Halakhah sa Jeremias 28:6: Shulchan Arukh, Choshen Mishpat

Although a Court of Law of three is considered complete, — [yet], whenever they [the Judges] are many it is regarded as praiseworthy and it is better that the law be decided²⁹The translation follows Maim. and Tur who have שיחתך in the Niph‘al form. Caro has שיחתוך in the Kal which is incorrect. by eleven than by ten [Judges].³⁰San. 7b: ‘Whenever a case was presented to R. Huna he used to call a meeting and gather ten scholars in order, as he put it, that each of them carry off a chip of the beam’ (i.e., share the responsibility with him). Thus also Yad, Sanhedrin II, 13 and Tur a.l. When the Judges are many, they all examine the case very carefully and there is a better chance for a correct decision to be reached. Actually the number ten mentioned here is inexact, for a Court of Law must not be comprised of an even number, for if their opinions were halved no decision could be reached. The number ten is mentioned because in the cited passage regarding R. Huna, he summoned ten scholars. However, there it means that he gathered ten authorities excluding himself — M.E. Perisha. It is required that all who sit in the Court of Law³¹e., all those who sit in judgment, but regarding a disciple who sits before his master, it is not necessary that he be a scholar. As long as he is not an uncultured person, it is permissible — M.E. be scholars and worthy [of their office].³²Sheb. 30b: ‘Our Rabbis taught: Whence do we know that a Judge should not permit an uncultured disciple to sit before him (so that he should not be misled by his erroneous opinions)? — For it is said, From a false matter keep far’ (Ex. XXIII, 7). Thus also Yad, Sanhedrin XXII, 2 and Tur a.l. Cf. infra § 7, 10; § 9, 6. It is forbidden for a wise man to sit in judgment until he knows with whom he sits lest he sit with people who are not suitable³³San. 23a: ‘The pure-minded of the people of Jerusalem would not act thus … they would not sit in judgment unless they knew who was to sit with them.’ Thus also Yad, Sanhedrin II, 14 and Tur a.l. and is [then] found to be included in a council of conspirators³⁴San. 26a (ref. to Is. VIII, 12) and as such cannot be included for the purpose of a decision. , also Yad ibid and Tur a.l. and not in a Court of Law. One who is not an authorized Judge [Mumḥeh] and the litigants did not accept him upon themselves,³⁵Thus Tur. Caro has עליו ‘upon himself,’ i.e., upon each one of the litigants. Derived from San. 6a. This has reference to one who is neither versed in the law nor possesses reasoning power. One who is versed in the law but does not possess the power of reasoning is regarded as a Mumḥeh (authoritative Judge) and if he obtains authorization (נטילת רשות) his decision is binding. But one who in addition to being versed in the law also has reasoning power, is referred to as מומחה לרבים (an authoritative Judge recognized by the public) by Maim. — M.E., Perisha. This interpretation is rejected by ShaK. , infra § 25, 3- although he obtained authorization from the Exilarch,³⁶Lit. ‘head of the Golah’ ראש הגולה. , Jer. XXVIII, 6. Likewise, if the Court of Law granted him authorization in error (v. Yad, Sanhedrin IV, 15). his decision is not binding,³⁷San. 7b regarding the case of an incompetent Judge who was appointed by the members of the Nasi’s household. Tur and Maim. (Yad, Sanhedrin VI, 4) add that if he erred and exacted money from one litigant and gave it to the other litigant, he is held liable — M.E. even if he did not err [in his ruling],³⁸San. 5a. and [consequently] each one of the litigants may, if he so desires, retract and plead [his case anew] before a [competent] Court of Law.³⁹Tur has ‘another Court of Law,’ which is incorrect, for this would imply that the first is also considered a valid Court of Law. Maim. and Caro after him omit the word אחר (another) — M.E. Cf. also Caro’s text infra § 25, Gloss: Authorization which a ruler nowadays grants [to an individual Judge] is of no consequence.⁴⁰In accord with San. 5a, Tosaf s.v. דהכא. Rashi (ibid. s.v. שרודים) however, states that the ruler’s sanction or authorization is valid. However, if the community accepted him in accord with the written decree of the ruler, he may act as Judge.⁴¹Tur — G. For we might have thought that since the people accepted him against their will, he should not be permitted to judge. We are, therefore, informed otherwise. However, if he gave an erroneous decision, he is not exempt from making restitution. Needless to say that he may judge if the community accepted him willingly without the ruler’s authorization (BaḤ) — ShaK. But if he is versed in the law and has reasoning power, their acceptance in accord with the ruler’s authorization exempts him from any liability whatsoever. Thus Tur. Not so according to Maim. who writes that the ruler’s authorization is of no conseuqence in case of an erroneous decision, even where they accepted him. Thus BaḤ. ShaK opposes BaḤ and states that no such inference may be drawn from Maim. And some say that if he [the Judge] is versed in law and possesses reasoning power, — the ruler's authorization has legal effect for him,⁴²RIBaSh s. 271 — G. For if he is unversed in law, even the Exilarch’s authorization is invalid. , supra n. 40. Although Isserles writes supra par. 2 that ‘nowadays we do not conduct proceedings of adjudication (of monetary cases by) a recognized Mumḥeh so that he judge (not) alone against the will of an individual,’ yet, if he is versed in law and has reasoning power, the ruler’s authorization qualifies him even nowadays to judge alone and to be exempt from liability in the case of error as in the case of one who obtained authorization from the Exilarch who was also appointed by the ruler — ShaK. Cf. infra § 8, 1, Gloss; supra par. 1, Gloss; infra § 25, 2, Gloss. or [likewise, the authorization of] the officer who was appointed in his town [has legal effect for him], — for this comes under the category of the law of the State,⁴³B.K. 113b. [viz.,], to appoint [as] Judges and Magistrates whomever he desires.⁴⁴They must however, be versed in the law and posses reasoning power as supra — M.E. Nevertheless, whosoever does this without the permission of the community, annoys the general public⁴⁵Ber. 55a: ‘A leader is not appointed over a community unless we first consult with it, as it says, See, the Lord hath called by name Bezalel, the son of Uri’ (Ex. XXXV, 30). One who disobeys this is subject to the ban imposed by R. Tam, RaShBaM, RABaN and their associates — Tummim, P.Tesh. and is destined to give an account [of his actions in the world to come].⁴⁶RaShBA Resp. s. 637 — G.