ב"ה
Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day
Sanhedrin veha’Onashin haMesurin lahem - Chapter 8
Sanhedrin veha’Onashin haMesurin lahem - Chapter 8
1When a court reaches a split decision - some say that the defendant is not liable, and others say that he is liable, we follow the majority. This is a positive mitzvah of Scriptural origin,1 as Exodus 23:2 states: “Follow after the inclination of the majority.”2אבֵּית דִּין שֶׁנֶּחְלְקוּ, מִקְצָתָן אוֹמְרִים זַכַּאי וּמִקְצָתָן אוֹמְרִים חַיָּב - הוֹלְכִין אַחַר הָרֹב, וְזוֹ מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁל תּוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "אַחֲרֵי רַבִּים לְהַטֹּת" (שמות כג, ב).
When does the above apply? With regard to financial matters and with regard to laws involving questions of what is forbidden and what is permitted, what is impure and what is pure, and the like.בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בְּדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת וּבִשְׁאָר דִּינֵי אִסּוּר וְהֶתֵּר וְטָמֵא וְטָהוֹר וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן.
With regard to cases involving capital punishment, different laws apply if there is a difference of opinion whether the transgressor should be executed or not.3 If the majority rule to exonerate him, he is exonerated. If, however, the majority rules that he is guilty, he should not be executed until there are at least two more judges who hold him guilty than who exonerate him.אֲבָל בְּדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, אִם נֶחְלְקוּ בְּזֶה הַחוֹטֵא אִם יֵהָרֵג אוֹ לֹא יֵהָרֵג: אִם הָיוּ הָרֹב מְזַכִּים – זַכַּאי, וְאִם הָיוּ הָרֹב מְחַיְּבִין - אֵינוֹ נֶהֱרָג עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ הַמְחַיְּבִין יָתֵר עַל הַמְּזַכִּים שְׁנַיִם.
According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that the Torah warned against this, saying ibid.: “Do not follow the majority to do harm.”4מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ, שֶׁעַל זֶה הִזְהִיר בַּתּוֹרָה וְאָמַר "לֹא תִהְיֶה אַחֲרֵי רַבִּים לְרָעֹת" (שמות כג, ב).
That is to say that if the majority are inclined “to do harm,” i.e., to execute the defendant, you should not follow them until there is a significant inclination, and there is a majority of two judges who rule that he is guilty. This is implied by (ibid.): “to follow the inclination of the majority and influence the judgment.” A positive inclination may be made on the basis of a majority of one, a harmful inclination, on the basis of a majority of two. All of these concepts are based on the Oral Tradition.כְּלוֹמַר אִם הָיוּ הָרֹב נוֹטִין לְרָעָה, לַהֲרֹג - לֹא תִהְיֶה אַחֲרֵיהֶם, עַד שֶׁיַּטּוּ הַטָּיָה גְּדוֹלָה וְיוֹסִיפוּ הַמְחַיְּבִין שְׁנַיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "לִנְטֹת אַחֲרֵי רַבִּים לְהַטֹּת" (שם) - הַטָּיָתְךָ לְטוֹבָה עַל פִּי אֶחָד, וּלְרָעָה עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם. וְכָל אֵלּוּ הַדְּבָרִים קַבָּלָה הֵם.
2The following laws apply when there is a difference of opinion within a court of three judges with regard to a monetary issue: If two say the defendant’s claim should be vindicated and one says that he is liable, his claim is vindicated. If two say that he is liable and one says his claim should be vindicated, he is held liable.בבֵּית דִּין שֶׁל שְׁלוֹשָׁה שֶׁנֶּחְלְקוּ: שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים זַכַּאי, וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר חַיָּב - הֲרֵי זֶה זַכַּאי; שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים חַיָּב, וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר זַכַּאי, הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב.
If one says that his claim should be vindicated and one says he is liable, or two say that his claim should be vindicated or that he is liable and the third judge says: “I do not know,” we add5 another two6 judges. Thus five judges debate the matter.7אֶחָד אוֹמֵר זַכַּאי וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר חַיָּב, וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ, אוֹ שֶׁאָמְרוּ שְׁנַיִם זַכַּאי אוֹ חַיָּב, וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁי אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ - יוֹסִיפוּ שְׁנַיִם. נִמְצְאוּ חֲמִשָּׁה נוֹשְׂאִין וְנוֹתְנִין בַּדָּבָר.
If three say the defendant’s claim should be vindicated and two say8 that he is liable, his claim is vindicated. If three say that he is liable and two say his claim should be vindicated, he is held liable.אָמְרוּ שְׁלוֹשָׁה מֵהֶם זַכַּאי וּשְׁנַיִם חַיָּב, הֲרֵי זֶה זַכַּאי; אָמְרוּ שְׁלוֹשָׁה חַיָּב וּשְׁנַיִם זַכַּאי, הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב.
If two say that his claim should be vindicated and two say he is liable, and the fifth judge says: “I do not know,” we add another two judges.אָמְרוּ שְׁנַיִם זַכַּאי וּשְׁנַיִם חַיָּב, וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ - מוֹסִיפִין שְׁנַיִם.
