Sanhedrin

But if so, has this not already been taught in the first clause [of the Mishnah]?  — It [the Mishnah] teaches the case where he [sc. the defendant] makes the irregular procedure depend on the judgment of others,  and also where he makes it depend on his [sc. the plaintiff's] action. And both are necessary. For had it taught only the case where he [the defendant] makes it depend on the judgment of others, [we might have assumed that] in this case alone does R. Meir hold that he can retract since he might not definitely have decided to abide by their decision, but [inwardly] argued, 'Who can say that they will give judgment in the other's favour?' Whereas, if he makes it depend on his [sc. the plaintiff's] action, I might think that he [R. Meir] agrees with the Rabbis [that he cannot retract].  Again, had he [the Tanna] stated the latter case alone, we might have assumed, only there do the Rabbis rule thus; but in the former case, we might think  that they agree with R. Meir. Hence both are necessary. Resh Lakish said: The dispute [between R. Meir and the Rabbis] is [over a case where the litigant retracts] before the rendering of the legal decision:  but once the decision has been given, all [even R. Meir] agree that he cannot retract. While R. Johanan said: They differ [where one retracts] after the decision is rendered. The scholars propounded [the following problem:] [Does this mean that] the dispute is [only where the litigant retracts] after the promulgation of the decision; but before, all [even the Rabbis] agree that he can retract; or do they differ in both instances? — Come and hear! For Raba said: If one accepted 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 the time 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 based on the view of the Rabbis. But should you say, The controversy holds good in both cases, who is Raba's authority?  Hence it surely follows that the dispute arises only after the decision has been given. This proves it. R. Nahman son of R. Hisda  sent a question to R. Nahman b. Jacob: Will our Master please inform us, Is the dispute before or after the verdict, and with whom does the halachah rest? — He sent back word: The dispute arises after the promulgation of the decision, and the halachah agrees with the Sages. R. Ashi said: This was the question he sent: — Do they differ in the case of 'I will pay thee,' or in respect to 'It be remitted to thee', and with whom does the halachah rest? To which he replied: The dispute refers to, 'I will pay thee;' and the halachah rests with the Sages. Thus they taught in Sura. But in Pumbeditha they taught as follows: R. Hanina b. Shelamiah said: A message was sent from the school of Rab  to Samuel, saying: Will our Master please inform us, [If one of the parties pledged himself] by Kinyan  [not to retract], what [if he seeks to retract] before the promulgation of the decision? — He returned word, saying: After Kinyan, nothing [can be done to repudiate the transaction]. MISHNAH. AND THESE ARE INELIGIBLE [TO BE WITNESSES OR JUDGES]: A GAMBLER WITH DICE,  A USURER, A PIGEON-TRAINER,  AND TRADERS [IN THE PRODUCE] OF THE SABBATICAL YEAR.  R. SIMEON SAID: AT FIRST THEY CALLED THEM 'GATHERERS OF [THE PRODUCE OF] THE SABBATICAL YEAR.' BUT WHEN THE OPPRESSORS  GREW IN NUMBER, THEY CHANGED THEIR NAME TO TRADERS IN THE SABBATICAL PRODUCE.'  R. JUDAH SAID: WHEN IS THIS SO? — IF THEY HAVE NO OTHER OCCUPATION BUT THIS. BUT IF THEY HAVE OTHER MEANS OF LIVELIHOOD, THEY ARE ELIGIBLE. GEMARA. What [wrong] does the dice player do? — Rammi b. Hama said: [He is disqualified] because it [sc. gambling] is an Asmakta,  and Asmakta is not legally binding. R. Shesheth said: Such cases do not come under the category of Asmakta;  but the reason is that they [sc. dice players] are not concerned with the general welfare.  Wherein do they differ? — If he [the gambler] acquired another trade.  We learnt:  R. JUDAH SAID: WHEN IS THIS SO? — IF THEY HAVE NO OTHER OCCUPATION BUT THIS. BUT IF THEY HAVE OTHER MEANS OF LIVELIHOOD, THEY ARE ELIGIBLE. This proves that the ruling of the Mishnah is for the sake of the welfare, of humanity, which refutes Rami b. Hama.  And should you answer, The Rabbis dispute R. Judah's opinion:  did not R. Joshua b. Levi say, Wherever R. Judah observes,