Sanhedrin

R. Eliezer said: Shebna was a Sybarite. Here it is written, Get thee unto ha-soken [the steward];  and elsewhere it is written, And she [the Shunamite] became a sokeneth [companion] unto him. When the foundations [ha-shathoth] are destroyed, what hath the righteous wrought?  Rab Judah and R. 'Ena [both explained the verse]. One interpreted it thus: If Hezekiah and his followers had been destroyed [by the plot of Shebna], what would the Righteous [sc. God] have achieved?  The other: If the Temple had been destroyed, what would the Righteous have achieved?  'Ulla interpreted it: Had the designs of that wicked man [Shebna] not been frustrated, how would the righteous [Hezekiah] have been rewarded? Now, according to the [last] explanation, viz., Had the designs of the wicked man [etc.], it is well: hence it is written, When ha-shathoth are destroyed.  The explanation which refers it to the Temple is likewise [acceptable]. For we learnt:  A stone lay there [beneath the Ark] ever since the time of the Early Prophets and it was called 'shethiyah'.  But as for its interpretation as referring to Hezekiah and his party: where do we find the righteous designated as 'foundations'? — In the verse, For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's and He hath set [wa-yasheth] the world upon them.  Alternatively [it may be deduced] from the following, Wonderful is His counsel and great his Tushiyah [wisdom]. R. Hanin said: Why is the Torah called Tushiyah? — Because it weakens the strength of man [through constant study].  Another interpretation: Tushiyah because it was given to Moses in secret, on account of Satan.  Or again, because it is composed of words, which are immaterial, upon which the world is [nevertheless] founded. 'Ulla said: Anxiety  [adversely] affects [one's] learning,  for it is written, He abolisheth the thoughts of the skilled [i.e., scholars], lest their hands perform nothing substantial.  Rabbah said: [But] if they study it [the Torah] for its own sake, it [anxiety] has no [adverse] effect, as it is written, There are many thoughts in man's heart, but the counsel of the Lord, that shall stand:  counsel in which there is the word of God [i.e., study of the Torah] will stand for ever [under all circumstances]. R. JUDAH SAID: WHEN etc. R. Abbahu said in R. Eleazar's name: The halachah rests with R. Judah. R. Abbahu also said in R. Eleazar's name: All [those] enumerated in the Mishnah as ineligible must be proclaimed at the Beth din [as such]. As for a shepherd, R. Aha and Rabina differ therein: one maintains that proclamation must be made; the other holds that it is unnecessary. Now, on the view that it is not required, it is correct: hence the dictum of Rab Judah in Rab's name, viz., a shepherd in general is incompetent.  But according to the view that a proclamation is necessary, what is meant by 'a shepherd in general is incompetent'?  — That in general  he is proclaimed so. A certain deed of gift was witnessed by two robbers. Now, R. Papa b. Samuel wished to declare it valid, since their [the robbers'] ineligibility as witnesses had not been publicly announced. But Raba said to him: Granted that proclamation is required in the case of persons declared only by the Rabbis as robbers;  must those defined as such by Biblical law also be proclaimed? (Mnemonic: Dabar, wa-Arayoth, Ganab). R. Nahman said: Those who accept charity from Gentiles  are incompetent as witnesses;  provided, however, that they accept it publicly, but not if they accept it in private. And even if publicly [accepted], the law is applicable only if, when it was possible for them to obtain it privately they yet degraded themselves by open acceptance. But where [private receipt] is impossible, it [public acceptance] is vitally necessary. R. Nahman said: One who is suspected of adultery is [nevertheless] eligible as a witness. Said R. Shesheth: Answer me,  Master; forty stripes on his shoulders,  and yet [you say] he is eligible!  Raba observed: Even R. Nahman admits that he is incompetent to testify in matrimonial matters. Rabina — others state R. Papa — said: That is only where his evidence is to free her;  but if it is to bind her,  there is no objection [to him]. But is this not obvious?  — I might think that he would prefer this,  even as it is written, Stolen waters are sweet;  therefore he teaches us that as long as she is in her present [unmarried] state, she is even more within his reach. R. Nahman said further: One who steals [produce from the fields] in Nisan, and [fruit from the orchards] in Tishri  is not regarded as a thief.  But this is only in case of a metayer,  where the quantity is small and the produce is ripe  [and no longer needs tending]. One of R. Zebid's farm-labourers' stole a kab of barley, and another a cluster of unripe dates. So he disqualified them [from acting as witnesses]. Certain grave diggers buried a corpse on the first day festival 'Azereth,  so R. Papa excommunicated them, and disqualified them as witnesses.  R. Huna the son of R. Joshua, however, removed their disqualification; whereupon R. Papa protested: 'But surely, they are wicked men!' — 'They might have thought that they were doing a good deed!' 'But did I not excommunicate them?'  — They might have thought that the Rabbis thereby effected expiation for them. It has been stated: