hezekiah remained the majority, and God would side with him. This story illustrates that a "kishrei resha'im" is a group whose opinions are disregarded.
The Gemara continues with stories about Shevna. He arrogantly prepared a burial plot for himself in the royal cemetery of the House of David, believing he would succeed Hezekiah. However, the prophet foretold that he would be exiled "like a man," a more humiliating exile than that of a woman. Shevna was afflicted with leprosy, and he was eventually exiled to a wide land, where he died a shameful death. He was dragged by horses, dying a miserable death. This fate befell him because, despite his scholarship, he pursued physical pleasures, specifically homosexuality, as alluded to by the term "asukhen" (a female attendant who warms a man), which was used to describe him.
The Gemara then interprets a verse from Psalms: "For God destroys the 'shatot'." This verse has three interpretations. One interpretation refers to Hezekiah and his army. If they had been destroyed, people would have questioned God's justice in punishing a righteous king. "Shatot" here refers to the righteous, who are the "pillars" or "foundations" of the world, as seen in the verse, "God protects the foundations of the world." Another interpretation refers to the thoughts of Shevna. If God had not foiled Shevna's plans, people would have questioned the value of being righteous. "Shatot" here refers to thoughts or ideas. The third interpretation refers to the Holy Temple, which is also called "Shatot" because of the "Even Shtiyah" (Foundation Stone) on the Temple Mount. If the Temple had been destroyed, people would have questioned God's actions.
The Torah is called "Tushiyah," which has three interpretations. First, it "weakens" a person, meaning that when one accepts the study of Torah, their physical desires weaken, and they become more spiritual. Second, "Tushiyah" means "secretive," because the Torah was given to the Jewish people in secret, hidden from Satan. Third, "Tushiyah" is an acronym for "Tohu Shiyah," meaning "words upon which the world stands." This emphasizes that the seemingly mere words of Torah are the foundation of the entire world.
The Gemara then discusses the impact of thoughts on Torah study. Rabbi Ulla states that a person's thoughts about their livelihood can cause them to forget their learning. God "frustrates the schemes of the cunning" and ensures that the righteous receive sustenance, preventing them from being preoccupied with making a living, which would cause them to forget their Torah. Rashi offers a profound interpretation: even a thought can disrupt one's learning. A person who plans to finish a certain number of tractates by a specific date, merely by thinking it, might cause the plan to falter. The thought itself can break the realization of the idea. Therefore, one should simply act without overthinking or calculating too much.
However, the Gemara also offers a contrasting view: "Many are the thoughts in a person's heart, but the counsel of God will stand." This means that if one's thoughts are focused on God's counsel and one learns for the sake of Heaven, their learning will endure, and they will not forget it, even amidst thoughts of livelihood.
Finally, we return to the discussion of gamblers from the Mishnah. Rabbi Yehudah states that gamblers are disqualified as witnesses only if they have no other occupation. If they have another job, they are acceptable. This is because Rabbi Yehudah believes that when people gamble, they wholeheartedly consent to the possibility of losing their money, so there is no element of theft. Their disqualification stems from their lack of engagement in the productive world. Rabbi Abba rules that the Halakha follows Rabbi Yehudah.