וְנַעְבֵּיד לַהּ חַמֵּי הָאוּר? מִשּׁוּם דְּרַב נַחְמָן, דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ״, בְּרוֹר לוֹ מִיתָה יָפָה.
The Gemara challenges: Let us execute her with boiling water heated by fire. The Gemara answers: It is due to the statement of Rav Naḥman, as Rav Naḥman said that the verse states: “And you shall love your fellow as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18). When executing someone, select for him a kind death. Even when someone must be executed, his dignity should be protected. He should be executed in the most comfortable way possible.
וְהָא אִיכָּא נָמֵי מַעֲשֶׂה דְּבַת שֶׁבַע! הָתָם אִפְּרַעוּ מִינֵּיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאֶת הַכִּבְשָׂה יְשַׁלֵּם אַרְבַּעְתָּיִם״, יֶלֶד, אַמְנוֹן, תָּמָר, וְאַבְשָׁלוֹם.
The Gemara asks: But were these his only two sins? There is also the incident of Bathsheba, in which he took another man’s wife as his own. The Gemara answers: There, in that case, punishment was exacted from him separately, so the matter is no longer listed among his sins, as it is written with regard to this incident: “And he shall restore the lamb fourfold” (II Samuel 12:6). The lamb was a metaphor for Bathsheba, and ultimately David was indeed given a fourfold punishment for taking Bathsheba: The first child born to Bathsheba and David died (see II Samuel 12:13–23); David’s son Amnon was killed; Tamar, his daughter, was raped by Amnon (see II Samuel 13); and his son Avshalom rebelled against him and was ultimately killed (see II Samuel 15–18).
הָתָם נָמֵי לָא אִפְּרַעוּ מִגּוּפֵיהּ! לָאיֵי אִפְּרַעוּ מִגּוּפֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: שִׁשָּׁה חֳדָשִׁים נִצְטָרַע דָּוִד וּפָרְשׁוּ הֵימֶנּוּ סַנְהֶדְרִין, וְנִסְתַּלְּקָה הֵימֶנּוּ שְׁכִינָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״יָשׁוּבוּ לִי יְרֵאֶיךָ וְיוֹדְעֵי עֵדוֹתֶיךָ״. וּכְתִיב: ״הָשִׁיבָה לִּי שְׂשׂוֹן יִשְׁעֶךָ״.
The Gemara challenges this: There, too, in the incident with Bathsheba, David was not punished personally, in his own body; rather, it was his children who suffered punishment. The Gemara answers: That is not so; he was punished personally, in his own body, for that sin, as Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: David was stricken with leprosy for six months after that incident, and the Sanhedrin withdrew from him in protest over his behavior, and the Divine Presence also left him. As it is written that David prayed: “May those who fear You return to me, and they who know Your testimonies” (Psalms 119:79). Since he prayed for the return of those who fear God and who know His testimonies, referring to the Sages of the Sanhedrin, it can be inferred that they had withdrawn from him. And it is written as well: “Restore to me the joy of Your salvation, let a vigorous spirit support me” (Psalms 51:14), where David asks for the return of the Divine Spirit, which had left him.
וּלְרַב נָמֵי דְּאָמַר קִבֵּל דָּוִד לָשׁוֹן הָרָע, הָא אִיפְּרַעוּ מִינֵּיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ דָּוִד לִמְפִיבוֹשֶׁת: ״אָמַרְתִּי אַתָּה וְצִיבָא תַּחְלְקוּ אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה״, יָצְאָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה לוֹ: ״רְחַבְעָם וְיָרׇבְעָם יַחְלְקוּ אֶת הַמַּלְכוּת״.
The Gemara continues: And even according to Rav, who said that David accepted a slanderous report, one could answer that that sin is not counted, as was he not punished for it? As Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: At the time when David said to Mephibosheth: “I say that you and Ziba should divide the field” (II Samuel 19:30), a Divine Voice came forth and said to him: Rehoboam and Jeroboam will divide the kingship. Because David believed Ziba’s slanderous report and awarded him half of Mephibosheth’s field, David was punished by having his kingdom divided into two. Following King Solomon’s death the Jewish people split into two kingdoms, Israel to the north and Judea to the south (see I Kings 12). Therefore, David was punished for that sin too.
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֵין עוֹלָה בָּאָה אֶלָּא עַל עֲשֵׂה, וְעַל לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁנִּיתַּק לַעֲשֵׂה.
Rabbi Akiva says: A burnt-offering is brought only over the failure to fulfill a positive mitzva and over violation of a prohibition that after violation is transformed into a positive mitzva. This refers to all prohibitions followed by positive mitzvot intended to rectify them; e.g., the prohibition against robbery is followed in the Torah by a positive mitzva for the robber to return the object that he stole. These transgressions are not punishable by lashes nor does a human court administer any other form of penalty. However, a burnt-offering is required in order to gain divine atonement for the sinner.
דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר: ״תַּעֲזוֹב״ מֵעִיקָּרָא מַשְׁמַע, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי סָבַר: הַשְׁתָּא מַשְׁמַע.
Rabbi Akiva holds that the positive mitzva: You shall leave, indicates that one leaves gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and pe’a in the field from the outset, and is not in effect after he violates the prohibition of: You shall not wholly reap. If one fails to fulfill that mitzva, he violates full-fledged prohibitions punishable by lashes. However, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds that the positive mitzva: You shall leave, indicates now, after one violated the prohibition. Even if the individual violated the prohibitions and harvested those crops, there is an obligation to rectify his actions by leaving the produce he harvested for the poor. This is not a full-fledged prohibition; rather, it is a prohibition that after violation is transformed into a positive mitzva that rectifies the transgression.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: חַד לְמִצְוָה, וְחַד לְעַכֵּב. רָבָא אָמַר: חַד לְעוֹנֶשׁ, וְחַד לְאַזְהָרָה.
Rav Ashi said: One verse teaches us the mitzva itself, and one verse teaches that this requirement is indispensable, i.e., the rite is invalid if one omits this ingredient. Rava said: One verse teaches that the omission of the smoke-raiser renders one liable to receive the punishment of death, and one verse serves as a warning that it is prohibited to omit it, as the Torah does not require punishment without issuing a warning.
רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל תָּנָא: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן עִינּוּי, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן עִינּוּי. מָה לְהַלָּן — לֹא עָנַשׁ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִזְהִיר, אַף כָּאן — לֹא עָנַשׁ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִזְהִיר. רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב אָמַר: יָלֵיף ״שַׁבַּת שַׁבָּתוֹן״ מִשַּׁבַּת בְּרֵאשִׁית: מָה לְהַלָּן — לֹא עָנַשׁ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִזְהִיר, אַף כָּאן — לֹא עָנַשׁ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִזְהִיר.
The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught an alternative verbal analogy for the derivation: “Affliction” is stated here, with regard to Yom Kippur, and “affliction” is stated later, with regard to a man who rapes a woman: “Because he has afflicted his neighbor’s wife” (Deuteronomy 22:24). Just as there, in the case of rape, the Torah did not punish unless there was prior warning, so too here, in the case of Yom Kippur, the Torah did not punish unless there was prior warning. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said a different proof: Derive a verbal analogy from the words “Shabbat of solemn rest” (Leviticus 16:31) written with regard to Yom Kippur from the words “Shabbat of solemn rest” (Exodus 31:15, 32:5; Leviticus 23:3) written with regard to the weekly Shabbat, which commemorates the Shabbat of Creation. Just as there, in the case of Shabbat, the Torah did not punish unless there was prior warning, so too here, in the case of Yom Kippur, the Torah did not punish unless there was prior warning.
כִּדְרַב חִסְדָּא. דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: בְּרוֹתְחִין קִלְקְלוּ וּבְרוֹתְחִין נִידּוֹנוּ. בְּרוֹתְחִין קִלְקְלוּ — בַּעֲבֵירָה, וּבְרוֹתְחִין נִידּוֹנוּ — כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״וַיָּשֹׁכּוּ הַמָּיִם״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״וַחֲמַת הַמֶּלֶךְ שָׁכָכָה״.
The Gemara answers: Even according to Rabbi Eliezer a change was made, in accordance with the statement of Rav Ḥisda, as Rav Ḥisda said: They sinned with boiling heat, and they were punished with boiling heat; they sinned with the boiling heat of the sin of forbidden sexual relations, and they were punished with the boiling heat of scalding waters. This is derived from a verbal analogy. It is written here, with regard to the flood: “And the waters abated” (Genesis 8:1), and it is written elsewhere, with regard to King Ahasuerus: “And the heated anger of the king abated” (Esther 7:10), which implies that the word “abated” means cooled. This indicates that at first the waters of the flood had been scalding hot.
עֲבֵירוֹת שֶׁבֵּין אָדָם לַמָּקוֹם וְכוּ׳. רָמֵי לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר חָבוּ לְרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: עֲבֵירוֹת שֶׁבֵּין אָדָם לַחֲבֵירוֹ אֵין יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר? וְהָא כְּתִיב: ״אִם יֶחֱטָא אִישׁ לְאִישׁ וּפִלְלוֹ אֱלֹהִים״! מַאן אֱלֹהִים — דַּיָּינָא.
§ It was taught in the mishna: Yom Kippur atones for sins committed against God but does not atone for sins committed against another person. Rav Yosef bar Ḥavu raised a contradiction before Rabbi Abbahu: The mishna states that Yom Kippur does not atone for sins committed against a fellow person, but isn’t it written: “If one man sin against another, God [Elohim] shall judge him [ufilelo]” (I Samuel 2:25). The word ufilelo, which may also refer to prayer, implies that if he prays, God will grant the sinner forgiveness. He answered him: Who is Elohim mentioned in the verse? It is referring to a judge [elohim] and not to God, and the word ufilelo in the verse indicates judgment. Atonement occurs only after justice has been done toward the injured party by means of a court ruling.
אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: ״וְאִם לַה׳ יֶחֱטָא אִישׁ מִי יִתְפַּלֶּל לוֹ״! הָכִי קָאָמַר: ״אִם יֶחֱטָא אִישׁ לְאִישׁ וּפִלְלוֹ אֱלֹהִים״ — יִמְחוֹל לוֹ. ״וְאִם לַה׳ יֶחֱטָא אִישׁ מִי יִתְפַּלֶּל בַּעֲדוֹ״ — תְּשׁוּבָה וּמַעֲשִׂים טוֹבִים.
Rav Yosef bar Ḥavu said to him: If so, say the following with regard to the latter clause of the verse: “But if a man sin against the Lord, who shall entreat [yitpallel] for him?” (I Samuel 2:25). This is difficult, since it has been established that the root pll is interpreted in this verse as indicating judgment, and therefore the latter clause of the verse implies that if one sins toward God there is no one to judge him. Rabbi Abbahu answered him: This is what the verse is saying: If one man sins against another, God [Elohim] shall forgive him [ufilelo]; if the sinner appeases the person against whom he has sinned, he will be forgiven. But if a man sin against the Lord, who shall entreat [yitpallel] for him? Repentance and good deeds. The root pll is to be interpreted as indicating forgiveness rather than judgment.
The first line of the priestly blessing is “May God show favor to you” (this word can be translated in other ways, such as “May God lift you up.”) This is somewhat controversial—a judge is not supposed to favor one of his constituents. Therefore, the word is not translated.
אִתְּמַר: הַמְנַכֵּשׁ וְהַמַּשְׁקֶה מַיִם לִזְרָעִים בְּשַׁבָּת, מִשּׁוּם מַאי מַתְרִינַן בֵּיהּ? רַבָּה אָמַר: מִשּׁוּם חוֹרֵשׁ. רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: מִשּׁוּם זוֹרֵעַ.
§ It was stated that the amora’im disputed the following question: With regard to one who weeds or one who waters seedlings on Shabbat, for what prohibited labor do we forewarn him? Judicial punishment may be administered to a sinner only if he has been forewarned by two witnesses prior to the commission of his offense. This forewarning must include the specific transgression being violated, and on Shabbat it must include the specific category of prohibited labor that the action involves. Rabba said: It is due to the prohibition against plowing. Rav Yosef said: It is due to the prohibition against sowing.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְּיָיא אוֹמֵר: אֵיזֶהוּ מְעֻוּוֹת שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהִתָּקֵן? זֶה הַבָּא עַל הָעֶרְוָה וְהוֹלִיד מִמֶּנָּה מַמְזֵר. אִם תֹּאמַר בְּגוֹנֵב וְגוֹזֵל — יָכוֹל הוּא לְהַחְזִירוֹ, וִיתַקֵּן.
Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: Who is the crooked that cannot be made straight? This verse is referring to one who engaged in intercourse with a woman forbidden to him and fathered a mamzer with her. This individual is unable to rectify his sin, because the status of the illegitimate child is permanent. And if you say that it is referring to one who steals or robs, although he is crooked he can return what he stole and in this manner his sin will be rectified.
וְהָא תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא אוֹמֵר: גּוֹנֵב אָדָם — אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיַּחֲזִיר גְּנֵבוֹ וִיתַקֵּן, גּוֹזֵל אָדָם — אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיַּחֲזִיר גְּזֵלוֹ וִיתַקֵּן, אֲבָל הַבָּא עַל אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ וַאֲסָרָהּ לְבַעְלָהּ — נִטְרַד מִן הָעוֹלָם וְהָלַךְ לוֹ.
