Monthly Learning Forum by Rabbi Yaakov Kermaier: February 12, 2008

Gambling is an ancient pastime. In mythology, Zeus, Hades, and Poseidon divided the universe among them, sharing heaven, hell, and the sea, via roll of the dice. There is archaeological evidence of gambling among cavemen, bolstered by cave drawings. Dice were found in the ruins of Pompeii — some of them loaded. There is evidence of wagering on Chinese tile games going back to 2300 BCE.

In the United States, gambling was generally illegal, other than in Nevada, from the turn of the 20^th Century until the mid-1960s. Today, 42 states have lotteries, which rang up $52 billion in sales in 2007. Only Utah and Hawaii currently bar gambling. Some academics refer to the US as an “emerging gambling nation.”
While the Torah is silent on gambling, the sages, from the time of the Mishna till the present day, have discussed it. The classic Talmudic text is the Mishna and Gemara in Sanhedrin 24b (source sheet II(A)). The Mishna includes dice players among the individuals who are barred from being judges or witnesses. Rabbi Yehuda qualified that ruling, saying it applies only if they have no trade other than gambling.
The Gemara asks why gamblers should be disqualified. Rami bar Chama said that gambling is an asmachta, a non-binding agreement, because the losing player does not expect to lose and thus to incur an obligation to pay. As such, the winning player, by collecting, engages in a rabbinic form of theft. The classic case of asmachta is the promise by a sharecropper to pay the exorbitant sum of 1,000 zuz if he does not work the land properly. The obligation does not take force, because he has no internal commitment to pay. Rav Sheishet disagreed with Rami bar Chama, arguing that the problem with gambling is that it does not contribute to the general welfare.
The practical result of the dispute between Rami bar Chama and Rav Sheishet is seen in the case of a gambler who has another trade. For Rami bar Chama, such a gambler is still disqualified, because he is still engaged in theft. For Rav Sheishet, such a gambler may serve as a judge or witness, because he makes a contribution to society in his non-gambling trade.

Rashi explains Rav Sheishet’s position: there is no theft, because the gambler knows he is engaged in a game of chance; he understands that he cannot affect the roll of the dice. Thus, the gambler is unlike the sharecropper in the classic case of asmachta, because the sharecropper feels he can affect the outcome.
In October 2007, Boston University hosted a conference entitled Gambling and the American Moral Landscape, the proceedings of which will be published in 2009. One of the presenters, the economist Rachel Croson, noted that betting has a negative expected value, and yet people still gamble. She argued that this occurs because gamblers fall prey to fallacies, such as “history dependence,” as when lottery players eschew the recent winning numbers. Because gamblers believe they can affect the outcome and beat the odds, they continue to play games that are stacked against them, on the misplaced belief that they can control random outcomes.
The Ri agreed with Rashi’s understanding of Rav Sheishet. Rabbeinu Tam, however, disagreed. He understood Rav Sheishet as invalidating unilateral commitments, such as that of the sharecropper. When two people play dice, however, each is taking a risk in the hope of winning, so they have an enforceable agreement rather than an asmachta. (Compare the legal concept of consideration.)
If, for Rav Sheishet, gambling is not theft, why disqualify even the professional gambler? Rabbi Kermaier cited a paragraph from Paul Samuelson’s classic textbook Economics (source sheet II(B)(4)) to the effect that gambling is not merely neutral but subtracts from national income. In Samuelson’s words:

“(Gambling) involves simply sterile transfers of money or goods between individuals, creating no new money or goods. Although it creates no output, gambling does nevertheless absorb time and resources. When pursued beyond the limits of recreation, where the main purpose after all is to kill time, gambling subtracts from the national income.”
If so, we can understand Rav Sheishet’s concern about not contributing to social welfare.
The Tur (source sheet II(B)(5)) offers a different explanation for Rav Sheishet. The gambler, for whom money is “easy come, easy go,” does not understand how hard people work to make money. Therefore, he does not take testimony seriously, because he does not care about costing people money. If he has a trade, however, then he understands the value of money, and he may testify.
The debate between Rami bar Chama and Rav Sheishet is carried into the poskim. The Shulchan Aruch, defining Sephardic practice, follows Rami bar Chama and characterizes gambling as a rabbinic form of theft. The Rema, defining Ashkenazic practice, follows Rav Sheishet, saying that one who has a vocation other than gambling may testify. He adds that the recreational gambler is obligated to pay his debts (i.e., the bet is not an asmachta) and that players are committed to pay if they lose, because they and others cannot control the game’s outcome. Rabbi Kermaier quipped that the bottom line is that Sephardim may eat rice on Pesach and Ashkenazim may go to Las Vegas.

Notwithstanding the stream in Jewish law that permits gambling, the practice is sometimes a scourge. Source III on the source sheet reprints a decree rendered in Moravia in 1650, barring gambling and imposing fines and prison sentences for violation. In 1589, in Ancoma, Italy, a decree limited gambling by the students at Yeshivat Shalom to Chanukah. That is to say, the rabbis in Ancoma viewed gambling not as theft, but as a non-constructive activity that should not get out of hand. (Rabbi Kermaier reminisced about his days in a haredi yeshiva in Israel, where students, particularly from Belgium, would win or lose thousands of dollars in one night playing “kvitlach.”)
Recent authorities have discussed various forms of gambling. Rav Aharon Lichtenstein wrote in a daf kesher that he is opposed to sports pools, because participants believe they know enough to be in control, thus removing them from Rav Sheishet’s leniency.
Whereas blackjack might be permissible, because players cannot control the cards, and roulette or slot machines even better, because they are pure games of luck, with no resort to skills like card-counting, poker might be a problem because (i) there is bluffing and (ii) players bet against each other rather than “the house.” On the other hand, Professor Croson might disagree that roulette and slot players view themselves as playing pure games of chance.
Rav Ovadiah Yosef, following the Shulchan Aruch, has ruled that one may not buy a lottery ticket. He cited a view, however, that it may be permissible if the prize is an object, as in a raffle, rather than money won from other players. Rav Lichtenstein, following the Rema, accepts lotteries. The player is simply buying the right to participate in the game, which will take place after his money is gone. When the winning number is drawn, it is too late to turn back, just as a stock investor cannot take back his decision to buy after bad news sends the stock down.

Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik accepted lotteries for charity. The ticket buyer is engaged in a win-win proposition: he’s happy if he wins, and he’s happy to give to a good cause if he does not.
The Rabbinical Council of America, in May 2005, took a position against “Las Vegas nights” for fund-raising purposes. Rabbi Dr. Asher Meir argues that such fund-raising should be permitted, within limitations:
So, if your gambling event is meant to be an entertaining evening for people who are happy to support your organization, by all means go ahead. But if you want to create a business which will cater to gambling aficionados, then you must be extra careful not to take advantage of people nor to condone gambling as a way of life. This should be considered as an emergency measure only.
You're on safe ground if everyone feels they're in a "win-win" situation: either they make a little money, or they give much-needed help to a worthy cause.

Rabbi Kermaier concluded by discussing the moral dimension in gambling. Other faith groups, such as Evangelical Christians (more so than Catholics), have opposed gambling. They are concerned that gambling has an impact on those who are vulnerable to addiction, the less intelligent, and the poor. Rabbi Kermaier noted that activities that endanger the vulnerable are candidates for regulation or ban. Moreover, he concluded, we should think about the message that gambling sends to children. We should prefer to teach them that success comes from hard work, not from rolling dice or pulling a lever.