Torah Emet
14-5770 Mitzvah N-76
February 21, 2010
Negative Mitzvah 76 – This is a negative commandment: Do not cause your fellow man to stumble over anything.
Hafetz Hayim – As Scripture says: “nor shall you put a stumbling-block before the blind” (Lev. 19:14) – Which means that if the other person is blind about something and he comes to ask advice, we are not to give him counsel that is not right. This includes everything, whether in worldly matters or in matters of Torah. It is forbidden, too, to bring someone, or to help him or cause him to come, into the power of sin. It is even forbidden to bring a heathen to transgress the laws of the Torah for which he is enjoined to observe (any of the seven commandments for all descendants of Noah). This applies everywhere and always, for both men and women.
If we were to take our verse alone, that it is forbidden to place a stumbling block before the blind, we would have a law that forbids cruelty to the disabled. It is a worthy ethical principle alone. The Sages, however, had more in mind when they read this law. It was not just about the physically blind, but it is about anyone who is blind to what you are doing to them.
This is also more than not giving someone bad advice. Sometimes we don’t know if the advice we give is good or not and that is just the chance someone takes when they come to us asking for our advice on a matter.
This is about purposefully leading someone astray. Perhaps they are seeking information about a job and you are also applying for that job. Perhaps they are asking about an investment and you are part of the team and not an uninvolved party to the transaction. Perhaps your advice will bring you more business, or help you turn a profit. Perhaps you did not have a good experience with this company and you will send your friend away with an unfair opinion. Or maybe your opinion will constitute insider trading or other insider information that could bias your advice.
There are more nefarious reasons to give bad advice. You dislike this person and see an opportunity to get revenge. You have a low opinion about this person and want to see them look silly or foolish. Perhaps this person is a competitor and you would like to see his business fail. Perhaps you would advise him to do something illegal so he will go to jail or have his reputation ruined. Perhaps you see him as a rival and would want his relationship to fail so you could date his ex
In matters of Torah, you might advise someone that something is permitted that is really forbidden. You could advise someone that the law is one way when you know it is different because you want him to fail an exam or seem foolish before his peers, or to get him in trouble with his Rabbi. All of this because you have an underlying scheme that the person asking advice does not know about and if he or she found out about it, he or she would not be asking you for advice. All of these are forbidden by the law of not placing a stumbling block before the blind.
This law even goes beyond the bounds of your fellow Jew. It applies to all human beings. It is forbidden to give tainted advice that will cause someone else pain, anguish, cause him to sin or create for him extra trouble. If you cannot give meaningful and true advice, then the law tells us it is better to give no opinion and send that person off to get advice elsewhere.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
13-5770 Mitzvah N-75
Torah Emet
13-5770 Mitzvah N-75
February 15, 2010
Negative Mitzvah 75 – This is a negative commandment: A court cannot accept testimony from a man of sin.
Hafetz Hayim – As Scripture says: “You shall not set your hand with the wicked to be a malicious witness” (Ex. 23:1) – if one unqualified witness knows that the other one is wicked while the judges do not recognize his sinfulness, he is forbidden to give testimony with the other – even true testimony – on account of the prohibition, “You shall not set your hand with the wicked.” There is no need to add that if he knows that the second witness is going to give false testimony, he is forbidden to testify with the other. It applies everywhere, in every time.
Proper courtroom procedure in a Jewish court demands that there must be two witnesses to a crime of any kind in order for the court to proceed with a verdict. Our issues here relate to one of the witnesses to the crime. A court is not allowed to accept testimony from a wicked person. Usually this is defined as someone who is a known criminal, trickster, swindler, perjurer, robber or gambler. A tax collector, who is not paid a salary but gets a percentage of the taxes he collects (perhaps what we might call a bill collector) is also considered untrustworthy. Jewish law does not consider them honest enough to give testimony as they may try and sell their account to one who will pay them for saying what may not be true. Thus if one witness is a known wicked person, then the court just will not accept the testimony and they will have to find a different, more honest witness.
But our case is that of the court which does not know that one of the two witnesses is a wicked man and his testimony is not to be trusted. The other witness, who may be qualified to give testimony, does know the background of the other witness and knows that he is unqualified; if this is the case, the true witness must not testify in court, even if he knows that his own testimony is true. Why? Because if the other witness is found to be lying there could be an assumption that the true witness was lying as well. Or that the lying witness will be believed and the true witness will be considered to be a liar. Our true witness does not want to be associated with the wicked man and therefore must refuse to testify in order that the qualifications of the other witness be examined before testimony is given and the wicked man is exposed. Even if the wicked man may intend to offer true testimony, he is not to be allowed to testify. If the true witness knows that the wicked man intends to give false testimony, then certainly he must not testify with the wicked man.
