Author Topic: The Divine Code Daily Dose (Read 200985 times)

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #150 on:** October 10, 2018, 09:43:53 PM »

It is forbidden for a judge to accept a gift from a litigant who gives it in order that he be found innocent in judgment. This prohibition of accepting a gift from a litigant applies even after the judge has completed his deliberation and already decided what his correct legal ruling is, and has already delivered the verdict or stated the law, because this is similar to bribery.

Just as it is forbidden for a judge to take a bribe, so too it is forbidden for a policeman to take a bribe to absolve himself from fulfilling his responsibility (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 682).

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #151 on:** October 11, 2018, 08:50:20 PM »

A judge who took a bribe is invalid to judge from that point on, and his judgments are not to be regarded as the law - not in the case in which he took the bribe, and not in any case that he will judge in the future.⁶⁵ However, the judgments that he made before he took the bribe are not invalidated.⁶⁶

⁶⁵Shulhan Aruh Hoshen Mishpat 7:9. After a judge has taken a bribe once, he is considered to be a sinful person and is unfit to even testify in court from then on (unless he does complete repentance), and any future cases he judges are invalid. This is clear from Sefer Meirat Einayim Hoshen Mishpat 9:13.

⁶⁶ See Prisha Hoshen Mishpat ch. 9, Urim Hoshen Mishpat 9:7, and Pishei Teshuva Hoshen Mishpat 9:10, regarding one who is paid by litigants to judge their cases. Unless there is proof or a very strong reason to believe that he was previously untrustworthy, the past judgments he made are still valid (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 682).

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #152 on:** October 13, 2018, 12:24:23 AM »

It appears that according to the law, a Gentile judge who took a bribe is not obligated to return the bribe, for it was given to him as a gift. It is clear that the society's legal system has permission to institute that the bribe may be taken away from the judge, and this enactment would be proper. It has already been explained that they are obligated to rescind his decision that he passed, remove him from his position as judge and punish him for taking the bribe (as explained in Sheva Mitzvot HaShem, Part VIII, topic 2:9) (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 682).

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #153 on:** October 14, 2018, 04:19:51 AM »

Just as it is forbidden for a judge to take a bribe, it is obvious that the prohibition also applies to the one who gives it, because he is causing the judge to transgress and pervert justice,⁶⁸ and indeed he transgresses the commandment of Dinim.

⁶⁸ Shulhan Aruh Hoshen Mishpat ch. 9 explains that this is prohibited for a Jew under the Jewish commandment, "You shall not put a stumbling block before the blind." Although that precept is not incumbent upon Gentiles, it has been explained in Part I, ch. 4, that it is forbidden for Gentiles to do this. It is also possible that one who gives a bribe transgresses the prohibition of "You shall commit no injustice in judgment" (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 682-683).

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #154 on:** October 15, 2018, 11:40:23 AM »

There is no difference between a monetary bribe or any other favor or benefit; it is all considered bribery - for example, when a litigant pays any of the judge's debts, or giving a bribe through others to be given to the judge (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 683).

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #155 on:** October 16, 2018, 08:36:11 AM »

The Sages taught that any judge who charges money from litigants in order to judge them, that his judgments are invalid. Even though this was said regarding the judgment of the Jewish people, nevertheless, it is obvious that every society or government of Gentiles is obligated to establish a salary for their permanent judges and officers, that will be arranged from the public funds (of the region or city), so that they should be paid handsomely and not be dependent on getting paid through the goodwill of the ones being judged. This is because a judge who takes money from litigants is acting very similarly to taking a bribe, and this will lead to perversion of justice (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 683).

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #156 on:** October 17, 2018, 09:23:00 AM »

If it is the custom in a certain place that a permanent judge takes an equal sum of money from every litigant that comes before him, then it is permitted, since all the people in that place accept that they will act in this way, and the payment is known and fixed (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 683).

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #157 on:** October 18, 2018, 01:44:12 PM »

This above law pertains to a permanent judge (established by the government, or the like), before whom the litigants are forced to be judged. Therefore, the public is obligated to arrange that his salary be fixed according to their collective opinion, so that he will judge truthfully and fairly. But if a judge is asked by litigants to judge them in a monetary case (as an occasional private manner, and not because it is required by the government's law, so it is considered a type of arbitration), or to arrange a compromise for them, then he is permitted to establish his payment in advance according to the discussion he has together with both of them, because they have willingly accepted his authority over their dispute (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 683-684).

