II Reyes 22:2 Halajá: Shulchan Arukh, Choshen Mishpat

Some say that one is fit to judge only from the age of eighteen and onwards,¹²Tur on the authority of ‘some say,’ derived from Shab. 56b: ‘R. Samuel b. Naḥmani said on the authority of R. Jonathan: Whoever says that Josiah sinned is mistaken, for it is written, And he did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and walked in all the ways of David his father (II Kings XXII, 2). How then do I explain, and like unto him there was no king before him that returned (Shab) to the Lord with all his heart etc., (ibid. XXIII, 25, whence it follows that at first he sinned). This intimates that he reconsidered every decision that he rendered between the ages of eight (the time of his accession to the throne Ibid. v. 1) and eighteen’ (when the Book of the Law was discovered). He thus re-examined (this is the meaning of Shab) his decisions in the light of the Book of the Law discovered by Ḥilkiah (ibid vv. 1-8). ‘Eighteen’ is taken by Rashi to refer to the eighteenth year of his reign. Hence, it has no connection with the age of the King. Some, however, take ‘eighteen’ (and this is followed by Caro in the present ruling) as the age of the King, i.e., when Josiah was eighteen years of age, the Book of the Law was discovered by Ḥilkiah. At the age of eighteen a person is considered a distinguished and conspicuous individual and has the capability to save the poor from the hand of one who would rob him. This is one of the attributes of a Judge (v. Tur a.l.) — M.E. , also Aboth V, 21. and [provided] he has grown two pubic hairs.¹³Deduced from Mishna Yeb. 96b: ‘It is all one (i.e., with respect to illegal cohabitation) whether he is of the age of nine years and a day or whether he is of the age of twenty years and has not grown two pubic hairs.’ Thus we see that if one has not produced the signs of maturity, he still counts as a minor. Cf. Nid. V, 9. Hence, the present ruling. And some say that from the age of thirteen years [plus one day] and onwards, one is eligible to judge, even if he has not grown two pubic hairs.¹⁴Derived from Y. San. IV, 9(22b): ‘R. Abbahu states on the authority of R. Joḥanan: Even one who is less than twenty years old and has not grown two pubic hairs, is eligible to try civil suits but not capital charges.’ Although the age of thirteen is not mentioned in this text, it goes without saying that the Judge must not be less than thirteen years and a day, for only then is one designated an adult. As to the text in Shab. ibid., this viewpoint accepts the interpretation of Rashi (v. n. 12 supra). Cf. also the reading in Shab. ibid., ‘until eighteen’ (עד י״ח). Were ‘until eighteen years of age’ meant the reading should have been עד בן י״ח. , Maharsha a.l. The underlying reason for the second viewpoint is that although with reference to valid testimony it is required that the witnesses possess signs of maturity, deduced from, then both the men between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the Lord (Deut. XIX, 17. This refers to the witnesses and it is obligatory that they be men, i.e., of mature age. , Sheb. 30a; B.B. 155b), this is not the case with respect to a Judge. In the latter case he must possess a reasoning mind and be versed in the intricacies of the Law. But one who is less than thirteen years old, is ineligible to judge, for being a minor he does not come under the category of observing religious duties according to Biblical Law. However, a difficulty presents itself on the basis of the principle, ‘Whoever is fit to judge is eligible to testify’ (Mishna Nid. 49b), which conversely, would mean that ‘whoever is unfit to judge is ineligible to testify.’ Consequently, it follows that according to the first opinion recorded in the present ruling, one who is thirteen years of age and has grown two pubic hairs would be ineligible to testify, and again, according to the second viewpoint, one who is thirteen years of age but has not produced two pubic hairs would be ineligible to judge. This difficulty may be removed on the assumption that the above-mentioned principle was meant to assimilate testimony and adjudication with respect to the minority age of the individual only, for in both cases, a minor, i.e., one less than thirteen years and a day is unfit — M.E. In civil suits involving immovable property (קרקעות), he may not judge until he produces two pubic hairs, for otherwise, his transaction is considered invalid in immovable property ( B.B. 155b; infra § 35, 3; § 235) — Tummim. Mishkenoth Ya‘akob supports the first view recorded in the present ruling, but concludes that a Judge should be appointed when he is at least twenty years old. Shebuth Ya‘akob states that in the case of one who judges alone we should adopt a stringent view and one should not judge before he is forty years old unless there is none other greater than he available in that city (v. Y.D. § 242, 31, Gloss). But with respect to one who is a member of a Court of three, it is permissible for him to judge even before he reaches his fortieth year, for his decision should not be regarded as inferior to that of a Court of three laymen whose decision is binding — P.Tesh. , also P.Tesh. to Y.D. ibid. A.H. writes that the above rulings are only added stringencies, and that according to Biblical Law, it seems that if the individual has grown two pubic hairs and is thirteen years of age plus one day, he may be a Judge. Before he produces the two pubic hairs, his decision is not binding (contra second opinion), for a minor’s act is ineffective.