וְאִ֨ישׁ בָּ֜א מִבַּ֣עַל שָׁלִ֗שָׁה וַיָּבֵא֩ לְאִ֨ישׁ הָאֱלֹהִ֜ים לֶ֤חֶם בִּכּוּרִים֙ עֶשְׂרִֽים־לֶ֣חֶם שְׂעֹרִ֔ים וְכַרְמֶ֖ל בְּצִקְלֹנ֑וֹ וַיֹּ֕אמֶר תֵּ֥ן לָעָ֖ם וְיֹאכֵֽלוּ׃
At may isang lalaking dumating mula sa Baal-salisa, at nagdala siya sa tao ng Diyos ng tinapay mula sa mga unang ani, dalawampung tinapay na sebada, at mga sariwang uhay na nakabalot sa kanyang kasuotan. At sinabi niya: “Ibigay mo sa mga tao, upang sila'y makakain.”
Shulchan Arukh, Choshen Mishpat
If the claimant9Who is in the habit of sending gifts to the Judge from time to time — A.H. sent a gift to the Judge beforehand, [i.e.,] before he [the Judge] summons the defendant to appear in Court, the latter cannot declare him [the Judge] unfit,10Even if at the time he sent the gift, it was generally known that he has a claim to make — M.E. It must be clearly evident that the claimant sends the gift not on account of his lawsuit, but rather because it is his usual practice to send the Judge gifts — A.H. unless the Judge desires to refrain from [adjudicating] that lawsuit out of piety,11Geonic Responsum cited by Tur. Ket. 105b: ‘A man once brought to R. Anan a bale of small fish living among the reeds in the swamps. What are you doing here, the latter inquired of him? I have a lawsuit, the other answered. (R. Anan) did not accept it from him. I am ineligible to try your suit. I do not require, the other said to him, your decision (in the case) ; accept (the gift) so as not to restrain me from offering my first-fruit? (v. Ex. XXIII, 19). For it was taught: And there came a man from Baal-shalishah and brought the man of G-d bread of the first-fruits, twenty loaves of barley, and fresh ears of corn in his sack (II Kings IV, 42) ; but was Elisha (who was not a Kohen. , Pes. 68a and Asheri a.l.) permitted to eat first-fruit? — This was meant to inform you that one who brings a gift to a scholar is regarded as if he had offered first-fruits. I had no intention to accept your gift (R. Anan) replied to him, but now that you have given me a reason, I will accept it. He then sent him to R. Naḥman to whom he sent (the following message), Will the Master adjudicate (the lawsuit of) this man, for I, Anan, am ineligible to act as Judge for him.’ Legally, R. Anan was not disqualified to act as Judge since the gift was given to him before the writ of summons was sent to the other litigant, and the reason that he refused to act as Judge was an added stringency out of piety. , Tosaf. a.l. s.v. לא and San. 8a, Tosaf. s.v. פסילנא. Cf. supra § 7, n. 33. MaHaRDaK writes that it is considered a measure of piety to refuse to act in such a case only if the donor gave his gift not in the presence of the fellow-litigant, but if this was done in the latter’s presence, it is legally forbidden for the Judge to try the lawsuit, for under the circumstances the arguments or pleas of the defendant will become closed (נםתתמו טענותיו) — M.E., ShaK. e.g., where [the Judge] knows that he has become well disposed towards this [donor].12Tur — G. And even if the Judge did not become well disposed towards him, only that he has a feeling that the claimant sent him the gift on account of the lawsuit, the Judge is legally forbidden to sit in judgment (BaḤ) — P.Tesh.