Sanhedrin 24: Who is Disqualified from Judging and Why?

As the Gemara continues to examine the disqualification of judges, it is noted that in some past cases both judges and witnesses were disqualified.  What should be done if the only witnesses were disqualified?  The rabbis wonder if having a migo, a claim that is trusted because the defendant could have made a more believable claim, would give more credence to one's claim that witnesses must be disqualified. 

The rabbis then speak about how they speak highly of each other.  This begins with descriptions of Reish Lakish and Rabbi Meir.  They were both able to move mountains, albeit in different ways, with their sharp arguments.  As this conversation progresses (and it includes questions about the halacha on insulating items to retain their cold temperature on Shabbat), the rabbis note that there are numerous arguments between rabbis about which are less able.  Entire groups of Sages, like those in  Bavel, are described as speaking of each rabbi's weaknesses.  It is said that "poverty is a sign of haughtiness, and poverty is in Bavel," which then spread to Eilam.  This is countered with a different interpretation:  "poverty of Torah is a sign of haughtiness", and that particular poverty is in Eilam.  We also learn that "Bavel" originates in the word balul, blended, with the written Torah, Mishna and Talmud.

A new Mishna teaches that when a person says that they accept their father or another's father as a judge, or if he says that he accepts three cattle herders as judges, he may retract his acceptance.  The Sages disagree.  Similarly, Rabbi Meir accepts the retraction of an oath with a friend: swear to me on your life, and the Sages do not.  The Gemara argues a number of possible mitigating factors, like payment, which might influence whether or not an acceptance of a judge might be retracted.  In the end, all agree that one can retract one's acceptance of invalid judges after the fact.

The Gemara discusses when a retraction is permitted.  Before the final verdict?  After the final verdict?  This is discussed with examples to assist with clarity.  What if there is a kinyan, an agreement to transfer ownership, already?  The final word goes to Rav Nachman ben Yakov, who declares that there is no retraction after the final verdict and that there is no retraction if there is a kinyan.

A second new Mishna teaches that there are a number of people who are disqualified from both judging and testifying:

• those who gamble
• those who lend with interest
• those who fly pigeons
• those who sell shemita produce

Rabbi Shimon teaches that they were called gatherers of shemita, but when theft increase they were just called merchants of shemita.  Rabbi Yehuda adds that we know that they are not fit for testimony and judgement when they have no other profession.  If they do have another job, then they are fit to testify and judge.  

The Gemara wonders why gambling is so bad that it would cause someone to not be trusted as a judge.  The first argument is that there is no valid kinyan - the gambler spends money because he believes that he will win and he does not truly agree to his money being taken away.  Thus when the money is taken, it is actually stolen from him.  The second argument is that he is not contributing to society by working.