Halakha Keluaran 22:25: Shulchan Arukh, Choshen Mishpat, Mishneh Torah, Negative Mitzvot & Sefer HaChinukh

The Judge must be exceedingly¹Heb. מאד מאד is employed to emphasize the extreme care that the Judge must take not to be tempted to accept bribes since man is endowed with a natural desire to accept gifts. The same expression is used by Tur in Y.D. § 160 beg. regarding the prohibition to take usury; ibid. § 336 beg. ref. to the physician who heals; Tur E.H. § 21 ref. to incest. Cf. Ab. IV, 4: ‘Be exceedingly humble’ (מאד מאי הוי שפל רוח), because by nature man is haughty — M.E. For any matter that involves the possibility of a material loss (in our case the gift or bribe that is given to the Judge which is forbidden) requires urging on since it is contrary to human nature not to accept. Cf. Sifra to Lev. VI, 2. , supra § 7, n. 33. careful not to take a bribe even to acquit the innocent,²Ket. 105a: ‘Was it not taught: What was intimated by the text, And thou shalt take no gift? (Ex. XXIII, 8). If to teach that one must not acquit the guilty or that one must not condemn the innocent, (we may object because) it has already been stated in the Bible, Thou shalt not wrest judgment (Deut. XVI, 19). Hence, even if (the Judge wishes) to acquit the innocent or condemn the guilty, the Torah states, And thou shalt take no gift.’ Ibid. 105b: ‘Why is it called Shoḥad (שוחד taken as contraction of שהוא חד, it is one) ? — Because it is one.’ (the recipient and the donor become one person). Cf. also Sifre to Deut. XVI, 19. The prohibition against accepting bribes refers not only to Judges but to all persons who are entrusted with communal matters although no adjudication of law is involved — P.Tesh. Likewise is it forbidden to accept equal bribes from both litigants although the foregoing reason no longer applies — M.E. The Judge must not accept any gifts from the acquitted party even after the conclusion of the trial — Asheri to San. 27a in the case of Bar Ḥama. and if he accepted it, he must return it when the donor claims it.³Yad, Sanhedrin XXIII, Derived from Tem. 4b: ‘Abaye stated: Every act which the Divine Law prohibits, if it has been executed, the act has its legal effect; for if you were to entertain the opinion that the act does not have its legal effect why is one punished by lashes (on account thereof)? But Raba says that the act does not have its legal effect at all and the reason why one is punished by lashes is because he has transgressed a commandment of the Divine Law.’ After a number of texts are adduced according to which in some cases the transgression of a negative command has its legal effect while in others it does not,— concerning which Abaye and Raba agree, — the Talmud continues ibid. 6a-b: ‘R. Aḥa, the son of Raba said to R. Ashi . . In what respect do Abaye and Raba differ? — They differ with respect to direct usury (ריבית קצוצה i.e., lending four Denari in return for five) in accord with R. Eleazar. For R. Eleazar stated: Direct usury can be collected through the Judges, whereas indirect usury (אבק ריבית, lit. ‘dust of usury,’ e.g., if one sells his field and says to the buyer that if he pays him forthwith the price is one thousand Zuz, but if at a later date the price will be more. Consequently, if the buyer pays at the later date, the additional amount is regarded as indirect usury) cannot be collected through the Judges. R. Joḥanan states: Even direct usury is not collected through the Judges (Hence, Raba will conour with R. Eleazar and Abaye with R. Yoḥanan). But do they (Abaye and Raba) differ merely in logical reasoning? Do they not differ in the interpretation of Biblical texts? For R. Isaac said: He hath given forth upon usury and had taken increase: shall he than live? He shall not live (Ez. XVIII, 13), which teaches that the taking of usury is a matter that concerns life but is not liable to restoration (consequently, even Raba who holds that a prohibited act does not have its legal effect, here he will admit that the act is valid on account of the text). R. Aḥa b. Adda says: From here: Scripture states, But fear thy G-d (Lev. XXV, 36), teaching that the taking of usury is a matter of fearing G-d, but is not liable to restoration. Raba stated: From here: He hath done all these abominations: he shall surely die: his blood shall be upon him (Ez. XVIII, 13). Now, lo, if he begat a son that is a robber, a shedder of blood (ibid. XVIII, 10). Those who lend on interest are comparable to those who shed blood. Just as those who shed blood cannot make restoration (of the lost lives), so those who lend on interest are not liable to restoration (of interest). R. Naḥman b. Isaac stated: What is the reason of R. Eleazar? (who maintains that direct usury is collectible through the Judges), for the Biblical text says: That thy brother may live with thee (Lev. XXV, 36) thus teaching that he must restore the interest so that he (the borrower) may live with you.’ Consequently, since the law rests with Raba (excluding certain cases), bribes are equated to usury and are collectible through the Judges, which means that the donor claims it. M.E. writes that if the donor does not claim the return of the gift, the Judge is not obliged to return it, because the donor gave it willingly for the purpose of being acquitted contrary to usury concerning which it is written That thy brother may live with thee. TaZ disagrees with M.E. on the basis of Rashi to B.M. 61b, s.v. ע״כ ריבית קצוצה according to whom the Court may also compel him to return the usury only if he claimed it. Thus also TaZ to Y.D. § 161, 5, n. 3. Even if the donor claimed the bribe after a considerable time had elapsed, yet, as long as he did not renounce his rights to it, he may still make a claim. However, it is proper that the recipient of the bribe should return it of his own accord if he wishes to do his duty towards G-d and repent — P.Tesh. Just as the one who receives it transgresses a negative command, so does the donor transgress [the negative command], 'Thou shalt not put a stumbling block before the blind.'