The laws of witnesses also do not allow the testimony of a woman, since she was considered to be under the influence of her husband or family, or was too easily threatened to testify falsely. In the ancient world, this may have been true. In our day and age, when women are free agents in society, their testimony should be considered generally as trustworthy and this law would not apply to one who refuses to testify
13-5770 Mitzvah N-75
February 15, 2010
Negative Mitzvah 75 – This is a negative commandment: A court cannot accept testimony from a man of sin.
Hafetz Hayim – As Scripture says: “You shall not set your hand with the wicked to be a malicious witness” (Ex. 23:1) – if one unqualified witness knows that the other one is wicked while the judges do not recognize his sinfulness, he is forbidden to give testimony with the other – even true testimony – on account of the prohibition, “You shall not set your hand with the wicked.” There is no need to add that if he knows that the second witness is going to give false testimony, he is forbidden to testify with the other. It applies everywhere, in every time.
Proper courtroom procedure in a Jewish court demands that there must be two witnesses to a crime of any kind in order for the court to proceed with a verdict. Our issues here relate to one of the witnesses to the crime. A court is not allowed to accept testimony from a wicked person. Usually this is defined as someone who is a known criminal, trickster, swindler, perjurer, robber or gambler. A tax collector, who is not paid a salary but gets a percentage of the taxes he collects (perhaps what we might call a bill collector) is also considered untrustworthy. Jewish law does not consider them honest enough to give testimony as they may try and sell their account to one who will pay them for saying what may not be true. Thus if one witness is a known wicked person, then the court just will not accept the testimony and they will have to find a different, more honest witness.
But our case is that of the court which does not know that one of the two witnesses is a wicked man and his testimony is not to be trusted. The other witness, who may be qualified to give testimony, does know the background of the other witness and knows that he is unqualified; if this is the case, the true witness must not testify in court, even if he knows that his own testimony is true. Why? Because if the other witness is found to be lying there could be an assumption that the true witness was lying as well. Or that the lying witness will be believed and the true witness will be considered to be a liar. Our true witness does not want to be associated with the wicked man and therefore must refuse to testify in order that the qualifications of the other witness be examined before testimony is given and the wicked man is exposed. Even if the wicked man may intend to offer true testimony, he is not to be allowed to testify. If the true witness knows that the wicked man intends to give false testimony, then certainly he must not testify with the wicked man.
The laws of witnesses also do not allow the testimony of a woman, since she was considered to be under the influence of her husband or family, or was too easily threatened to testify falsely. In the ancient world, this may have been true. In our day and age, when women are free agents in society, their testimony should be considered generally as trustworthy and this law would not apply to one who refuses to testify
Monday, February 8, 2010
12-5770 Mitzvah N-73-74
Torah Emet
12-5770 Mitzvah N-73-74
February 7, 2010
Negative Mitzvah 73 – This is a negative commandment: Testimony can not be established as certain by the word of one witness.
Hafetz Hayim – As Scripture says: “a single witness shall not stand up against a man for any iniquity or for any sin.” (Deut. 19:15) - which means to impose punishment on the word of one witness. It applies everywhere, in every time.
Negative Mitzvah 74 – This is a negative commandment: A court can not accept the testimony of a close relative.
Hafetz Hayim – As Scripture says: “Fathers shall not be put to death through children.” (Deut. 24:16) Which means through the testimony of the children; and the law is the same for other near relatives.
Proper courtroom procedure in a Jewish court demands that there must be two witnesses to a crime of any kind in order for the court to proceed with a verdict. It should also be noted that the minimum number of judges in any case was three. The three judges could not proceed with a trial of any kind unless there were two witnesses who would appear in the court. Judges might be able to try a case with less than three if one of the judges was considered an expert in the area about which the trial would be judged. But one does not rely on only one witness in any case. Testimony must be corroborated by a different witness.
As far as I know, the only case where one witness was accepted was in testimony regarding the death of a person at sea. Without this testimony a wife would have to remain married to a missing person because the man was not present to grant her a divorce. If a witness came along and testified to the satisfaction of the judges, that the person had died at sea (if on land, there would be a grave to visit and others to testify about the death and burial; at sea, there might be no grave and no burial) the court might accept that testimony and the wife would be permitted to move on with her life. This exception proves our rule; to have a trial and to announce a verdict, it must be based on the testimony of no less than two witnesses.
