Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

It is forbidden for a judge to assert himself in a lordly and haughty manner over his community. Instead, he should conduct himself with humility and awe. Any leader who casts unnecessary fear upon the community not for the sake of heaven will be punished. And he will not see a son who is a Torah scholar, as implied by a non-literal reading of Job 37:24: "Therefore people fear him - he will never see anyone with a wise heart."

Similarly, a judge may not treat them with capriciousness even though they are common people. He should not step over the heads of the holy people. Even though they are simple people and lowly, they are the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and the hosts of God whom He led out of Egypt with great power and a strong hand. He should patiently bear the difficulty of the community and their burden like Moses our teacher, as Numbers 11:12 states concerning him: "As a nursemaid will carry an infant." And Deuteronomy 1:16 states: "And I commanded your judges." This is an admonition to the judges to bear the community like a nursemaid carries an infant.

Take an example from Moses, the master of all prophets whom the Holy One, blessed be He, sent to Egypt, about whom Exodus 6:12 states: "And I commanded them concerning the children of Israel." The Oral Tradition relates that God told Moses and Aaron to accept this mission even though the people would curse them and stone them.

Just as a judge is commanded to fulfill this mitzvah; so, too, the community is commanded to show honor to a judge, as Deuteronomy 1:18 states: "And I commanded you...." This is a command to the community that they should treat a judge with awe. He should not act in a demeaning manner in their presence, nor should he conduct himself in a frivolous manner.

When a person is given a position of leadership over the community, he is forbidden to perform work in the presence of three people, lest he be demeaned in their eyes. Now if performing work in public is forbidden to him, certainly, it is forbidden for him to eat and drink or to become intoxicated in the presence of people at large and in the gatherings of the common people and in friendly get-togethers. Woe to those judges who conduct themselves in this manner, disgracing the Torah of Moses. They debase its judgments and lower them to the earth, casting them in the dust, bringing about harm to them and their descendants in this world and in the world to come.

It is forbidden to conduct oneself capriciously in relation to the agent sent by the court. For the word of the court's agent is accepted as that of two witnesses with regard to the question of ostracism. Were he to say: "So-and-so disgraced me," "...disgraced the judge," or "...refused to appear in court," that person is ostracized on the basis of his statements. We do not, however, have a document recording the ban of ostracism composed until two witness come and testify that he refused to appear in the court.

An agent of the court is not liable for relating unfavorable gossip for telling the court about these matters. Whenever anyone causes aggravation to the agent of the court, the court has the license to have "stripes for rebellious conduct" administered to him.

When the agent of the court orders a person to appear in court, saying: "So-and-so sent me," and mentioning the name of only one of the judges, a document declaring his ostracism cannot be composed against the litigant unless the agent summons him in the name of all three judges.

When does the above apply? When the agent went and conveyed this message on a day on which it was not known that the court to hold session. On a day on which it is known to hold session, by contrast, everyone knows that all of the judges gather together. Even though the agent came and conveyed the message in the name of only one judge, it is as if he came in the name of all three.

When a person is summoned by the court and does not appear in court, a ban of ostracism is pronounced against him. This ban is recorded in a legal document; he is liable to pay the fee of the scribe who composes the document. When he comes to court, this document is torn.

If such a document was composed because a litigant did not accept a judgment, it may be torn up when he states that he is willing to accept it. When a court summons a litigant to appear on a certain day and he does not appear at all that day, a document recording the ban of ostracism is composed that evening.

When does the above apply? When he lived in the city and stubbornly refused to come. If, however, he lived in the outlying villages and would go in and go out from the city at times, we summon him to appear in court on Monday, Thursday, and the following Monday. If the second Monday passes without him appearing, we do not compose a ban of ostracism until the following day.

We do not summon a person to court during the month of Nissan, nor during the month of Tishrei, because the people are occupied with the preparations for the festivals. Nor is a summons issued for Friday, or for the day preceding a festival. We do, however, issue a summons in Nissan, for him to appear after Nissan, and a summons in Tishrei, for him to appear after Tishrei. We do not, however, issue a summons on Friday for a litigant to appear after the Sabbath. The rationale is that everyone is busy on Friday.

When a person was located in a city and the agent of the court went to summon him, but could not find him, a court date is not set until the agent finds him and conveys this information.

Different rules apply if he lives in a village outside the city. If he is accustomed to coming on that day, the agent may tell one of his neighbors, even a woman: "If so-and-so comes, inform him that the court summoned him to appear at this time." If he does not come that day, he is placed under a ban of ostracism that evening.

