פרשת משפטים תשי"ט - "לא תהיה אחרי רבים לרעות"+הפטרה

לא תהיה אחרי רבים לרעת THOU SHALT NOT FOLLOW THE MANY FOR EVIL — There are Halachic interpretations of this verse given by the Sages of Israel but the wording of the text does not fit in well with them. They derive from here that we must not decide a person’s guilt by a preponderance of one judge. And the end of the verse they explained thus: אחרי רבים להטות — but if the judges who declare the defendant guilty are two more than those who declare him innocent, then decide the matter as they declare — that he is guilty (Sanhedrin 2a). — The verse, they point out, speaks of capital cases. — The middle passage לא תענה על רב, they explained as though it were written על רַב, “thou shalt not speak against the chief of the judges, meaning that one should not give an opinion different from that given by the מופלא of the court (the most eminent among the judges, because this is disrespectful to the Presiding-judge). In consequence of this rule we begin to take the view of those in the side-benches first — we ask the youngest judges to express their opinion first (so that they may not be able to vote against the view expressed by the מופלא). Therefore the exegesis of the verse according to the words of our Rabbis is as follows: “thou shalt not follow a bare majority for evil” — to sentence a man to death on account of the one judge by whom those who condemn him are more in number than those who acquit him; “and thou shalt not speak against the chief inclining away” from his opinion. — They explained this latter phrase thus, because the word which is usually written רִיב is here written without and therefore may be read, אחרי רבים להטות — ;רַב, there is, however, a majority to whose view thou must incline. When is this the case? When there are two who preponderate amongst those who vote for condemnation over and above those who vote for acquittal. For from what is implied in, “thou shalt not follow a bare majority for evil”, I may infer: but thou shall follow it for good. Hence they (the Rabbis) said (i. e. they established the general rule): In capital cases we may decide by a majority of one for acquittal, but only by a majority of at least two to condemn. Onkelos translates the second phrase by: Do not refrain from teaching when you are being asked your opinion in a legal matter. The Hebrew text is to be explained according to the Targum as follows: לא תענה על רב לנטת If you are being asked your opinion in a legal matter do not give your answer just to incline to one particular side and so to withdraw yourself from the dispute, but decide the matter as truth requires. Such are the expositions that have been offered of this verse.

לא תהיה אחרי רבים לרעת THOU SHALT NOT FOLLOW THE MANY FOR EVIL — There are Halachic interpretations of this verse given by the Sages of Israel but the wording of the text does not fit in well with them. They derive from here that we must not decide a person’s guilt by a preponderance of one judge. And the end of the verse they explained thus: אחרי רבים להטות — but if the judges who declare the defendant guilty are two more than those who declare him innocent, then decide the matter as they declare — that he is guilty (Sanhedrin 2a). — The verse, they point out, speaks of capital cases. — The middle passage לא תענה על רב, they explained as though it were written על רַב, “thou shalt not speak against the chief of the judges, meaning that one should not give an opinion different from that given by the מופלא of the court (the most eminent among the judges, because this is disrespectful to the Presiding-judge). In consequence of this rule we begin to take the view of those in the side-benches first — we ask the youngest judges to express their opinion first (so that they may not be able to vote against the view expressed by the מופלא). Therefore the exegesis of the verse according to the words of our Rabbis is as follows: “thou shalt not follow a bare majority for evil” — to sentence a man to death on account of the one judge by whom those who condemn him are more in number than those who acquit him; “and thou shalt not speak against the chief inclining away” from his opinion. — They explained this latter phrase thus, because the word which is usually written רִיב is here written without and therefore may be read, אחרי רבים להטות — ;רַב, there is, however, a majority to whose view thou must incline. When is this the case? When there are two who preponderate amongst those who vote for condemnation over and above those who vote for acquittal. For from what is implied in, “thou shalt not follow a bare majority for evil”, I may infer: but thou shall follow it for good. Hence they (the Rabbis) said (i. e. they established the general rule): In capital cases we may decide by a majority of one for acquittal, but only by a majority of at least two to condemn. Onkelos translates the second phrase by: Do not refrain from teaching when you are being asked your opinion in a legal matter. The Hebrew text is to be explained according to the Targum as follows: לא תענה על רב לנטת If you are being asked your opinion in a legal matter do not give your answer just to incline to one particular side and so to withdraw yourself from the dispute, but decide the matter as truth requires. Such are the expositions that have been offered of this verse.

