Sanhedrin 6b — the Talmud in English

Once the judgment has been concluded,

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

you are not permitted to compromise.

And the Gemara brings a mnemonic for the continuation of the beraita:

“SReMSh BeNeKSh” is a mnemonic

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

When the case has already come before judges, it is forbidden for them to compromise; rather, they are obligated to issue a ruling according to the law.

And every

judge

who compromises, behold, he is a sinner.

And anyone who blesses

praises

the one who compromises —

behold, he blasphemes

God.

And concerning this

judge

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

And it is expounded: “He who takes unjust gain blesses himself” — one who blesses the one who compromises, he is “he 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 so Moses

was

saying: “Let the judgment pierce the mountain.”

But Aaron

was

a lover of peace and a pursuer of peace, and one who makes peace between a person and his fellow ,

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 kohen preserve knowledge,

the Torah of truth was in his mouth,

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

And the beraita continues with another exposition of the verse, “He who takes unjust gain blesses himself; he blasphemes the Lord.”

Rabbi Eliezer says:

There is

a person

who stole a se'a

of wheat, ground it, baked it, and separated hallah from it; how does he bless

the blessing, “Who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning the separation of hallah”?

He does not bless

God

but rather blasphemes Him.

And concerning

this person

it is stated: “

He who takes unjust gain blesses himself

[one who blesses over a compromise, which is an expression of robbery, as it is written [Proverbs 1]: ‘So are the paths of everyone who takes unjust gain; it takes the life of its owners’], he is

a blasphemer of the Lord.”

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

Rabbi Meir says: The verse was stated

the verse

“He who takes unjust gain” only concerning 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’”; and the meaning of the verse is: “He who takes unjust gain blesses himself”:

And anyone who blesses Judah

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

behold,

he

is a blasphemer,

for he should have said to return Joseph 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 unjust gain blesses himself; he blasphemes the Lord.”

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

But

Rabbi Joshua ben Korha says: It is a mitzva to compromise. As it is stated: “Truth and the judgment of peace judge in your gates.”

And apparently the words of the verse contradict one another:

For 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 compromise.

And Rabbi Joshua ben Korha brings another exposition that it is a mitzva to compromise:

And likewise concerning David, it says,

the verse praises David:

“And David performed judgment and charity

for all his people”; and in this verse too there is a contradiction:

For 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 compromise.

And what will the first tanna, who holds that it is forbidden to compromise, answer concerning the meaning of the verse, which implies that David performed compromise?

And the beraita answers that this tanna expounded the verse with another exposition.

We have arrived at the first tanna

The following exposition is according to the words of the first tanna, who holds that it is forbidden to compromise: When King David

judged the case and acquitted the one who was entitled and found the liable one liable

according to the strict line of judgment,

and David saw

that

a poor man had been found liable in judgment

and had nothing with which to pay —

he paid him

David

from his own house, and this is judgment and charity —

judgment for this one and charity for that one;

that is:

judgment for this one,

for the one who won the case,

for he returned to him money

that was due to him according to the strict line of judgment,

and charity for that one,

the poor man who was found liable in judgment,

for he paid him from his own house.

Rabbi raises an objection to this exposition:

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

Is this called that he performed charity for all his people? Charity

“for the poor”

should have been stated.

Rather,

Rabbi says:

Even

though

he did not pay from his own house, this is judgment and charity: judgment for this one and charity for that one; judgment for this one, for he returned his money to him, and charity for that one —

for he removed stolen property from his possession,

and saved him from the prohibition of robbery.

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

before you have heard their words, or once you have heard their words but you do not know toward where the judgment inclines —

you are permitted to say to them: “Go out and compromise,”

but

once you have heard their words and you know toward where the judgment inclines —

you are not permitted to say to them, “Go out and compromise.” As it is stated: “He who releases water begins a quarrel, and before the quarrel breaks out, abandon it.”

If you have come to release and cast away the quarrel [which is compared to water ], release it at the beginning of the quarrel, before you know toward where the judgment inclines; and it is expounded:

Before the quarrel breaks out

[like “is revealed” ]

you can abandon it

and pursue peace, but

once the quarrel has broken out, you cannot abandon it.

Resh Lakish

[and some versions read Rabbi Joshua ben Lakish or Rabbi Judah ben Lakish]

said: If two people came to judgment, one mild and one difficult,

a quarrelsome litigant who troubles the judges,

before you have heard

their words, or once you have heard their words but you do not know toward where the judgment inclines —

you are permitted to say to them: “I am not taking up your case,”

because the judge fears

lest the litigant be found liable,

the

strong one, and it turns out that the strong one pursues him

the judge . Therefore it is permitted to evade the judgment. But

once you have heard their words and you know toward where the judgment inclines,

even though he sees that the judgment inclines against the difficult litigant,

you cannot

evade it

and say to them, “I am not taking up your case,” as it is stated: “You shall not fear any man.”

The Torah commands the judges not to fear any man.

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

Rabbi Joshua 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 merit for a poor person and liability for a wealthy person

while his master is mistaken in the law,

from where

do we know

that he should not remain silent,

out of fear of his master’s honor, but should express his opinion?

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

[and some versions read: Rabbi Hanan says]:

“Do not suppress words because of any man.”

And they expound it from the language of “gathering,” that is, entering.

And the beraita continues to warn the witnesses that fear of Heaven should be upon their faces —

And the witnesses should know whom they are testifying before,

for it is as though they are testifying against the Holy One, blessed be He, causing Him—as it were—to trouble Himself to return money to its owners; and the witnesses should further know

before whom they are testifying,

for God stands in the assembly of God; and the witnesses should further know —

and who will ultimately exact punishment from them,

for the Holy One, blessed be He, will ultimately exact punishment 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.”

And likewise the judges are admonished:

And the judges should know whom they are judging, before Whom they are judging, and who is destined to exact punishment from them, as it is stated: “God stands in the assembly of God” .

And likewise 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

and He is with you in the matter of judgment”.

Perhaps the judge will say: What have I to do

to enter

into this distress,

for if I err, I will be punished —

the verse therefore states: “And He is with you in the matter of judgment”

according to what is with you — that your heart inclines according to the claims of the litigants — according to those matters you shall judge, and there is no punishment upon you, for

the judge has no

reason to fear punishment and refrain from judgment

but rather, according to what his eyes see

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

The first tanna said at the beginning of the beraita: “Once the judgment has been concluded, you are not permitted to compromise”; and now the Gemara 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 Judah said in the name of Rav:

that the judge has already said:

So-and-so, you are liable; so-and-so, you are entitled .

After we have learned several opinions concerning compromise, the Gemara now comes to establish the halakha.

Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Joshua ben Karha

who holds: “It is a mitzva to compromise”.

And the Gemara raises an objection —

Is that so

But Rav does not hold this way. And why?

But Rav

Huna was Rav’s student,

he was Rav’s student, and certainly ruled in accordance with him.

And when there would come

litigants

before Rav Huna, he would say to them

he would ask the litigants:

Do you want judgment

do you want judgment

or do you want compromise

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

And the Gemara answers that this is not a contradiction: Rabbi Joshua ben Karha, too, who holds “It is a mitzva to compromise,” means that it is a mitzva to propose to the litigants whether they want judgment or compromise.