When does the above apply? When the way which he is wont to follow does not pass the place of the court. If, however, his path passes the court, he is not placed under a ban of ostracism until the agent notifies him himself. For perhaps the neighbors will not notify him. For they will rationalize: "His path passes past the entrance to the court. Certainly, he visited them and was released." Similarly, if he will not come into the city until the following day, we do not rely on the neighbors, for perhaps they will forget and fail to notify him.

The following laws apply when a person comes to the court and accepts the judgment issued against him, he is told to make financial restitution, but does not do so. He is not placed under a ban of ostracism until he is given a warning on Monday, Thursday, and the following Monday. If he does not pay by that time, he is placed under a ban of ostracism until he pays what he is liable. If he waits 30 days and does not seek to have the ban of ostracism lifted, he is excommunicated.

Anyone who curses one of the judges of Israel transgresses a negative commandment, as Exodus 22:27 states: "Do not curse a judge." Similarly, if a person curses a nasi, whether the head of the Supreme Sanhedrin or a king, he transgresses a negative commandment, as the verse continues: "Do not curse a prince among your nation."

This prohibition does not apply only to a judge or a nasi. Instead, anyone who curses any other Jew receives lashes, as Leviticus 19:14 states: "Do not curse a deaf-mute." Why does the verse mention a deaf-mute? To teach you that even when a person who cannot hear and thus will not be bothered by being cursed, the person pronouncing the curse is lashed. It appears to me that a person who curses a child who is embarrassed receives lashes; the child resembles a deaf-mute.

A person who curses a deceased person is not liable.

Since a person who curses any Jewish person is liable, why did the Torah set aside a special prohibition for a judge and for a nasi? For the person to be liable for two transgressions. Thus we learn that a person who curses any Jew, whether a man, woman, or child receives one set of lashes. If he curses a judge, he receives two sets of lashes. If he curses a nasi, he receives three sets of lashes. And if the son of a nasi curses his father, he is liable for four transgression, the three for which all others are liable and one for cursing his father.

A person who curses himself receives lashes just as one who curses others, as Deuteronomy 4:9 states: "Take heed and guard your soul."

Whether a person curses himself, a colleague, a nasi, or a judge, he does not receive lashes unless he curses using one of God's names: Yaw, Elohim, Shaddai, or the like, or with one of the descriptive terms used to characterize God, e.g., the Merciful One, the Vengeful One, or the like. Since a person is liable if he cursed a colleague with any of these descriptive terms, he is also liable if he cursed him in any other language. For the names with which the gentiles refer to the Holy One, blessed be He, are comparable to all of these descriptive terms.

The term arur ("cursed") can imply an oath, a curse, and a ban of ostracism.

A person is not punished by lashing unless he is given a warning in the presence of two witnesses as applies with regard to the transgression of any other negative commandment. If, however, a warning was not issued, a curse was uttered without mentioning God's name or a descriptive term, e.g., he said merely: "Cursed be so-and-so," the curse was uttered indirectly, e.g., he said: "May so-and-so not be blessed unto God," or "May God not bless so-and-so," or the like, he is not lashed.

Even though he is not lashed, a person who curses a Torah scholar is placed under a ban of ostracism. And if the judges desire to have "stripes for rebellious conduct" administered to him, they can have him beaten and punished as they see fit, for he disgraced a learned elder.

If he denounces a common person, the judges may punish him as they see necessary according to the needs of the situation, depending on the person who gave the verbal abuse and the one who receives it.

Although a judge or a nasi has the right to look past affronts to his honor, he cannot look past being cursed. Similarly, with regard to other people, even though the person who was cursed is prepared to look past the matter, the person who uttered the curse is lashed, for he committed a transgression and incurred liability.

If, however, a person is obligated to be placed under a ban of ostracism, because he conducted himself in an unbridled manner in court, and the judges desire to look past the affront to their honor and not impose a ban of ostracism, they have that license, provided it will not lead to a decline in the honor of the Creator. For example, people at large were repudiating the words of the Torah and the judges. Since the people overstepped the bounds, the court must act firmly and punish as they see necessary.

When any person has a judgment adjudicated by gentile judges and their courts, he is considered a wicked person. It is as if he disgraced, blasphemed, and lifted up his hand against the Torah of Moses our teacher. This applies even if their laws are the same as the laws of the Jewish people. This is indicated by Exodus 21:1: "These are the judgments that you shall place before them." "Before them" and not before gentiles; "before them" and not before ordinary people.