§ The mishna teaches that in cases of capital law, the judges commence issuing their opinions from the side benches, where the least significant judges sit. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Aḥa bar Pappa says: The verse states: “Neither shall you answer in a cause [al riv]” (Exodus 23:2), and the Sages interpret: Neither shall you answer after the Master [al rav], i.e., do not dispute the opinion of the greatest among the judges. Therefore, were the judges to commence issuing their opinions from the greatest of them, and he would say that the accused is liable, no judge would acquit him. Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The source of this practice is from here: When David decided to punish Nabal the Carmelite, the verse states: “And David said to his men: Every man gird his sword. And every man girded his sword, and David also girded his sword” (I Samuel 25:13). That was a case of capital law, and David, the greatest among them, was last.

לא תהיה אחרי רבים לרעת THOU SHALT NOT FOLLOW THE MANY FOR EVIL — There are Halachic interpretations of this verse given by the Sages of Israel but the wording of the text does not fit in well with them. They derive from here that we must not decide a person’s guilt by a preponderance of one judge. And the end of the verse they explained thus: אחרי רבים להטות — but if the judges who declare the defendant guilty are two more than those who declare him innocent, then decide the matter as they declare — that he is guilty (Sanhedrin 2a). — The verse, they point out, speaks of capital cases. — The middle passage לא תענה על רב, they explained as though it were written על רַב, “thou shalt not speak against the chief of the judges, meaning that one should not give an opinion different from that given by the מופלא of the court (the most eminent among the judges, because this is disrespectful to the Presiding-judge). In consequence of this rule we begin to take the view of those in the side-benches first — we ask the youngest judges to express their opinion first (so that they may not be able to vote against the view expressed by the מופלא). Therefore the exegesis of the verse according to the words of our Rabbis is as follows: “thou shalt not follow a bare majority for evil” — to sentence a man to death on account of the one judge by whom those who condemn him are more in number than those who acquit him; “and thou shalt not speak against the chief inclining away” from his opinion. — They explained this latter phrase thus, because the word which is usually written רִיב is here written without and therefore may be read, אחרי רבים להטות — ;רַב, there is, however, a majority to whose view thou must incline. When is this the case? When there are two who preponderate amongst those who vote for condemnation over and above those who vote for acquittal. For from what is implied in, “thou shalt not follow a bare majority for evil”, I may infer: but thou shall follow it for good. Hence they (the Rabbis) said (i. e. they established the general rule): In capital cases we may decide by a majority of one for acquittal, but only by a majority of at least two to condemn. Onkelos translates the second phrase by: Do not refrain from teaching when you are being asked your opinion in a legal matter. The Hebrew text is to be explained according to the Targum as follows: לא תענה על רב לנטת If you are being asked your opinion in a legal matter do not give your answer just to incline to one particular side and so to withdraw yourself from the dispute, but decide the matter as truth requires. Such are the expositions that have been offered of this verse.

