Sanhedrin 6b (ו:) — the Talmud in English

Once the judgment has been concluded,

when the arbitrators have said : “So-and-so, you are acquitted, and so-and-so, you are liable” —

you may no longer arbitrate.

The Gemara gives a mnemonic for the continuation of the baraita:

SaRaMSh BeNeKaSh is the mnemonic

Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean, says: It is forbidden to arbitrate

Once the case has come before judges, they are forbidden to arbitrate; rather, they must issue a ruling according to the law.

And every

judge

who arbitrates is a sinner.

And whoever blesses

praises

the arbitrator —

he blasphemes

God.

And concerning this

judge

it is stated: “He who takes illicit gain blesses himself; he blasphemes the Lord.”

The verse is expounded as follows: “He who takes illicit gain blesses himself”—one who blesses the arbitrator is thereby one who “blasphemes the Lord.”

Rather,

when two litigants come,

“Let the judgment pierce the mountain,” as it is stated: “For the judgment is God’s”; and Moses, too,

would

say: “Let the judgment pierce the mountain.”

But Aaron

was

a lover of peace, a pursuer of peace, and one who made peace between people and their fellows

For if he heard that there was a dispute between litigants, he would pursue them and establish peace between them before they came to judgment,

as it is stated

concerning Aaron: “For the lips of a koen should guard knowledge;

the Torah of truth was in his mouth,

and injustice was not found on his lips; he walked with Me in peace and uprightness, and turned many away from sin.”

The baraita continues with another exposition of the verse, “He who takes illicit gain blesses himself; he blasphemes the Lord”:

Rabbi Eliezer says:

There is a case where

a person

stole a se’a

of wheat, ground it, baked it, and separated hallah from it. How can he recite the blessing

“Who sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us concerning the separation of hallah”?

He is not blessing

God,

but blaspheming Him.

And concerning

this person

it is stated: “

He who takes illicit gain blesses himself

[one who blesses over an arbitration—which is an expression for theft, as it is written, “So are the ways of everyone who takes illicit gain; it takes the life of its owners”—he thereby

blasphemes the Lord.”’

The Gemara brings another exposition of the verse: “He who takes illicit gain blesses himself; he blasphemes the Lord.”

Rabbi Meir says: The verse

was not stated

except with regard to Judah,

as it is stated:

“And Judah said to

his brothers: What profit is there if we kill our brother and conceal his blood?

Let us go and sell him to the Ishmaelites.” The meaning of the verse is: “He who takes illicit gain blesses himself”:

Whoever blesses Judah

for what he said, “What profit is there,”

he

is

blaspheming,

for he should have said that Joseph must be returned to his father, since his words would have been heeded by his brothers.

And concerning this,

the one who blesses him,

it is stated: “He who takes illicit gain blesses himself; he blasphemes the Lord.”

Thus far we have learned the opinion of the one who says, “It is forbidden to arbitrate.”

But

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korha says: It is a mitzva to arbitrate, as it is stated: “Truth, justice, and peace judge in your gates.”

The words of the verse apparently contradict one another:

Is it not so that wherever there is judgment—

there is no peace, and wherever there is peace—

there is no judgment?

Rather, the explanation is:

What is a judgment that contains peace? You must say: This is arbitration.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korha offers another exposition demonstrating that it is a mitzva to arbitrate:

And similarly, concerning David, it says,

the verse praises David:

“And David performed judgment and charity

for all his people.” The wording of this verse also appears contradictory:

Is it not so that wherever there is judgment—

there is no charity, and

wherever there is

charity—

there is no judgment? Rather,

the explanation of the verse is:

What is a judgment that contains charity? You must say: This is arbitration.

What will the first tanna, who holds that it is forbidden to arbitrate, answer concerning the meaning of the verse, which implies that David performed arbitration?

The baraita answers that this tanna expounded the verse in another manner.

We have arrived at the first tanna:

The following exposition reflects the view of the first tanna, who holds that arbitration is forbidden: When King David

judged the case, acquitted the one who was entitled to acquittal, and found the liable party liable

according to the strict law,

and saw

David

that a poor man had been found liable in the case

and had no means to pay,

he paid him

David

from his own household, and this is “judgment and charity”—

judgment for one and charity for the other.

That is:

judgment for one

for the one who was victorious in the case,

for he returned to him the money

that was due to him according to the strict law,

and charity for the other

the poor man who had been found liable,

for he paid him from his own household.

Rabbi raises an objection to this exposition:

Rabbi found this difficult: What does “for all his people” mean?

Does this qualify as performing charity for all his people? Charity

“for the poor”

should have been what the verse stated.