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #158 on:** October 19, 2018, 07:31:13 AM »

In addition, this payment must be made in advance⁷⁵ by both litigants (in front of each other, so that neither of them will suspect the other or the judge); otherwise, it is not a fair judgment. This is because arbitration and compromise are also considered to be types of judgment, and it is forbidden for a judge who arbitrates or arranges a compromise to take bribery or pervert the judgment against one of the sides, for this is theft and a violation of the principles of Dinim. And if a litigant tells the arbitrator or the one arranging the compromise, "if you will find me innocent, I will give you such-and-such a sum of money," then that is complete bribery.

⁷⁵ See Sefer Meirat Einayim Hoshen Mishpat 9:14, that it is sufficient to establish payment before the case begins (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 684).

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #159 on:** October 20, 2018, 02:14:40 PM »

A judge is permitted to take an additional payment for any other necessary expenses (such as upkeep of his office), but if a judge gives undue raises to his assistants and liberally increases their expenditures or the like (at the expense of the public or a private person), then this person is displaying greed, and it is disgraceful (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 684).

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #160 on:** October 21, 2018, 04:05:24 PM »

Included in the precepts of "Do not pervert the judgment" and "You shall not commit a perversion of justice" is the prohibition of causing suffering by prolonging the decision of judgment.⁷⁹

⁷⁹ See Rambam Laws of Courts 20:6; Sefer HaHinuh Commandment 233. It appears that it is even forbidden to delay a verdict in a capital case, as explained in Rambam Laws of Courts ch. 11 (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 684).

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #161 on:** October 22, 2018, 04:35:59 PM »

This means holding back from judging a certain case because the court pushes aside upholding the law, especially if it is done by extending the trials of weak people such as orphans and widows. Regarding them it is stated, "You shall not oppress any widow or orphan," because their souls are downcast, and they do not have the power to demand from the judges to judge their cases promptly (or at all). Regarding judges who prolong in deciding the law for the cases of weak people, the prophet says, "The orphan they do not judge, and the quarrel of the widow does not come to them. 'Therefore,' says the Master, the L-rd of Hosts, the Mighty One of Israel, 'Oh, I will console Myself from My adversaries, and I will avenge Myself of My foes' " (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 684-685).

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #162 on:** October 23, 2018, 05:14:57 PM »

Prolonging the decision of judgment is included in the prohibition of "You shall not commit a perversion of justice" because procrastinating to make a decision in judgment causes the wronged person a loss of time and money as well as great pain, and sometimes, because the judgment is pushed off (repeatedly), the plaintiff loses hope of receiving fair judgment. In this case, both oppression and perversion of justice are committed through the withholding of judgment (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 685).

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #163 on:** October 24, 2018, 04:28:31 PM »

Included in the prohibition of extending and pushing off a legal judgment is that which the Sages referred to, "A judgment of a maneh (a large sum of money) should be as esteemed in your eyes as the judgment of a small coin." This means that if a case of a small coin comes before a judge and he has begun to hear the case, he should not stop and push it away (thereby delaying the judgment of the case) in favor of hearing another case involving a large sum of money that was waiting next in line. Instead, the legal proceedings and judgment of the case at hand, whether it is a small or large matter, should be judged first. This is also what Moses commanded to the judges of the Jewish people: "You shall not show favoritism in judgment, small and great alike shall you hear" (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 685-686).

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #164 on:** October 26, 2018, 01:30:50 PM »

Similarly, a judge is forbidden to delay his judgment of case (meaning, he draws out the judgment for an unnecessary time), by lengthening matters that are clear, in order to cause pain to one of the litigants, or to the one who is guilty. This is included in the rule of "You shall commit no injustice in judgment" (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 686).

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #165 on:** October 27, 2018, 06:17:07 PM »

The rule of the matter is this, anyone who pushes off the judgment is unjust, whether it is in carrying out the discussions and judgment, lengthening the judgment, or in carrying out the decision, it is causing suffering by delaying judgment and it is included in the prohibition of "You shall not commit a perversion of justice" (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 686).

