After they [the Judges] discussed the case, the litigants were brought in and the most distinguished1The reason why the senior Judge makes this pronouncement is in order that the litigant who was declared guilty should not suspect who was for acquittal or who was for conviction — M.E.. Tosaf. Yom Tob to San, III, 7 writes that the reason is simply to accord honour to the senior Judge because it is not permissible to speak before one who is greater in wisdom. of the Judges says, 'So-and-so, you are not guilty' [or] 'So-and-so, you are guilty'.2Mishna San. 29a. Should the guilty party summon him again before another Court of Law, the latter is not obliged to go to law with him because of the principle ‘One Court of Law is not careful in its examination of a case already tried by another Court of Law.’ Cf. supra § 14, n. 4. Nor is the Court of Law permitted to listen to his pleas — D.M. on the authority of Resp. in Ḥaze ha-Tenufah. And even if the disciples noticed that the verdict is incorrect, they are not permitted to tear up the document, but must wait until the Master himself examines the matter — R. Yeruḥam. It is forbidden for a Judge to say after leaving the Court of Law, 'I was for acquittal but my colleagues were in the majority.' And the one who acts thus comes under the rule of 'He that goeth as a talebearer revealeth secrets.'3Prov. XI, 13. Thus Mishna San. ibid. One who is not a Judge is forbidden to say to a litigant who was convicted that the Judge erred in their decision, for one who says this transgresses He that goeth about as a talebearer revealeth secrets and From a false matter keep thee far and is the cause of enmity and dissension — SeMaG. , K.H., Tummim and P.Tesh for further elucidation.
[If] one of the litigants requested that they [the Judges] put the verdict in writing for him — in the manner as was explained supra § 14 par. 44It is not clear why Isserles makes reference to supra § 14, for there we deal with a case where one of the litigants requested a written document containing the grounds on which the verdict was issued in order to appeal the case before the Supreme Court; whereas in the present ruling it seems that we deal with a verdict that is usually kept in Court as a permanent record in which case the verdict is worded, ‘So-and-so is obliged to pay So-and-so etc.’ It may, however, be possible that supra § 14 the verdict is worded and after their decision etc., so that it should not become known who among the Judges was for conviction in the event that the Supreme Court upsets the verdict, and similarly in the present ruling we deal with such a case. Note the expression employed here ‘(If) … requested.’ , however, San. 31a whence it appears that every type of verdict is phrased and after their decision etc. The matter, therefore requires further study — M.E. — they do not mention the name[s] of those who were for acquittal or the name[s] of those who were for conviction,5If all the Judges reach a unanimous decision, the verdict is worded thus: A and B appeared for trial. So-and-so was found guilty and So-and-so was found not guilty. Otherwise the verdict is phrased as found in the present ruling. All the Judges, even the dissentient must sign the verdict. , Y. San. III, 11(21d). but they write [the verdict] undefinably [thus]: 'So-and-so appeared with So-and-so, his [fellow-] litigant before the Court of Law and after their [the Judges'] decision, So-and-so was found not guilty and So-and-so [was found] guilty.'6San. 30a in accord with R. Eleazar. Thus also Yad, Sanhedrin XXII, 8 and Asheri.
[If] he accepted [to carry out] the verdict and they [the Judges] instructed him to pay, but he left and did not pay,7Yad ibid. XXV, 11 and Tur. Derived from M.K. 16a in accord with R. Ḥisda: ‘What is meant by Hardafah? — Said R. Judah b. R. Samuel b. Shelath on the authority of Rab: It denotes: They place him under the ban forthwith. (If he remains obstinate) they repeat (the same proclamation of the ban) after thirty days (the period of Niddui, i.e., separation) and then they proclaim the Ḥerem against him after sixty days. Said R. Huna b. Ḥinena, Thus said R. Ḥisda: They (first) warn him on Monday (then on the Thursday (following) and (again on) the Monday (the Court of Law held judicial sessions on Mondays and Thursdays. , B.K. 82a). This rule has reference to a case where he disobeys a monetary judgment; but in a case of contempt of Court, the ban is pronounced forthwith.’ the ban is not pronounced against him until they [first] warn him on Monday, [then] on the Thursday [following] and [again on] Monday, [and if he still defaults] they subsequently pronounce the ban against him until he gives whatever he owes.8M.K. ibid. in accord with R. Ḥisda. , previous note. If he remained [thus] for thirty days and made no claim [to be released from] his ban, they pronounce the Herem9On the terms Niddui נידוי and Ḥerem חרם, v. supra § 11, n. 9; Y.D. § 334. against him.10M.K. ibid. in accord with Rab. Cf. infra § 100, Gloss: If he refuses to accept [to carry out] the verdict, they pronounce the ban against him forthwith.11B.Yos. and v. infra § 79 (with regards to) one who subsequently states, ‘I have paid’ — G. In this case warning on Monday, Thursday and Monday is not required. , also B.K. 112b.