The Gemara asks: Isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: If a person steals it is possible that he might return his stolen property and be made straight; if a person robs from another it is possible that he might return his robbed property and be made straight. However, one who has sexual relations with a married woman with her consent and thereby renders her forbidden to her husband is banished from the world and passes away. There is no way for him to rectify the situation and achieve atonement, because a married woman who willingly has sexual relations with another man is permanently forbidden to her husband.
ועתה יתבאר יפה המאמר ההוא אשר זכרנו בפתח השער בדין אמר להם משה לישראל הרי נתן לכם הק"בה את תורתו אם אין אתם מקבלין את הדינין הרי הוא נוטלה מכם כי באמת לא נתנה התורה אלא בהגבלה התכוניי' הראוי' להקדים ללמידת' וכמו שנאמר במעמד ההוא הנורא (שמות י״ט:י״ב) והגבלת את העם וגו'. וכאשר פירשתי שם. והנה הדינים האלו כפי מה שנתבאר יש להם כח ויד חזקה בהגבל' והשער' הזאת מכל זולתם וכמו שאמר זה כלל גדול בתורה כאשר נתבאר מצד עצם האמיתות שבהם והתקרבם והתאחז' בסודות המציאות כי הוא הפרדס שאמרו שאהב מכל נכסיו על דרך (חגיגה י"ד:) ארבעה נכנסו לפרדס ולזה נתנו לבן אשר אהב משאר הבנים דכתיב מגיד דבריו ליעקב וגו' לא עשה כן לכל גוי וגו'. כי מי שאין לו חלק במשפטים אין לו נחלה בתורה שהם אחים תאומים דכתיב ועוז מלך משפט אהב כי עוזו של מלך שהיא תורתו האלדית כמו שאמר (תהילים כ״ט:י״א) ה' עוז לעמו יתן הנה באמת משפט אהב כרע כאח לו ולא ימצא בלתו וכמו שאמרו (מכלתא משפטים פ"א) ואלה המשפטים מה הראשונים מסיני אף אלו מסיני ולזה אמר אם אין אתם מקבלים את הדינין הוא נוטלה מכם ולפי שאמרו (ב"מ ל':) שלא חרבה ירושלם ובתי דינין שלה אלא מפני שדנו בה דין אמת והכוונ' שלא דנו דין אמת לאמתו כמו שאמרנו אלא שדנוהו לפי ההנחות הכוללות בין שיסכימו אל החלקי או לאו והדיינים האלו הם מחריבי העולם לפי האמת לזה אמר כי כשיעשו הדינין האלו כתקנן וכוונתן לא די שיספיקו להעמיד ולקיים קבוציהם בשלום ובמישור אלא אפילו אחר חרבנן אם יתיישרו בזה יספיק להשיבן אל יישובן על צד היותר שלם שאיפשר באופן שיקבלו שכר לפעולתם משני מיני הגמול שאמרנו אם בהצלחת הכלל אשר יושעו ויתישבו ביישובן וכבודם ואם בהצלחת נפשם אשר היא עקר הכל אשר לשני העניינים כיון באומרו הרי הוא מחזיר בתי דינין ובית המקדש שלכם כי חזרת הבתי דינין הוא הצלחת הכלל ויישובו בעולם הזה וחזרת המקדש הוא כולל העולם הזה והעולם הבא. ולשניהם אמר הכתוב (ישעיהו א׳:כ״ז) ציון במשפט תפדה ושביה בצדקה כי ציון כללות הצלחת הכלל. אמנם הצלחת איש ואיש לפי השגתו הנפשית כלל באומרו ושביה בצדקה. זהו שיעור מה שראיתי להקדימו אל הדבור שמשפטי התורה האלהית אשר לפנינו הן הן גופי תורה להודיע מדרגתן בין שאר חלקיה ולהורות על עוצם תועלותיה בכל כוונתיה ואשר בלעדיהן מיתרי התורה ירופפו ויתידותיה גם עמודיה ואדניה יתפלצון ועמהם דרכיה דרכי נועם וכל נתיבותיה קרבת אלדים יחפצון. ולפי שפירוש' צריך תלמוד רב לפי רוב משפטיה גם שאין דרכינו לבוא על שרשי הדינין והסודות התלמודיים לפי כוונתינו נקצר בתת טעם לשבח בתקון סדור חלקי הפרש' וביאור משפטיה בהסכמת הנמצא כתוב בכמו אלה הענינים בפילוסופיא המדינית כי אין בנפילת השכל האנושי על קצת טעמי' והלכותיה ובהודאת בעל דין אל דעותי' וגזירותי' רק טוב אשר יכספוהו הכל. ותחלה אעיר הספקות הנופלות על הענינים ההם כמנהגנו:
Our future is assured if we carry out the commandments called mishpatim. When our sages say that Jerusalem was destroyed only because they practiced "true justice," the meaning is that they applied the justice principle without making allowance for circumstances. Such allowances are incorporated in the mishpatim, as we know from Talmud Baba Metzia 30.