Rather,

Rabbi says:

Even

though

he did not pay from his own household, this is “judgment and charity,” judgment for one and charity for the other: judgment for the one to whom he returned his money, and charity for the other—

for he removed stolen property from his possession,

and saved him from the prohibition against theft.

Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: If two people come before you for judgment—

before you have heard their arguments, or after you have heard their arguments but you do not know toward which side the law tends—

you may say to them: “Go out and arbitrate,”

but

after you have heard their arguments and you know toward which side the law tends—

you may not say to them: “Go out and arbitrate,” as it is stated: “He who releases water begins a quarrel; and before the dispute becomes exposed, abandon it.”

If you have come to release and cast off the quarrel [which is compared to water,] release it at the beginning of the quarrel, before you know toward which side the law tends. And it is expounded:

Before the quarrel becomes exposed

[like “becomes revealed”]

you may abandon it

and pursue peace, but

once the quarrel has become exposed, you may not abandon it.

Reish Lakish

[some versions read: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Lakish or Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish]

said: If two people come to judgment, one compliant and one difficult,

the latter being quarrelsome and troublesome to the judges,

before you have heard

their arguments, or after you have heard their arguments but you do not know toward which side the law tends—

you may say to them: “I will not involve myself with you,”

because the judge is afraid

that perhaps

the litigant

who is powerful will be found liable and, as a result, the powerful man will pursue him,

the judge. Therefore, it is permitted for him to evade the case. But

after you have heard their arguments and you know toward which side the law tends,

even though he sees that the law tends against the difficult litigant,

you may not

evade the case

and say to them, “I will not involve myself with you,” as it is stated: “You shall not fear any man.”

The Torah commands the judges not to fear any person.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korha expounds the verse, “You shall not fear any man,” from the language of entering, meaning the entry of words—silence.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korha says: From where

do we know this law:

Concerning a student who sits before his master

and a case comes before his master,

and he sees a merit for the poor man and a liability for the wealthy man

while his master is mistaken in the law,

from where

do we know

that he should not remain silent,

out of deference to his master, but should express his opinion?

As it is stated: “You shall not fear any man,” and Rabbi Hanin said

[some versions read: Rabbi Hanan says]:

Do not suppress your words because of any man.

They expound the verse from the language of “storing,” meaning bringing in.

The baraita continues by warning the witnesses that the fear of Heaven must be upon their faces—

And the witnesses should know before Whom they testify

that it is as though they testify against the Holy One, blessed be He, forcing Him—as it were—to return money to its rightful owners. And the witnesses should further know

before Whom they testify,

for God stands in the divine congregation. And the witnesses should further know

Who will ultimately exact retribution from them,

for the Holy One, blessed be He, will ultimately exact retribution from them when they testify falsely,

as it is stated: “And the two men to whom the dispute belongs shall stand

[that is, the witnesses]

before the Lord.”

The judges, too, are admonished:

And the judges should know whom they are judging, and before Whom they are judging, and who will ultimately exact payment from them, as it is stated: “God stands in the divine congregation” .

And concerning Jehoshaphat

king of Judah,

he says: “And he said to the judges: See what you are doing, for you do not judge for man, but for the Lord

who is with you in the matter of judgment.”

Lest the judge say: What concern is it of mine

to enter

into this distress,

for if I err, I will be punished—

the verse states: “who is with you in the matter of judgment”:

according to what is with you—that is, according to where your heart inclines, based on the claims of the litigants—according to those matters you shall judge, and you will not be punished, for

a judge has no reason

to fear punishment and refrain from judging,

but according to what his eyes see

to be the truth and justice, so shall he judge, and he need not fear punishment.

At the beginning of the beraita, the first tanna said: “Once the judgment has been concluded, you are no longer permitted to effect a compromise.” The Gemara now explains what is called “the conclusion of the judgment".

What are the circumstances of the conclusion of the judgment,

what is called “the conclusion of the judgment"?

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said:

when the judge has already said:

“So-and-so, you are liable; so-and-so, you are זכאי” .

After the Mishna has presented several opinions concerning compromise, the Gemara now comes to establish the halakha.

Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korha

who holds that “it is a mitzva to effect a compromise".

The Gemara raises an objection—

That cannot be

for Rav does not hold this way. And why?

But Rav

Huna was Rav’s student,

he was Rav’s disciple, and certainly ruled in accordance with his opinion.

And when

litigants

would come before Rav Huna, he would say to them

and ask the litigants:

“Do you want a judgment

—do you want a judgment?

Or do you want a compromise?”

or do you want a compromise? Thus, evidently, it is not a mitzva.

The Gemara resolves that this is not a contradiction: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korha as well, who holds that “it is a mitzva to effect a compromise,” means that it is a mitzva to offer the litigants the choice of whether they want a judgment or a compromise.