Midrash su Ezechiele 20:25

Whence do we know that litigants in Israel who are involved in litigation against each other must not turn to an idolatrous judge for a decision in their suit, even though they know that he will judge them according to Israel’s laws? Because it is forbidden (for Jews) to argue before them? Scripture states: Which thou shalt set before them. That is, before the children of Israel and not before the Cuthites. For anyone who shuns Israel’s judges and testifies before an idolatrous judge renounces the Holy One, blessed be He, first, and later renounces Israel’s law, as it is said: For their rock is not our Rock, and our enemies’ judge (Deut. 32:31). To what may this be compared? To a patient examined by a doctor. He tells the members of (the patient’s) household: “Give him whatever food he desires, withhold nothing from him.” (Later) he visits another patient and advises his household: “Be careful that he does not eat or drink certain things.” They remonstrate with him, saying, “One patient you permit to eat whatever he wishes, while the other you advise not to eat certain things.” Thereupon he replied: “The first patient will not survive, and that is why I told them not to deny him anything, for whether he eats or not, he will die. However, the other patient will live, and so I advised him to eat only certain things lest his illness be aggravated.” So, too, are the ordinances of the idolaters, as is said: For the statutes of the people were vanity (Jer. 10:3), and it is written elsewhere: Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and ordinances whereby they should not live (Ezek. 20:25). However, to Israel I gave commandments and desirable statutes, as it is said: Ye shall therefore keep My statutes, and My ordinances, which if a man do, he shall live by them (Lev. 18:5).

We have a Baraitha coinciding with R. Chisda's opinion: "If one is walking in filthy alleys, he should not read the Sh'm'a; moreover, even if he were in the middle of his reading and should happen to find himself in a filthy street, he should stop." If he do not stop, what then? R. Meyasha the grandson of R. Joshua b. Levi said: It is of him that the passage says (Ezek. 20, 25.) "Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and ordinances whereby they could not live. R. Assi said from this (Is. 5, 18.) Woe unto those that draw iniquity with the cord of vanity. R. Ada b. Ahaba said from this (Num. 15, 31.) Because the word of the Lord hath he despised. And if he does stop what will his reward be? R. Abuhu said: "To him may be applied the passage (Deu. 32, 47.) And through this thing ye shall prolong your days."

(Fol. 32) R. Shephatia said again in the name of R. Jochanan: "Whence do we know that we may avail ourselves of a Heavenly voice? It is said (Is. 30, 31) Thine ears shall hear a thing from behind them, saying. When is this true? When one perceives a male voice in town, and a female voice in the country, and also when it says: 'Yea, yea,' or 'Nay, nay' [in double]." Another thing said R. Shephatia in the name of R. Jochanan: "Whoever reads without sweetness, and chants while reading Talmudic lessons, of him says the verse (Ezek. 20, 25) And I also have given unto them laws that are not good and ordinances whereby they could not live." R. Mesharshia raised the following objection: "Shall I say because one cannot sweeten his voice, ordinances whereby they could not live should be applied to him?" Therefore we must say that it refers to what R. Mesharshia said: "If two scholars are in one town, and derive no pleasure in discussing Halacha, to the passage. And ordinances whereby they could not live is applied."