אֶלָּא מַאי חוּמְרַיְיהוּ? הָנֵי — אֶפְשָׁר בִּתְשׁוּבָה, הָנֵי — לָא אֶפְשָׁר בִּתְשׁוּבָה.
The Gemara asks: Rather, in what way is deception in measurements more severe than forbidden relations? The Gemara answers: Those who engage in forbidden relations have the possibility of repentance. If one engaged in relations with a forbidden relative he can rectify the sin through repentance. In the case of those who deceive the public with dishonest measures, it is not possible to repent fully because, having deceived the general public, they have no way of returning the money. Whereas generally a thief can return stolen property to its rightful owner, one who used dishonest measures with multiple customers has no way to track them all down in order to return the money.
וְהַאי בַּר תְּשׁוּבָה הוּא? וְהָתְנַן: שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא אוֹמֵר: אֵיזֶהוּ ״מְעֻוּוֹת לֹא יוּכַל לִתְקוֹן״ — זֶה הַבָּא עַל הָעֶרְוָה וְהוֹלִיד מִמֶּנָּה מַמְזֵר! הַשְׁתָּא מִיהָא עוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֵׂה עַמְּךָ הוּא.
The Gemara objects: Is he in fact able to repent after fathering a mamzer? Didn’t we learn in a mishna that Shimon ben Menasya says: Which is: “That which is crooked cannot be made straight” (Ecclesiastes 1:15)? This is referring to one who engaged in intercourse with a relative who is forbidden to him and fathered a mamzer with her. This implies that he has no possibility of achieving total repentance. The Gemara responds: At least now, after repenting, he is considered as one who acts according to the deeds of your people. Although he cannot totally rectify his transgression, his child is liable to receive punishment for cursing or hitting him.
אֱמֶת מָמוֹן יִרְאָה סִימָן. אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: כׇּל דַּיָּין שֶׁדָּן דִּין אֱמֶת לַאֲמִיתּוֹ, מַשְׁרֶה שְׁכִינָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֱלֹהִים נִצָּב בַּעֲדַת אֵל בְּקֶרֶב אֱלֹהִים יִשְׁפֹּט״. וְכׇל דַּיָּין שֶׁאֵינוֹ דָּן דִּין אֱמֶת לַאֲמִיתּוֹ, גּוֹרֵם לִשְׁכִינָה שֶׁתִּסְתַּלֵּק מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מִשֹּׁד עֲנִיִּים מֵאַנְקַת אֶבְיוֹנִים עַתָּה אָקוּם יֹאמַר ה׳ וְגוֹ׳״.
§ The Gemara provides a mnemonic device indicating the following series of statements about judges and their functions: Emet mamon yireh. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: Any judge who judges a judgment according to absolute truth [emet] causes the Divine Presence to rest among Israel, as it is stated: “God stands in the congregation of God; in the midst of the judges He judges” (Psalms 82:1), indicating that the Divine Presence is in the midst of the court. And every judge who does not judge a judgment according to absolute truth causes the Divine Presence to withdraw from Israel, as it is stated: “For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, says the Lord” (Psalms 12:6). God will arise and leave the people as a result of oppression.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: כׇּל דַּיָּין שֶׁנּוֹטֵל מִזֶּה וְנוֹתֵן לְזֶה שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין, הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא נוֹטֵל מִמֶּנּוּ נַפְשׁוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אַל תִּגְזׇל דַּל כִּי דַּל הוּא וְאַל תְּדַכֵּא עָנִי בַשָּׁעַר כִּי ה׳ יָרִיב רִיבָם וְקָבַע אֶת קֹבְעֵיהֶם נָפֶשׁ״.
And Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: With regard to any judge who takes disputed property or money [mamon] from this litigant and gives it to that other litigant unlawfully, the Holy One, Blessed be He, takes his soul from him as punishment for his corruption, as it is stated: “Rob not the weak, because he is weak, neither crush the poor in the gate; for the Lord will plead their cause and despoil of life those who despoil them” (Proverbs 22:22–23). God cautions that He will take the life of one who steals from the poor at the gate, meaning in the courtroom, as the city gate was the traditional site of the community’s court.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: לְעוֹלָם יִרְאֶה דַּיָּין עַצְמוֹ כְּאִילּוּ חֶרֶב מוּנַּחַת לוֹ בֵּין יַרְכוֹתָיו, וְגֵיהִנָּם פְּתוּחָה לוֹ מִתַּחְתָּיו.
And Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: A judge should always view [yireh] himself as if a sword is placed between his thighs, so that if he leans to the right or to the left he will be injured, and as if Gehenna is opened up beneath him,
שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הִנֵּה מִטָּתוֹ שֶׁלִּשְׁלֹמֹה שִׁשִּׁים גִּבֹּרִים סָבִיב לָהּ מִגִּבֹּרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כֻּלָּם אֲחֻזֵי חֶרֶב מְלֻמְּדֵי מִלְחָמָה אִישׁ חַרְבּוֹ עַל יְרֵכוֹ מִפַּחַד בַּלֵּילוֹת״. מִפַּחְדָּהּ שֶׁל גֵּיהִנָּם, שֶׁדּוֹמָה לְלַיְלָה.
as it is stated: “Behold, it is the bed of Solomon; sixty mighty men are around it, of the mighty men of Israel. They all handle the sword, and are expert in war; every man has his sword upon his thigh due to dread in the night” (Song of Songs 3:7–8). The words “due to dread in the night” mean due to the dread of Gehenna, which is similar to the night. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani interprets this verse as referring to judges, who are called: Mighty men of Israel, as they preside in the Temple, which is termed: The bed of God. In this verse, God is referred to as: Solomon [Shlomo], the King to Whom peace [shalom] belongs.
דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״בֵּית דָּוִד כֹּה אָמַר ה׳ דִּינוּ לַבֹּקֶר מִשְׁפָּט וְהַצִּילוּ גָזוּל מִיַּד עוֹשֵׁק״ – וְכִי בַּבֹּקֶר דָּנִין וְכׇל הַיּוֹם אֵין דָּנִין? אֶלָּא אִם בָּרוּר לְךָ הַדָּבָר כַּבֹּקֶר – אׇמְרֵהוּ, וְאִם לָאו – אַל תֹּאמְרֵהוּ. רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן, מֵהָכָא: ״אֱמֹר לַחׇכְמָה אֲחֹתִי אָתְּ״ – אִם בָּרוּר לְךָ הַדָּבָר כַּאֲחוֹתְךָ שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה לְךָ – אוֹמְרֵהוּ, וְאִם לָאו – אַל תֹּאמְרֵהוּ.
Rabbi Yoshiya, and some say Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, interpreted a verse homiletically. What is the meaning of that which is written: “House of David, so says the Lord: Execute justice in the morning, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor” (Jeremiah 21:12)? And is it so that a court may judge in the morning, and all the rest of the day a court may not judge? Why does the verse specifically relate to judging in the morning? Rather, the meaning is: If the matter is as clear to you as the morning, state the verdict; and if not, do not state it. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yonatan says this principle may be derived from here: “Say to wisdom: You are my sister” (Proverbs 7:4). If the matter is as clear to you as the fact that your sister is forbidden to you, state it, and if not, do not state it.
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: עֲשָׂרָה שֶׁיּוֹשְׁבִין בַּדִּין, קוֹלָר תָּלוּי בְּצַוַּאר כּוּלָּן. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא אֶלָּא לְתַלְמִיד הַיּוֹשֵׁב לִפְנֵי רַבּוֹ.
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: If ten judges are sitting in judgment, a prisoner’s collar [kolar], referring to responsibility for the consequences of an incorrect verdict, hangs around all of their necks. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that all of the judges bear joint responsibility for the verdict? The Gemara answers: It is necessary only in order to include a student who is sitting in front of his teacher in the court, and notices that his teacher erred. Although he is not formally part of the court, he nevertheless bears responsibility if he remains silent.
כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר: דָּרַשׁ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר כֹּהֵן, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״מֶלֶךְ בְּמִשְׁפָּט יַעֲמִיד אָרֶץ וְאִישׁ תְּרוּמוֹת יֶהֶרְסֶנָּה״? אִם דַּיָּין דּוֹמֶה לְמֶלֶךְ שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִכְלוּם – יַעֲמִיד אָרֶץ, וְאִם דּוֹמֶה לְכֹהֵן שֶׁמְּחַזֵּר בְּבֵית הַגְּרָנוֹת – יֶהֶרְסֶנָּה.
When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, he said: Rav Naḥman bar Kohen interpreted a verse homiletically: What is the meaning of that which is written: “The king by justice establishes the land; but he who exacts gifts [terumot] overthrows it” (Proverbs 29:4)? This teaches that if the judge is like a king in that he does not need anything and is not dependent on anyone, he establishes the land, i.e., he can serve as a judge. But if he is like a priest who seeks out his terumot from various granaries, as he is dependent on others, he overthrows the land.
