OCCASIONAL GAMBLING AND STATE LOTTERIES

QUESTION:

What is the Halachic attitude to the man who gambles only occasionally? Also, what would be the Halachic attitude to the legalized off-track betting and lotteries instituted by the various states of the Union? (Question by Rabbi Jack Segal, Houston, Texas.)

ANSWER:

THE GENERAL TALMUDIC TERM for gambling is “those who play with cubes,” i.e., dice; and the statement is made that such gamblers are not eligible to be witnesses in the Jewish court (thus the Mishnah in Sanhedrin 3:3 and in Shevuos 7:4). Of course there are other forms of gambling besides dicing; and all these other forms are meant to be included in the denunciation of gambling. It is interesting that Isaac Lampronti, the rabbi of Ferrara, Italy, in the eighteenth century, author of the great encyclopedia Pachad Yitzchok, discusses this question: Why do the Mishnah and the Talmud specify dicing, when they actually mean to include all other sorts of gambling? Remembering that Isaac Lampronti was also a scientific-minded physician, it is not surprising that he consulted “authorities” on this ques tion. He says that the reason dicing is mentioned specifically is that in this particular form of gambling, it is easiest to cheat and rob one’s fellow gambler by concealing another die between the fingers.

The Talmud, in discussing the law of the ineligibility of dice throwers (Sanhedrin 24b), says that the reason is that they do not participate in the maintenance of society (yishuvo shel olom). In other words, their life and their occupation have no constructive value to society, In fact, they are considered robbers; that is to say, their winnings are not earned by constructive work. Then Rabbi Judah is quoted, that this ineligibility applies only when they have no other occupation but gambling; but if they do have another occupation, i.e., if their gambling is only occasional and is not their main effort at livelihood, then they are quite eligible to be witnesses in the court.

The discussion then continues on to the next page, a boraita is quoted to the contrary effect, namely, that a gambler is ineligible to be a witness even if he is only an occasional gambler. But the law is not according to this boraita; it is according to Rabbi Judah. This is evident from the fact that the bulk of the later authorities do not declare the occasional gambler ineligible (see the Mordecai to this Talmudic passage, #690). So finally it is recorded in the Shulchan Aruch (see the laws of witnesses 34:16, in the middle of the paragraph). Thus it is clear that occasional gambling is not considered enough of a sin to make a man ineligible as a witness in the courts, as would be the case with an inveterate gambler.

Now as to the second question: What would be the attitude of the Jewish law to the legalized lotteries and off-track gambling instituted by various states of the Union? This question is hard to answer because, in general, Jewish law refrained from expressing itself as to the policies of Gentile governments, except, of course, if the policies were directed against Judaism and Jewry. This was the case of the oppressive Roman Empire, which was always referred to as “the wicked government.” Of course Judaism took an attitude to specific government laws, but only insofar as they affected Judaism and Jewry. Thus there is full discussion in Jewish law of dina d’malchuso, government laws, as to when it is incumbent upon Jews to obey them and when not. If the government law did not interfere with our religion, if it was a law dealing purely with civil matters, taxes, etc., if the law was issued by a legitimate government, if the law applied with equal justice to all citizens and subjects, then that law of the government must, according to Jewish law, be obeyed. Other than with such government laws, Jewish law does not concern itself with the decisions of non-Jewish governments.

In the case of the new laws establishing state lotteries, these are not laws which compel action on the part of any citizen. No one is compelled to buy a lottery ticket or to bet on the races because of the government auspices. Therefore the Halacha need take no stand on these lotteries, etc., since the average Jew can completely ignore them and violates no law by so ignoring them.

Of course it may be argued that the government, by legalizing gambling, while not compelling anyone to participate, nevertheless tempts people to participate and thereby encourages gambling. Thus the government might be deemed, according to the spirit of Jewish law, to be committing the sin of “placing a stumbling block,” etc. But this would be true only if even occasional gambling were deemed to be a sin; but occasional gambling is not a sin, as has been mentioned above. Hence it would be safe to say that the Halacha takes no attitude to the lotteries established by governments. If a man ignores them, he has violated no government law. If he does play them occasionally, he has committed no sin.