The following procedure should be carried out if the gentiles have a powerful law enforcement system and the opposing litigant is a stubborn and powerful person from whom one cannot expropriate property through the judicial system of the Jewish people. One should summon him before the Jewish judges first. If he did not desire to come, one may receive license from the court and salvage one's property from the litigant by having the case tried in a gentile court.

Blessed be God who grants assistance.

Introduction to Hilchos Edut

These laws contain 8 mitzvot: Three positive commandments and five negative commandments. They are:

1. For a person who knows testimony to testify in court,
2. To question and interrogate the witnesses,
3. For a witness who testified in a case involving capital punishment not to serve as a judge,
4. Not to carry out a judgment based on the testimony of one witness,
5. Not to accept a person who is a transgressor as a witness,
6. Not to accept a relative as a witness,
7. Not to testify falsely,
8. To punish an ed zomaim in the manner he wished to have the defendant punished,

The explanation of these mitzvot is found in the coming chapters.

A witness is commanded to testify in court with regard to all pertinent testimony that he knows. This applies both to testimony that will cause his colleague to be held liable or testimony that will vindicate him. With regard to financial cases, this applies only when he is summoned to testify. The source for this commandment is Leviticus 5:1: "And should he witness, see, or know of the matter, if he does not testify, he will bear his sin."

If the witness was a wise man of great stature and the judges of the court did not possess the same degree of wisdom, he may refrain from testifying. The rationale is that it is not becoming to his dignity for him to go to testify before them. Hence, the positive commandment of honoring the Torah takes precedence.

When does the above apply? With regard to testimony concerning financial matters. With regard to testimony that safeguards a person from a prohibition, by contrast, or testimony in cases involving capital punishment or lashes, he must go and testify. This is derived from Proverbs 21:30: "There is no wisdom or understanding... before God." Implied is that whenever the desecration of God's name is involved, honor is not granted to a master.

A High Priest is not obligated to testify. An exception is made only with regard to matters involving a king. In such an instance, he should go to the High Court and testify. With regard to other testimony, he is not obligated.

It is a positive commandment to question the witness and to interrogate them, asking many questions and weighing their replies exactingly. They should divert their attention from one matter to another while questioning them, so that they will refrain from speaking or retract their testimony if there appear to be flaws in it, as Deuteronomy 13:15 states: "And you shall inquire and research thoroughly."

The judges must show extreme care when questioning the witnesses, lest from their questions the witnesses learn to lie. They ask them seven questions:

a) In which seven year cycle the event occurred?

b) In which year?

c) In which month?

d) On which day of the month?

e) On which day of the week?

f) At what time?

g) In which place?

Even if a witness says: "He killed him today," or "He killed him yesterday," we ask him all the above questions. In addition to these seven questions which are asked universally, the judges inquire into the fundamental issues involved. For example, if the witnesses testify that a person worshipped false deities, the judges ask them: "Which deity did he worship?" "What service did he perform?" If they testified that he desecrated the Sabbath, the judges ask them: "Which forbidden labor did he perform?" "How did he perform it?" If they testify that he ate on Yom Kippur, the judges ask them: "Which food did he eat?" "How much did he eat?" If they testified that he killed someone, the judges ask them: "With what did he kill him?" Inquiries of this type are considered as fundamental questions (chakirot).

The derishot and the chakirot involve the matters that constitute the essence of the testimony. On their basis, the person will either be held liable or released. They include defining the deed that was performed, the time when it was performed, and the place where it was performed. On these basis, the testimony of the witnesses will or will not be refuted through hazamah. For we cannot refute the testimony of the witnesses unless they define the time and place of the deed involved.

In addition, the judges question the witnesses exceedingly with regard to matters that do not involve the fundamental aspects of the testimony and their testimony is not dependent on them. These questions are called bedikot. The more a judge questions the witnesses with bedikot, the more praiseworthy it is.

What are examples of bedikot? Witnesses testified that a person killed a colleague. The witnesses were questioned with the seven chakirot which we mentioned which define the time and the place of the act. Similarly, they were interrogated with regard to the deed and they defined the deed and the murder weapon. The judges continue to interrogate them. They ask: What were the murderer and the victim wearing, white clothes or black clothes? Was the earth where he was killed white or red? These and similar questions are called bedikot.

An incident once occurred when witnesses stated that a murder took place under a fig tree. The judges questioned the witnesses: "Were the figs black or white?", "Were their stems long or short?" The more a judge questions the witnesses with bedikot like these, the more praiseworthy it is.