⁴Lev. XIX, 14. Thus Yad ibid., derived from the law of usury, for just as we deduce the law of returning bribes from the law of usury so too do we deduce from the law of usury that the one who gives bribes transgresses the negative injunction, And thou shalt not put a stumbling block before the blind, i.e., the one who offers a bribe tempts the Judge and thereby places a stumbling block before him. , Mishna B.M. 75b: ‘These transgress a negative injunction : the lender, the borrower, the surety and the witnesses. And the Sages add: the scribe too. They transgress the injunction, Thou shalt not give (him thy money upon usury) [Lev. XXV, 37] and Take thou (no usury) of him (Lev. XXV, 36) and Thou shalt not be to him as a usurer (Ex. XXII, 24) and Neither shall ye lay upon him usury (Ex. XXII, 25) and Thou shalt not put a stumbling block before the blind, but thou shalt fear thy G-d: I am the Lord (Lev. XIX, 14).’ Gemara ibid.: ‘Abaye said: The lender transgresses all (the injunctions); the borrower: Thou shalt not cause thy brother to take usury (Deut. XXIII, 20. Heb. תשיך is in the Hiph‘il which is causitive. Hence, it refers to the debtor), but unto thy brother thou shalt offer no usury (ibid. v. 21), and thou shalt not put a stumbling block before the blind. The surety and the witnesses: only, neither shall ye lay upon him usury.’ One is forbidden to give a bribe to a Gentile Judge on the basis of and thou shalt not put a stumbling block before the blind, for civil laws are also binding upon all Noaḥides. But if it is evident that the Gentile Judge desires to pervert justice in favour of one of the litigants, it is permissible (Ḥatam Sofer) — P.Tesh. And not only a bribe of money [is forbidden] but even a bribe of words [or acts].⁵Ket. 105b: ‘Our Rabbis taught: And thou shalt take no bribe. (Ex. XXIII, 8); it was not necessary to speak of a monetary bribe, but (the following was intimated) : Even a bribe of words (or acts) is also prohibited, for it is not written, And thou shalt take no GAIN (Heb. בצע which would refer to a monetary bribe only).’ Cf. the cases of Samuel and Amemar a.o. mentioned ibid., who refused to act as Judges for people who acted in a manner that would be tantamount to a bribe of words or acts. Cf. Y.D. § 161, where the same applies to usury. , supra § 7, n. 33. Every Judge who borrows aught is ineligible to adjudicate the lawsuit of the owner of the lent object. This applies only when the Judge possesses naught to lend [to the latter], but if he had things to lend [to him],⁶Even if he did not lend him anything as yet, for since he has things to lend him, the borrowing does not constitute a bribe — M.E. he is fit [to adjudicate his case], since the latter too may borrow from him.⁷Yad ibid. par. 4. Derived from Ket. 105b: ‘Rabbah b. R. Shilah said: Any Judge who is wont to borrow is ineligible to adjudicate a lawsuit (for the owner of the lent object). This applies only when he possessed naught to lend to others, but if he has things to lend it does not matter. But is this really so? Did not Raba borrow things from the household of Bar Merion though they borrowed naught from him? — There he desired to make them feel important (i.e., the borrowing was not for his own benefit). Gloss: [This, viz., that the Judge who borrows is forbidden to pronounce judgment for the owner of the lent objcet applies] only when he is in the habit of borrowing from him, but [if the borowing is merely] incidental, and it is not evident that he does [this] on account of the [lender's] lawsuit, it is not [forbidden].⁸MaHaRIK Rt. 16 — G. Since we compare the prohibition of bribes to that of usury, we likewise learn that a gift constitutes a bribe only when it is clearly evident that it was given for that purpose. , B.M. 75b: ‘It has been taught: R. Simeon b. Yoḥai stated: Whence is it derived that if one is his neighbour’s creditor for a Maneh, the latter must not extend a greeting to him if he was not in the habit of doing this? — From the Biblical verse, Usury of any word which may be usury (Deut. XXIII, 20), — even speech is prohibited.’ Thus we see that it is forbidden only when the debtor was not in the habit of extending a greeting to the creditor, for then it is clearly evident that the purpose of the greeting is on account of the loan he received. But if it was his usual practice to extend a greeting, we consider the debtor’s greeting as of a mere incidental nature. Cf. B.M. 64b, Tosaf. s.v. אבל חצר. Similarly in the present case. If the Judge was in the habit of borrowing, he is forbidden to adjudicate the case of the lender, but if he borrowed from him by mere chance, and it is not evident that the owner of the lent object does it on account of his lawsuit, the prohibition does not stand.

Not to make a loan to an Israelite on interest, as it is said, “Thou shalt not give him thy money upon interest” (Lev. 25:37).

To return the surety to the owners at the time that he needs it: That we were commanded to return the surety to its Israelite owners at the time that it will be needed by him; meaning to say that if the surety is something that a person needs during the day — for example, the tool for his work — he should return it to him during the day, and the borrower brings it back to him during the night, and if it is a vessel that he needs during the night — for example, bedding or a blanket — he should return it to him during the night, and the borrower brings it back to the creditor during the day. And the language of Mekhilta, Mishpatim 186 is “‘You must return it to him before the sun sets’ (Exodus 22:25) — this is the clothing of the day, that you must return it to him [the whole day. That you must return the clothing of the night] for the whole night, from where [do I know it]? [Hence] we learn to say, ‘You must surely return the pledge to him at sundown’ (Deuteronomy 24:13). From here they said, we take the clothing of the day for surety during the night and the clothing of the night during the day.” And the proof that this is from the count of positive commandments is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said in the Gemara in Makkot 16a that the negative commandment of “you must not enter his house to seize his pledge,” is a negative commandment that is rectified by a positive commandment — and [that] positive commandment is “You must surely return.”