Halakhah sa Habakuk 2:19: Shulchan Arukh, Choshen Mishpat

Whoever appoints an unworthy Judge,¹San. 7b; A.Z. 52a: ‘Resh Lakish stated: Whoever appoints an unworthy Judge over the community is as though he planted an Ashera in Israel, for it is written, Judges and officers shalt thou appoint thee, and near it is said, Thou shalt not plant thee an Ashera of any kind of tree (Deut. XVI, 18-19).’ Tree refers to a Judge. , Ta‘an. 7a to Deut. XX, 19. or²Lit. ‘and,’ which is to be understood here not as the Waw explicativum (as the English ‘to wit’), but rather as the Waw copulativum that introduces an alternate item, i.e., having the meaning of ‘or.’ , Kimḥi’s Heb. Gram., ed. Chomsky p. 352. Hence, the meaning here is a) One must not appoint an unworthy Judge, i.e., one who is unworthy in his deeds or actions, though he may be a scholar, or b) One who is not a scholar, though he is considered worthy in deeds (-a totally pleasant individual, i.e., outwardly his actions are becoming). The ruling supra § 3 that even if one of the Judges is versed in law and is endowed with reasoning power, it suffices, has reference only to ex post facto decisions. However, in the first instance, the Judges who are appointed permanently must be versed in the law. , supra § 3, n. 42. one who has no knowledge in the wisdom of the Torah and is not fit to be a Judge,³San. 7b: ‘The members of the Nasi’s household once appointed a Judge who was incompetent. The Rabbis said to R. Judah b. Naḥmani, the interpreter of Resh Lakish: Stand at his side as interpreter. When he stood at his side and bent down (to hear what he was saying), the (interpreter) said nothing. Whereupon R. Judah commenced his exposition and said, Woe unto him who saith unto wood: Awake! — to the dumb stone: Arise! Can this teach? Behold it is overlaid with gold and silver and there is no breath at all in the midst of it (Hab. II, 19); but the Holy One, blessed be He, (he continued) will punish those who set them up, as it is written, But the Lord in His holy Temple; let all the earth keep silence before Him (ibid.).’ — even if he is a totally pleasant [individual]⁴e., he is full of charm. , Song of Songs V, 16. and possesses other good [qualities], — [yet,] the one who appointed him transgresses a negative precept.⁵Sifre XVII to Deut. I, 17, Ye shall not respect persons in judgment, i.e., one must not respect his friend by appointing him as a Judge because the latter is wealthy, or is a relative of his or for any other similar reason. Cf. Yad, Sanhedrin III, 8. Gloss: It is forbidden to appoint an unlearned person [as] a Judge on reliance that [in every legal matter] he will always consult a scholar.⁶B.Yos. — G. Derived from Shab. 139a: ‘What is the meaning of the verse, The Lord hath broken the staff of the wicked, the sceptre of the rulers? (Is. XIV, 5). Mar Zutra said. This refers to scholars who teach the laws of the public to ignorant Judges,’ i.e., the ignorant Judges are appointed in reliance that they will consult the scholars in doubtful matters, but they act of their own accord and thus pervert justice (Rashi). Hence, we see that an ignorant Judge should not be appointed on the reliance that he will always consult the scholar. [In] towns where there are no scholars [available] who are fit to be Judges, or where all of them are unlearned people and they require Judges to adjudicate [cases] among them so that they go not before heathen Courts, — [the law is that] they may appoint [as Judges] the best and the wisest of them with the consent of the townspeople, although they are not fit [to be] Judges.⁷Mishna San. 23a according to which R. Meir holds that each litigant may refuse to accept the Judge chosen by the other and the Gemara (ibid.) explains that R. Meir maintains thus only in the case of Syrian Courts whose Judges were unversed in Jewish law; but the Sages hold that if they are fit, they are regarded as Mumḥin appointed by the Beth Din and cannot be disqualified, i.e., since they were accepted by all the townspeople as Judges they may not be disqualified, provided there are no Mumḥin available there. , supra § 3, n. 4. However, once the townspeople accepted them [as Judges] no other person can disqualify them.⁸, previous note. Likewise, [the members of] an entire community can accept a Court of Law [that consists of Judges] who are not fit [to judge] Biblically.⁹B.Yos. on the authority of RaShBA, Resp. — G. , infra § 33, 18 Gloss. And every Judge who gets appointed on account of silver or gold, — [the law is that] it is forbidden to rise before him;¹⁰Caro’s text has לפניו which should be corrected to מפניו. Thus Y. , following note. and what is more, it is a religious duty to treat him with disrespect and to despise him.¹¹ supra § 3 end — G. Yad, Sanhedrin III, 9; Tur. Derived from Y. Bik. III, 3(65d); Midr. Sam. VII: ‘R. Mani spoke with disrespect of those that get appointed to office for money. R. Imi would apply to them the Scriptural verse, gods of silver, or gods of gold, ye shall not make unto you (Ex. XX, 20). Said R. Joshiah: His official cloak is as befitting to him as the packsaddle of an ass. Said R. Sheyan: For one who is appointed to office on account of money, one should not rise, nor is he called Rabbi etc.’ , San. 7b: ‘It is written: Ye shall not make with Me gods of silver or gods of gold (Ex. ibid.). Does it mean that only gods of silver and gold are not to be made, but those of wood are permissible? — The verse, said R. Ashi, has reference to Judges appointed through the power of silver or gold.’ Cf. San. 63b: ‘All scoffing is forbidden except the ridiculing of idols (by perverting their names).’ Hence, just as idolators may be treated irreverently, so also Judges who are appointed through the power of money. This refers to a Judge unversed in Jewish Law, but if he is learned in the Torah, even if there are others greater than he in that city, there would be no prohibition against rising in his presence, provided he did not buy his judgeship for money, but was appointed to office because he was wealthy. For if he paid money to be appointed, even if he is the most learned in the city, the prohibition stands. Thus BaḤ. However, according to Tosaf. Yeshanim to Yoma 18a, s.v. מרתא in the case of R. Joshua b. Gamala who was appointed to the High Priesthood for money, only if there are others superior to him in learning does the prohibition apply, but not otherwise. Thus Ḥatam Sofer contra BaḤ.