Israel Chai · « **Reply #166 on:** October 28, 2018, 04:48:15 PM »

Quote from: Hrvatski Noahid on October 27, 2018, 06:17:07 PM

The rule of the matter is this, anyone who pushes off the judgment is unjust, whether it is in carrying out the discussions and judgment, lengthening the judgment, or in carrying out the decision, it is causing suffering by delaying judgment and it is included in the prohibition of "You shall not commit a perversion of justice" (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 686).

Beis din is infinitely better than secular court for this.

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #167 on:** October 29, 2018, 09:18:33 AM »

Quote from: Israel Chai on October 28, 2018, 04:48:15 PM

Beis din is infinitely better than secular court for this.

Indeed. Just like Torah education is infinitely better than secular education.

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #168 on:** October 29, 2018, 09:21:15 AM »

It has already been explained in Chapter 1 that included in the Gentiles' obligation of the commandment of Dinim is the obligation to judge in cases of a claimant and a defendant.

Which are cases of a claimant and a defendant?

This would include every monetary case that arises by the claim for money between a man and his fellow, such as:

- cases of robbery and theft in which the robbed victim claims that the robber should return to him that which was stolen;

- cases of fraud in which the buyer sues the seller for fraud in price or similar things;

- cases of exploitation and an employee's salary in which the exploited claims payment that is due to him;

- cases of guardians in which the one who entrusted his article claims the article entrusted to the guardian;

- cases of lenders and borrowers;

- cases of business transactions such as when one side reneges on the agreement, or when the buyer claims that there is a blemish in that which he purchased, and any claims similar to these,

- similarly, cases of partners who come to divide their possessions (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 687).

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #169 on:** October 31, 2018, 01:50:01 AM »

Any sum of money about which there is an argument between a man and his fellow, and they are not able to come to agreement between themselves about what each of them is due, the court is obligated to judge their case, for the sake of justice and peace (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 687).

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #170 on:** November 02, 2018, 12:10:41 AM »

Also, Gentiles are obligated to judge in cases of bodily harm or harm to life (and the principles of these things have already been explained in the laws of murder and theft), and damages to property or possessions (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 687).

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #171 on:** November 03, 2018, 12:42:25 PM »

It has already been explained in Chapter 1 that these laws are not decided according to Torah as to what is the law for each one of them, but instead it is the responsibility of the Gentile societies and lawmakers to discuss these matters and to pass fair laws in each matter and in each detail of these laws, and to judge in each case as pertains to that situation according to the laws they establish (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 687-688).

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #172 on:** November 04, 2018, 01:51:01 AM »

Included in the commandment of Dinim for Gentiles is to make compromises between the litigants,⁸⁸ as it says,⁸⁹ "that they keep the way of the L-rd, doing righteousness and justice," and justice means compromise.

⁸⁸ Rashi and Meiri on Tractate Sanhedrin 56b. See Mesheh Hohmah on Genesis 18:19 which G-d said about Abraham, that compromise ("righteousness" in this verse) precedes judgment, and for Gentiles, even if a judge knows the decision to which the law is inclined, it is righteous to make a compromise between the litigants (and only if they are persistent in demanding a legal ruling should the judge do so).

⁸⁹ Genesis 18:19 (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 688).

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #173 on:** November 05, 2018, 11:05:12 AM »

A compromise is a judgment of peace, as it says, "Administer truth and the judgment of peace in your gates." What is a type of judgment that has peace in it (meaning agreement and appeasement between the two sides)? This is a compromise (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 688).

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #174 on:** November 06, 2018, 02:03:37 PM »

Therefore, the correct procedure in light of Torah is that initially the judge should suggest and say to the litigants, "Do you desire a judgment or a compromise?"⁹² It is also a righteous practice on the part of the judge to attempt to make a compromise between the two litigants and to convince them to do this, and also after he heard their claims and he knows in which direction the judgment will lean, it is still a righteous practice to make a compromise.⁹³

⁹² Rambam, Laws of Courts ch. 22; Shulhan Aruh Hoshen Mishpat ch. 12.

⁹³ Shulhan Aruh ibid. 12:2. See Ethics of the Fathers 4:7, "Rabbi Yishmael (the son of Rabbi Yosay) said, '(A judge) who refrains from handing down legal judgments (but instead seeks compromise between the litigants) removes himself from enmity, theft, and (the responsibility for) and unnecessary oath; but one who aggrandizes himself by (eagerly) issuing legal decisions is a fool, wicked and arrogant' " (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 688).