If, however, four say his claim should be vindicated or that he is liable and one says: “I don’t know,” or three say his claim should be vindicated and one says that he is liable, and the fifth says: “I don’t know,” we follow the majority.9 This applies whether the judge who says: “I don’t know” is the same who said “I don’t know” at the outset or another individual.אֲבָל אִם אָמְרוּ אַרְבָּעָה זַכַּאי אוֹ חַיָּב, וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ, אוֹ שֶׁאָמְרוּ שְׁלוֹשָׁה זַכַּאי וְאֶחָד חַיָּב, וְאָמַר אֶחָד אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ - בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה זֶה שֶׁאָמַר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ הוּא שֶׁאָמַר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ בַּתְּחִלָּה, בֵּין שֶׁאָמַר אַחֵר - הוֹלְכִים אַחַר הָרֹב.
If, in this situation as well, the opinions are evenly balanced and one says: “I don’t know,” or in any situation that there is a doubt, we continue to add two more judges until we reach 71 judges.10הָיוּ מֶחֱצָה לְמֶחֱצָה, וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ - הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מוֹסִיפִין שְׁנַיִם אֲחֵרִים; וְכֵן אִם נִסְתַּפֵּק הַדָּבָר - מוֹסִיפִין וְהוֹלְכִין עַד שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד.
If, after reaching 71, the issue is still unresolved, i.e., 35 hold him liable, 35 wish to vindicate his claim and one says: “I don’t know,” they debate the matter until the judge who has not made up his mind sides with one of the opinions and thus there will be 36 who vindicate him or 36 who hold him liable.הִגִּיעוּ לְשִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד, וְאָמְרוּ חֲמִשָּׁה וּשְׁלוֹשִׁים חַיָּב וַחֲמִשָּׁה וּשְׁלוֹשִׁים זַכַּאי, וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ - נוֹשְׂאִין וְנוֹתְנִין עִמּוֹ עַד שֶׁיַחֲזֹר לְדִבְרֵי הַצַּד הָאֶחָד, וְנִמְצְאוּ שִׁשָּׁה וּשְׁלוֹשִׁים מְזַכִּין אוֹ מְחַיְּבִין.
If neither that judge nor another11 changes his opinion, the matter remains unresolved and the money is allowed to remain in the possession of its owner.12וְאִם לֹא חָזַר, לֹא הוּא וְלֹא אֶחָד מֵהֶן - הֲרֵי הַדָּבָר סָפֵק, וּמַעֲמִידִין אֶת הַמָּמוֹן בְּחֶזְקַת בְּעָלָיו.
3Whenever a judge says: “I don’t know,” he is not13 required to explain the rationale for his statements and explain the reason why he is in doubt. In contrast, a judge who rules that a litigant’s claim is vindicated must state why he vindicates the claim, or if he holds him liable, he must state why he holds him liable.14גכָּל מִי שֶׁאָמַר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ - אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִתֵּן טַעַם לִדְבָרָיו וּלְהוֹדִיעַ מֵאֵיזֶה טַעַם בָּא לוֹ הַסָּפֵק, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמַּרְאֶה הַמְּזַכֶּה מֵאֵיזֶה טַעַם מְזַכֶּה, וְהַמְּחַיֵּב מֵאֵיזֶה טַעַם מְחַיֵּב.
Footnotes
1.
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 175) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzyah 78) count this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
2.
See Hilchot Mamrim 1:3 which describes the process of reaching a majority decision.
3.
See Chapter 5, Halachah 3, where this subject is also discussed.
4.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 282) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 76) count this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
5.
Since the third judge says that he does not know, it is considered as if he is not present.
6.
An even number of judges is always added so that there will not be an even number of judges sitting on the court. Although the judge who says “I don’t know” is considered as if he is not present, he is not disqualified from the court. Instead, he can change his mind at any time. Thus if only one judge were added, it would be possible that the court would ultimately be evenly balanced (Radbaz).
7.
Rav Moshe Cohen (as quoted by the Kessef Mishneh) notes that in cases involving capital punishment, a judge who says “I don’t know” is not allowed to take part in the debate further if he desires to convict the defendant. Making such a statement does not, however, prevent a judge from judging financial cases or even judging cases involving capital punishment if he discovers a rationale to exonerate the defendant.
8.
I.e., the judge who originally said: “I don’t know” now took a position.
9.
Similarly, if three hold the defendant liable, one supports his claim, and one says “I don’t know,” the defendant is held liable.
If, however, two hold the defendant liable, one supports his claim and two say “I don’t know,” there is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis. The Rashba states that the defendant is held liable. Rav Shlomo Luria explains that since the Rambam counts the judges who say “I don’t know” as part of the court, the matter is considered as undecided and more judges are added. For there is not a majority of the court that holds the defendant liable.
10.
For 71, the number of judges on the Supreme Sanhedrin is the maximum number of judges that are ever included on a court.
11.
For if one of the other judges change their opinion, there will still be a majority even if the other judge remains undecided.
12.
We follow the principle: “A person who desires to expropriate property from a colleague must prove his claim.” Since the plaintiff cannot prove the validity of his claim, for it is not supported by the majority of judges, the money is allowed to remain in the possession of the defendant.
13.
In the Yemenite manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah, the version is “Whenever a judge says: ‘I don’t know,’ he is required... to explain the reason why he is in doubt, just like [a judge] who rules that [a litigant’s claim] is vindicated must state why he vindicates [the claim].” This version allows for an easier flow of the Hebrew. The commentaries and the Slzulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 18:3) follow the version stated in the standard printed text.
14.
See Chapter 10, Halachot 1,4.
Rabbi Eliyahu Touger is a noted author and translator, widely published for his works on Chassidut and Maimonides.
Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved.
To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.
To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.
The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard.
Vowelized Hebrew text courtesy Torat Emet under CC 2.5 license.
The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard.