לא תהיה אחרי רבים לרעת THOU SHALT NOT FOLLOW THE MANY FOR EVIL — There are Halachic interpretations of this verse given by the Sages of Israel but the wording of the text does not fit in well with them. They derive from here that we must not decide a person’s guilt by a preponderance of one judge. And the end of the verse they explained thus: אחרי רבים להטות — but if the judges who declare the defendant guilty are two more than those who declare him innocent, then decide the matter as they declare — that he is guilty (Sanhedrin 2a). — The verse, they point out, speaks of capital cases. — The middle passage לא תענה על רב, they explained as though it were written על רַב, “thou shalt not speak against the chief of the judges, meaning that one should not give an opinion different from that given by the מופלא of the court (the most eminent among the judges, because this is disrespectful to the Presiding-judge). In consequence of this rule we begin to take the view of those in the side-benches first — we ask the youngest judges to express their opinion first (so that they may not be able to vote against the view expressed by the מופלא). Therefore the exegesis of the verse according to the words of our Rabbis is as follows: “thou shalt not follow a bare majority for evil” — to sentence a man to death on account of the one judge by whom those who condemn him are more in number than those who acquit him; “and thou shalt not speak against the chief inclining away” from his opinion. — They explained this latter phrase thus, because the word which is usually written רִיב is here written without and therefore may be read, אחרי רבים להטות — ;רַב, there is, however, a majority to whose view thou must incline. When is this the case? When there are two who preponderate amongst those who vote for condemnation over and above those who vote for acquittal. For from what is implied in, “thou shalt not follow a bare majority for evil”, I may infer: but thou shall follow it for good. Hence they (the Rabbis) said (i. e. they established the general rule): In capital cases we may decide by a majority of one for acquittal, but only by a majority of at least two to condemn. Onkelos translates the second phrase by: Do not refrain from teaching when you are being asked your opinion in a legal matter. The Hebrew text is to be explained according to the Targum as follows: לא תענה על רב לנטת If you are being asked your opinion in a legal matter do not give your answer just to incline to one particular side and so to withdraw yourself from the dispute, but decide the matter as truth requires. Such are the expositions that have been offered of this verse.

לא תהיה אחרי רבים לרעת THOU SHALT NOT FOLLOW THE MANY FOR EVIL — There are Halachic interpretations of this verse given by the Sages of Israel but the wording of the text does not fit in well with them. They derive from here that we must not decide a person’s guilt by a preponderance of one judge. And the end of the verse they explained thus: אחרי רבים להטות — but if the judges who declare the defendant guilty are two more than those who declare him innocent, then decide the matter as they declare — that he is guilty (Sanhedrin 2a). — The verse, they point out, speaks of capital cases. — The middle passage לא תענה על רב, they explained as though it were written על רַב, “thou shalt not speak against the chief of the judges, meaning that one should not give an opinion different from that given by the מופלא of the court (the most eminent among the judges, because this is disrespectful to the Presiding-judge). In consequence of this rule we begin to take the view of those in the side-benches first — we ask the youngest judges to express their opinion first (so that they may not be able to vote against the view expressed by the מופלא). Therefore the exegesis of the verse according to the words of our Rabbis is as follows: “thou shalt not follow a bare majority for evil” — to sentence a man to death on account of the one judge by whom those who condemn him are more in number than those who acquit him; “and thou shalt not speak against the chief inclining away” from his opinion. — They explained this latter phrase thus, because the word which is usually written רִיב is here written without and therefore may be read, אחרי רבים להטות — ;רַב, there is, however, a majority to whose view thou must incline. When is this the case? When there are two who preponderate amongst those who vote for condemnation over and above those who vote for acquittal. For from what is implied in, “thou shalt not follow a bare majority for evil”, I may infer: but thou shall follow it for good. Hence they (the Rabbis) said (i. e. they established the general rule): In capital cases we may decide by a majority of one for acquittal, but only by a majority of at least two to condemn. Onkelos translates the second phrase by: Do not refrain from teaching when you are being asked your opinion in a legal matter. The Hebrew text is to be explained according to the Targum as follows: לא תענה על רב לנטת If you are being asked your opinion in a legal matter do not give your answer just to incline to one particular side and so to withdraw yourself from the dispute, but decide the matter as truth requires. Such are the expositions that have been offered of this verse.

that every man should let his manservant, and every man his maidservant, being a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, go free; that none should make bondmen of them, even of a Jew his brother;

Therefore thus saith the LORD: Ye have not hearkened unto Me, to proclaim liberty, every man to his brother, and every man to his neighbour; behold, I proclaim for you a liberty, saith the LORD, unto the sword, unto the pestilence, and unto the famine; and I will make you a horror unto all the kingdoms of the earth.