וָאֲצַוֶּה אֶת שֹׁפְטֵיכֶם בָּעֵת הַהִיא. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כְּנֶגֶד מַקֵּל וּרְצוּעָה תְּהֵא זָרִיז. ״שָׁמֹעַ בֵּין אֲחֵיכֶם וּשְׁפַטְתֶּם״ – אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: אַזְהָרָה לַדַּיָּין שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁמַע דִּבְרֵי בַּעַל דִּין קוֹדֶם שֶׁיָּבֹא בַּעַל דִּין חֲבֵירוֹ, וְאַזְהָרָה לְבַעַל דִּין שֶׁלֹּא יַטְעִים דְּבָרָיו לַדַּיָּין קוֹדֶם שֶׁיָּבֹא בַּעַל דִּין חֲבֵירוֹ. קְרִי בֵּיהּ נָמֵי: ״שַׁמַּע בֵּין אֲחֵיכֶם״.
The Gemara interprets other verses related to the topic of adjudicating cases. “And I charged your judges at that time, saying: Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between a man and his brother, and the stranger who is with him” (Deuteronomy 1:16). Understanding that the word “charged” indicates alacrity, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Moses urged the judges: With regard to the rod and the strap, be vigilant. With regard to the clause “Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge,” Rabbi Ḥanina says: This is a warning to a court that it may not hear the statement of one litigant before the other litigant comes, and it is a warning to a litigant that he may not explain his statement to the judge before the other litigant comes. Read into the phrase in the verse: “Hear the causes between your brethren,” that it is also concerning the litigant. Although he is not the judge, he is also required to assure that the case is conducted in the presence of both parties.
״לֹא תַכִּירוּ פָנִים בַּמִּשְׁפָּט״. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לֹא תַּכִּירֵהוּ. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: לֹא תְּנַכְּרֵהוּ.
The next verse states: “You shall not respect [takiru] people in judgment; you shall hear the small and the great alike; you shall not be afraid before any man, for the judgment is God’s; and the cause that is too hard for you, you shall bring to me, and I will hear it” (Deuteronomy 1:17). Rabbi Yehuda says: Do not recognize him [takirehu], i.e., do not acknowledge the litigant as a friend in your role as a judge. Rabbi Elazar says: Even if he is your opponent, do not estrange him [tenakerehu] in such a way as to prejudge him as liable, but treat him as though you do not know him at all.
גְּמָ׳ כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל דָּן. פְּשִׁיטָא! דָּנִין אוֹתוֹ אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ. הָא נָמֵי פְּשִׁיטָא: אִי לָא דָּיְינִינַן לֵיהּ, אִיהוּ הֵיכִי דָּיֵין? וְהָכְתִיב ״הִתְקוֹשְׁשׁוּ וָקוֹשּׁוּ״, וְאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: קְשֹׁט עַצְמְךָ וְאַחַר כָּךְ קְשֹׁט אֲחֵרִים.
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the High Priest judges others as a member of a court. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious? Why would one think that he would be unfit to serve as a judge? The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the mishna to mention the latter clause: And others judge him, and therefore, it taught the related halakha with it. The Gemara objects: This is also obvious; if others do not judge him, how can he judge others? But isn’t it written: “Gather yourselves together, yea, gather together [hitkosheshu vakoshu]” (Zephaniah 2:1); and Reish Lakish says: This verse teaches a moral principle: Adorn [kashet] yourself first, and then adorn others, i.e., one who is not subject to judgment may not judge others.
מֶלֶךְ לֹא דָּן כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא מַלְכֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֲבָל מַלְכֵי בֵּית דָּוִד דָּן וְדָנִין אוֹתָן, דִּכְתִיב: ״בֵּית דָּוִד כֹּה אָמַר ה׳ דִּינוּ לַבֹּקֶר מִשְׁפָּט״. וְאִי לָא דָּיְינִינַן לֵיהּ, אִינְהוּ הֵיכִי דָּיְינִי? וְהָכְתִיב: ״הִתְקוֹשְׁשׁוּ וָקוֹשּׁוּ״, וְאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: קְשֹׁט עַצְמְךָ וְאַחַר כָּךְ קְשֹׁט אֲחֵרִים.