The second Mitzvah in this pair teaches us that relatives cannot testify at a trial. This would restrict relatives of the litigants, relatives of the witnesses and relatives of the judges could not offer testimony in a trial. This rule ran both ways. It prevented relatives from having to testify against close family members against their will and it prevented the relatives from giving false testimony to exonerate their relatives. Having a relative testify in court implies huge conflicts of interest. The Torah only speaks about children testifying on behalf or against their father. The later Sages included a large number of other near relatives who are not permitted to testify on anything in court. These laws help avoid the appearance of injustice in Jewish courts.
12-5770 Mitzvah N-73-74
February 7, 2010
Negative Mitzvah 73 – This is a negative commandment: Testimony can not be established as certain by the word of one witness.
Hafetz Hayim – As Scripture says: “a single witness shall not stand up against a man for any iniquity or for any sin.” (Deut. 19:15) - which means to impose punishment on the word of one witness. It applies everywhere, in every time.
Negative Mitzvah 74 – This is a negative commandment: A court can not accept the testimony of a close relative.
Hafetz Hayim – As Scripture says: “Fathers shall not be put to death through children.” (Deut. 24:16) Which means through the testimony of the children; and the law is the same for other near relatives.
Proper courtroom procedure in a Jewish court demands that there must be two witnesses to a crime of any kind in order for the court to proceed with a verdict. It should also be noted that the minimum number of judges in any case was three. The three judges could not proceed with a trial of any kind unless there were two witnesses who would appear in the court. Judges might be able to try a case with less than three if one of the judges was considered an expert in the area about which the trial would be judged. But one does not rely on only one witness in any case. Testimony must be corroborated by a different witness.
As far as I know, the only case where one witness was accepted was in testimony regarding the death of a person at sea. Without this testimony a wife would have to remain married to a missing person because the man was not present to grant her a divorce. If a witness came along and testified to the satisfaction of the judges, that the person had died at sea (if on land, there would be a grave to visit and others to testify about the death and burial; at sea, there might be no grave and no burial) the court might accept that testimony and the wife would be permitted to move on with her life. This exception proves our rule; to have a trial and to announce a verdict, it must be based on the testimony of no less than two witnesses.
The second Mitzvah in this pair teaches us that relatives cannot testify at a trial. This would restrict relatives of the litigants, relatives of the witnesses and relatives of the judges could not offer testimony in a trial. This rule ran both ways. It prevented relatives from having to testify against close family members against their will and it prevented the relatives from giving false testimony to exonerate their relatives. Having a relative testify in court implies huge conflicts of interest. The Torah only speaks about children testifying on behalf or against their father. The later Sages included a large number of other near relatives who are not permitted to testify on anything in court. These laws help avoid the appearance of injustice in Jewish courts.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
11-5770 Mitzvah N-72
Torah Emet
11-5770 Mitzvah N-72
February 1, 2010
Negative Mitzvah 72 – This is a negative commandment: A judge should have no fear of any party to a lawsuit.
Hafetz Hayim – As Scripture says: “you shall not be afraid of the presence of any man.” (Deut. 1:17). Even if a man on trial is powerful, he should not be afraid of him that he may harm him. Now, as long as the judge does not know in which direction justice tends in the case, he can remove himself from the judgment, saying, “I am not bound to you [to have to try your case].” But from the time he hears their statements and knows which way the justice tends to lie in the case, he has no right to remove himself because he fears one of them, that he may injure him. Included in this is the rule that if a disciple is sitting before his master (when the master is trying a case) and he sees a point in favor of a poor man and to the disadvantage of a rich man, and he remains silent, he violates this prohibition. It applies everywhere, in every time.
As long as there have been judges, there have been those who seek to pervert justice by intimidating the court. Herod tried it with the Sanhedrin, showing up in court with a company of armed soldiers. Powerful and rich men sometimes try and get all the justice that they can buy. No matter what the cost, it seems that buying a judge, for some, is just part of doing business. It is all too often the case in many corrupt countries where the judges are not honored nor paid a living wage that they resort to taking bribes because the judges think that nobody important will care if they pervert justice.
Our Mitzvah tells us that even if nobody else cares if justice is bought, God cares. God looks out for those who are oppressed and if they are oppressed through corruption of courts, then God will look out for them and see to it that they get justice. If the judge is afraid for his life, then God will defend that judge as long as justice is assured. A judge must be fearless in dispensing justice.
