EXOD770 Strong talmudic opposition to gambling was responsible for a rabbinical law which put the integrity and trustworthiness of gamblers into question. As a result, gamblers were barred from appearing as witnesses in most judicial proceedings. … Specifically, gamblers were not accepted as witnesses in civil cases involving financial claims (Rosh HaShanah 22a). The impaired credibility of gamblers constituted a public stigma strong enough to discourage all but the addicts from gambling. Rabbi Judah (2nd cent.) eased somewhat the stringency of the law of the ineligibility of gamblers. According to him, the law applies only to gamblers "who have no other means of livelihood [i.e., professional gamblers]. If they have another gainful occupation, they are eligible" (Sanhedrin 24b). The divergence of rabbinic views stemmed from two distinct perspectives of the evil of gambling, the legal and moral aspects. Rabbi bar Chana (4th cent.) based the rule of disqualification of gamblers on the principle that money gained by gambling is tainted with the smell of robbery. The biblical definition of robbery is limited to the forceful appropriation of money without the consent of the owner. Acceptance of gambling gains does not constitute robbery in the biblical sense of the word. After the spread of gambling the rabbis broadened the definition of robbery to include money won by gambling. They justified the broader definition by the fact that gamblers do not truly and willingly consent to the giving up of their money. Gamblers enter a game with hopes of winning. A gambler's agreement to forfeit his money if he loses is qualified by mental reservations. One lives up to the terms of the agreement under conditions which amount to quasi-compulsion. It is therefore proper to regard money won by gambling as tainted with the smell of robbery. Individuals guilty of violent robbery (the biblical definition) are wholly disqualified from ever giving testimony in court [this verse]. Individuals accepting gambling profits (rabbinical definition of robbery) are only partially deprived of their eligibility. Rav Sheshet (4th cent.) disputes the legal premise of the opinion which holds a gambler culpable of rabbinically prohibited robbery. In his view, gambling agreements are entered into voluntarily and hence are legal, though not necessarily enforced by the courts. However, gambling is morally wrong because it is against public policy. It is God's will that people engage in constructive work which contributes to the welfare of society. The professional gambler is a parasite who does not serve the interests of the community. A social gambler, on the other hand, if he has a gainful occupation, is surely not guilty of a parasitic mode of life and hence does not incur the penalty which bars him from testifying in a court of law. [Note: Additional discussion of gambling in the source both precedes and follows this excerpt - AJL).