§ The mishna teaches: A king does not judge and is not judged. Rav Yosef says: They taught this halakha only with regard to the kings of Israel, who were violent and disobedient of Torah laws, but with regard to the kings of the house of David, the king judges and is judged, as it is written: “O house of David, so says the Lord: Execute justice in the morning” (Jeremiah 21:12). If they do not judge him, how can he judge? But isn’t it written: “Gather yourselves together, yea, gather together [hitkosheshu vakoshu]” (Zephaniah 2:1), and Reish Lakish says: This verse teaches a moral principle: Adorn [kashet] yourself first, and then adorn others, i.e., one who is not subject to judgment may not judge others. Since it is understood from the verse in Jeremiah that kings from the Davidic dynasty can judge others, it is implicit that they can also be judged.
מֶלֶךְ לֹא דָּן כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא מַלְכֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֲבָל מַלְכֵי בֵּית דָּוִד דָּן וְדָנִין אוֹתָן, דִּכְתִיב: ״בֵּית דָּוִד כֹּה אָמַר ה׳ דִּינוּ לַבֹּקֶר מִשְׁפָּט״. וְאִי לָא דָּיְינִינַן לֵיהּ, אִינְהוּ הֵיכִי דָּיְינִי? וְהָכְתִיב: ״הִתְקוֹשְׁשׁוּ וָקוֹשּׁוּ״, וְאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: קְשֹׁט עַצְמְךָ וְאַחַר כָּךְ קְשֹׁט אֲחֵרִים.
§ The mishna teaches: A king does not judge and is not judged. Rav Yosef says: They taught this halakha only with regard to the kings of Israel, who were violent and disobedient of Torah laws, but with regard to the kings of the house of David, the king judges and is judged, as it is written: “O house of David, so says the Lord: Execute justice in the morning” (Jeremiah 21:12). If they do not judge him, how can he judge? But isn’t it written: “Gather yourselves together, yea, gather together [hitkosheshu vakoshu]” (Zephaniah 2:1), and Reish Lakish says: This verse teaches a moral principle: Adorn [kashet] yourself first, and then adorn others, i.e., one who is not subject to judgment may not judge others. Since it is understood from the verse in Jeremiah that kings from the Davidic dynasty can judge others, it is implicit that they can also be judged.
כִּדְתַנְיָא: ״צֶדֶק צֶדֶק תִּרְדֹּף״ – אֶחָד לְדִין וְאֶחָד לִפְשָׁרָה. כֵּיצַד? שְׁתֵּי סְפִינוֹת עוֹבְרוֹת בַּנָּהָר וּפָגְעוּ זֶה בָּזֶה, אִם עוֹבְרוֹת שְׁתֵּיהֶן – שְׁתֵּיהֶן טוֹבְעוֹת, בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה – שְׁתֵּיהֶן עוֹבְרוֹת. וְכֵן שְׁנֵי גְּמַלִּים שֶׁהָיוּ עוֹלִים בְּמַעֲלוֹת בֵּית חוֹרוֹן וּפָגְעוּ זֶה בָּזֶה, אִם עָלוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן – שְׁנֵיהֶן נוֹפְלִין, בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה – שְׁנֵיהֶן עוֹלִין.
As it is taught in a baraita: When the verse states: “Justice, justice, shall you follow,” one mention of “justice” is stated with regard to judgment and one is stated with regard to compromise. How so? Where there are two boats traveling on the river and they encounter each other, if both of them attempt to pass, both of them sink, as the river is not wide enough for both to pass. If they pass one after the other, both of them pass. And similarly, where there are two camels who were ascending the ascent of Beit Ḥoron, where there is a narrow steep path, and they encounter each other, if both of them attempt to ascend, both of them fall. If they ascend one after the other, both of them ascend.
הָא כֵּיצַד? טְעוּנָה וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה – תִּידָּחֶה שֶׁאֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה מִפְּנֵי טְעוּנָה. קְרוֹבָה וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ קְרוֹבָה – תִּידָּחֶה קְרוֹבָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינָהּ קְרוֹבָה. הָיוּ שְׁתֵּיהֶן קְרוֹבוֹת, שְׁתֵּיהֶן רְחוֹקוֹת – הָטֵל פְּשָׁרָה בֵּינֵיהֶן, וּמֵעֲלוֹת שָׂכָר זוֹ לָזוֹ.
How does one decide which of them should go first? If there is one boat that is laden and one boat that is not laden, the needs of the one that is not laden should be overridden due to the needs of the one that is laden. If there is one boat that is close to its destination and one boat that is not close to its destination, the needs of the one that is close should be overridden due to the needs of the one that is not close. If both of them were close to their destinations, or both of them were far from their destinations, impose a compromise between them to decide which goes first, and the owners of the boats pay a fee to one other, i.e., the owners of the first boat compensate the owner of the boat that waits, for any loss incurred.