There are times when a judge should not render a verdict. In cases where the judge is related, indebted or invested in one of the litigants, then the judge should recognize that even if they are committed to justice, there is an appearance that justice has been perverted. Therefore the judge should refuse the case from the beginning. If there is any relationship between a judge and one of the litigants, then the judge should refuse the case so there will be no question when the verdict is rendered. According to our Mitzvah, once the trial has begun, and testimony has started, the judge can no longer remove himself from the case since it would appear that he is afraid of the verdict and wishes to avoid the threat from one of the litigants. He would then be in violation of this Mitzvah.
I can see that once testimony begins and the judge realizes that he has a relationship with one of the litigants that the judge was not aware of, that they are both invested in the same partnership or the litigant is a silent partner in some venture in which the judge has a vested interest, as soon as this is discovered, the judge should step down from the case. Otherwise, once the case has started, the judge must see it through to the end.
This Mitzvah would apply if a litigant threatened the judge bodily or financially. Justice must be dispensed fearlessly.
In the final part, the student of a judge is listening to the testimony being given to his master/teacher and realizes that a point of law has not been brought up in the case that would clearly tilt the verdict from favoring a rich man to favoring a poor man. If the student does not speak up on behalf of the poor man, that student is guilty of violating this Mitzvah since we assume that he refuses to speak up because he fears the rich man.
For there to be true justice, then justice must be fearless
11-5770 Mitzvah N-72
February 1, 2010
Negative Mitzvah 72 – This is a negative commandment: A judge should have no fear of any party to a lawsuit.
Hafetz Hayim – As Scripture says: “you shall not be afraid of the presence of any man.” (Deut. 1:17). Even if a man on trial is powerful, he should not be afraid of him that he may harm him. Now, as long as the judge does not know in which direction justice tends in the case, he can remove himself from the judgment, saying, “I am not bound to you [to have to try your case].” But from the time he hears their statements and knows which way the justice tends to lie in the case, he has no right to remove himself because he fears one of them, that he may injure him. Included in this is the rule that if a disciple is sitting before his master (when the master is trying a case) and he sees a point in favor of a poor man and to the disadvantage of a rich man, and he remains silent, he violates this prohibition. It applies everywhere, in every time.
As long as there have been judges, there have been those who seek to pervert justice by intimidating the court. Herod tried it with the Sanhedrin, showing up in court with a company of armed soldiers. Powerful and rich men sometimes try and get all the justice that they can buy. No matter what the cost, it seems that buying a judge, for some, is just part of doing business. It is all too often the case in many corrupt countries where the judges are not honored nor paid a living wage that they resort to taking bribes because the judges think that nobody important will care if they pervert justice.
Our Mitzvah tells us that even if nobody else cares if justice is bought, God cares. God looks out for those who are oppressed and if they are oppressed through corruption of courts, then God will look out for them and see to it that they get justice. If the judge is afraid for his life, then God will defend that judge as long as justice is assured. A judge must be fearless in dispensing justice.
There are times when a judge should not render a verdict. In cases where the judge is related, indebted or invested in one of the litigants, then the judge should recognize that even if they are committed to justice, there is an appearance that justice has been perverted. Therefore the judge should refuse the case from the beginning. If there is any relationship between a judge and one of the litigants, then the judge should refuse the case so there will be no question when the verdict is rendered. According to our Mitzvah, once the trial has begun, and testimony has started, the judge can no longer remove himself from the case since it would appear that he is afraid of the verdict and wishes to avoid the threat from one of the litigants. He would then be in violation of this Mitzvah.
I can see that once testimony begins and the judge realizes that he has a relationship with one of the litigants that the judge was not aware of, that they are both invested in the same partnership or the litigant is a silent partner in some venture in which the judge has a vested interest, as soon as this is discovered, the judge should step down from the case. Otherwise, once the case has started, the judge must see it through to the end.
This Mitzvah would apply if a litigant threatened the judge bodily or financially. Justice must be dispensed fearlessly.
In the final part, the student of a judge is listening to the testimony being given to his master/teacher and realizes that a point of law has not been brought up in the case that would clearly tilt the verdict from favoring a rich man to favoring a poor man. If the student does not speak up on behalf of the poor man, that student is guilty of violating this Mitzvah since we assume that he refuses to speak up because he fears the rich man.
For there to be true justice, then justice must be fearless
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)