Musar su II Cronache 19:6

Shemot Rabbah 30,13, when explaining the verse in Proverbs 29,4, מלך במשפט יעמיד ארץ, ואיש תרומות יהרסנה, quotes Chronicles II 19,6, where Yehoshaphat tells his judges to remember that when they pronounce judgment they are not in the employ of man, but in the employ of G–d, and that G–d is with them (they need not be afraid). That same Midrash continues to explain that the meaning of the latter half of the verse quoted is that if a scholar who has mastered all the disciplines of Torah learning should be approached by a widow or orphan to adjudge their grievances and refuses, citing his pre-occupation with his studies, he is in fact destroying the fabric of G–ds world, instead of becoming a partner to G–d in His creation. The word תרומות then is understood to mean aloofness (derived from the heave offering which has to be "removed," or separated from the main body).

3) He must be aware that an honest decision makes him a partner of G–d in His creation of the universe, whereas a dishonest decision would cause G–d's Presence to depart from Israel, G–d's people. Any judge who illegally deprives a litigant of material things, giving them to the guilty party, will be punished by G–d in that נפשות, lives, will be cut short among members of his family. Should the judge, on the other hand, refuse to preside over litigation for fear of exposing himself to these dangers, the verse in Chronicles II 19,6 ועמכם בדבר משפט is to reassure such a judge that G–d will be with him (compare Shabbat 10, Sanhedrin 7). A judge is only held responsible for matters his eyes could see (Sanhedrin 6). He is not required to be omniscient. 4) There are occasions which call for the application of a judge's common sense, i.e. weighing probabilities. (Details of such occasions are spelled out in Tur Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat section 15, based on Maimonides). This applies particularly when the judge is convinced that the claimant is a swindler, but is unable to prove it, or is unable to prove that the witnesses lied. The witnesses may even be telling the truth and the claim may still be false. In such a case the judge must disqualify himself, possibly even suggest that other judges should not entertain such a claim. He must not say to himself that any miscarriage of justice will be due to the witnesses' testimony and is not his responsibility. In such cases the name for the judge, אלוהים, is especially appropriate, since the Torah says כי המשפט לאלוהים הוא, that in the final analysis justice is G–d's business (Deut 1,17). The rule mentioned applies only when in the estimation of the judge it is the claimant who appears to be a swindler. When the defendant appears to be the rogue, the judge must on no account disqualify himself from sitting in judgment, but must make every endeavour to unmask the defendant who tries to swindle the claimant. Our sages have said in Baba Metzia 30 that Jerusalem was destroyed because [among other things Ed.] the judges "based themselves only on דברי תורה," i.e. the letter of the law instead of also considering the spirit of the law. The judges must take emergencies into consideration,such as the spiritual level of the generation during which the judge lives. I have explained this in detail on the relevant verse [see Parshat Shoftim, page 201 in the edition used by me. Ed.].

The beginning of Chronicles II 19,6, which we have quoted, reads "the king said: ראו מה אתם עושים i.e. "see that what you are doing is judging as the representative of G–d, not as the representative of man." The reason the king said ראו, is A) that he wanted the judges to refer to a written text, i.e. to look in the שולחן ערוך, B) that he also wanted them to use their common sense, i.e. "see."

The requirement in (18,21) of יראי אלוקים, refers to the third of the qualities a judge must possess, namely that he must not be dogmatic in his approach. We have a tradition that under normal circumstances, i.e. חזקה, a debtor does not repay a loan before a due date [especially since he has nothing to gain, not paying interest on the loan. Ed.]. A case may come before the judge when the debtor claims to have prepaid, the judge believes him, but the debtor is unable to prove his claim. Another situation that may involve the יראי אלוקים requirement may be one when the accepted practice of המוציא מחברו עליו הראיה, that he who wants to be paid from his fellow man must produce proof, cannot be applied, since the nature of the case makes it unlikely that the claimant has proof. In either case, if the judge is convinced of the honesty of the litigant, the Torah tells him to act like אלוקים, i.e. G–d who is omniscient. He may have to explain why he hands down a verdict without the necessary legal requirements having been met. This is one aspect of what is called הוראת שעה, emergency situation. This is what king Yehoshaphat had in mind in Chronicles II 19,6, when he assured the judges that G–d was with them, i.e. would assist them in arriving at a true verdict. Under such circumstances it is, of course, even more important for the judge to explain the reason he handed down a certain verdict.