Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat Siman 17

Siman 17

Presented here for study, not as a practical ruling. The Shulchan Aruch rules by Sephardi custom, the Rema's glosses by Ashkenazi custom, and the Kitzur follows Ashkenazi custom. For a practical question, ask your rabbi.

א להשוות הבעלי דינין בכל דבר. ובו יא סעיפים: בצדק תשפוט עמיתך איזהו צדק המשפט זו השוויית שני הבעלי דינים בכל דבר לא יהא א' מדבר כל צרכו וא' אומר (לו) קצר דברך ולא יסבירו פנים לא' וידבר לו רכות וירע פניו לאחר וידבר לו קשות ואם היה אחד מהם מלובש בגדים יקרים והשני מלובש בגדים בזוים אומרים למכובד או הלבישהו כמותך או לבוש כמוהו ולא יהא א' יושב וא' עומד אלא שניהם עומדים ואם רצו ב"ד להושיב את שניהם מושיבים ולא ישב א' למעלה וא' למטה אלא זה בצד זה בד"א בשעת משא ומתן (דהטענות) אבל בשעת גמר דין שניהם בעמידה לכתחלה איזהו גמר דין איש פלוני אתה זכאי איש פלו' אתה חייב והעדים לכתחלה לעולם בעמידה: הגה ועמידה ע"י סמיכה מקרי שפיר עמידה לענין זה (ריב"ש סי' רס"ו) וע"ל סי' כ"ח:
1 In righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.' What is considered righteousness of the Law? — It means to regard the two litigants as equals in every respect, [viz., that] one should not be permitted to speak as long as he needs and the other be told, 'Make your speech brief;' [that] one should not be favourable to one [litigant] and speak soft words to him, and severe to the other [litigant] and speak harsh words to him. If one of them is wearing expensive garments and the other is wearing shabby garments, they [the Judges] should say to the one who is well dressed, 'Either dress him like you, or dress like him.' Nor should one [litigant] sit and the other stand, but both should stand. If, however, the Court of Law desires to permit them both to sit, they may do so. Nor should one [litigant] sit on a higher level and the other on a lower level, but one next to the other. When does this apply? — At the time of the discussion of the pleas, but at the time of the conclusion of the case, both litigants must stand in the first instance. What is considered the conclusion of the case? — [When the verdict is pronounced,] '[So-and-so, You are not guilty,' or 'So-and-so, you are guilty.' [With respect to] the witnesses [the law is that] in the first instance they must always [testify] while standing. Rema: And standing by being supported is indeed regarded as standing with respect to this matter., however, infra § 28, [ 26 ].
ב ת"ח וע"ה שבאו לדון מושיבין את החכם ואומרים לע"ה שב ואם לא ישב אין מקפידין בכך: הגה ת"ח שבא לדין מותר לעמוד לפניו ולא חיישי' שיסתתמו טענות שכנגדו (ר"ן פ' שבועת העדות):
2 [In the case of] a Rabbinical scholar and an illiterate person who appeared for trial, [the law is that] we urge the scholar to sit down, and we [also] say to the illiterate person, 'Sit down!' And if he [the illiterate person] did not sit down, we do not mind. Rema: [ When ] a scholar comes to Court for trial, it is permissible to rise before him and we do not apprehend that the pleas of his opponent will be stopped up.
ג כבר נהגו כל בתי דיני ישראל לאחר התלמוד שמושיבין בעלי דינים וגם העדים כדי להסיר המחלוקת שאין בנו כח להעמיד משפטי הדת על תלם:
3 It has already become the adopted practice [among] all the Courts of Law in Israel after the [close of] the Talmud that they permit the litigants and also the witnesses to be seated in order to eliminate dissension, for we are [nowadays] powerless to maintain the laws of our faith in conformity with their original authoritativeness.
ד אם (התובעים רבים) והנתבע אומר אני חפץ שישבו אוהבי וקרובי אצלי כשאני טוען עמכם כדי שלא יסתתמו טענותי כי אתם הרבים הדין עמו (לכן) השותפים יבררו להם א' מהם לטעון בשביל כולם או יטעון כל א' לעצמו זה אחר זה וגם הנתבע לא יקח אוהביו אצלו וע"ל סי' קע"ו סל"ה:
4 If the claimants are many and the defendant states, 'I desire that my friends and relatives sit near me when I plead against you so that my pleas be not stopped up because you are the majority,' — the law rests with him. Therefore, partners should select one of them to plead on behalf of all of them, or each one pleads consecutively. And the defendant also should not take his friends with him., infra § 176, par. 35.
ה אסור לדיין לשמוע דברי בעל דין האחד שלא בפני בעל דין חבירו: הגה ודוקא שיודע הדיין שיהיה דיין בדבר אבל אם שמע טענות הא' ואח"כ נתרצה השני לדון לפניו מותר להיות דיין בדבר (תשו' מהרי"ל קצ"ה) ולא יכתוב שום חכם פסק לא' מבעלי הדינין בדרך א"כ או שיכתוב לו דעתו בלא פסק כל זמן שלא שמע דברי שניהם שמא מתוך דבריו ילמדו לשקר גם משום שאח"כ יטעון השני בדרך אחר ויצטרך לכתוב להיפך ואיכא זילותא לחכם (רשב"א וריב"ש סי' קע"ט) וכן הבעל דין מוזהר על כך ותלמיד שיש לו דין לפני רבו לא יקדים לבוא קודם בעל דינו שלא יהא נראה כמקדים כדי לברר טענותיו שלא בפני חבירו ואם יש לו עת קבוע לבא ללמוד לפניו ובא העת ההיא מותר:
5 It is forbidden to the Judge to hear the words [pleas] of one litigant in the absence of his fellow-litigant. Rema: And this applies only when the Judge knows that he will act as Judge in the case; but if he had [ already ] heard the pleas of one party and subsequently the second party was satisfied to be tried before him, he is permitted to act as Judge in the case. No Sage should write a decision for one of the litigants in [ the following ] manner, [ viz., ] 'If such [ are the circumstances of the case which this litigant set forth before me, then the law would be as follows ],' or [ even ] write for him [ the litigant ] his opinion without [ giving ] a [ definitive ] decision as long as he did not hear the words [ claims ] of both [ litigants ] lest from his [ the Judge's ] words they will learn to utter lies, [ and ] furthermore because later the second [ litigant ] will plead in a different manner and he [ the Judge ] will [ then ] be obliged to write the reverse and disrepute will be brought thereby on the Sage. Likewise, is the litigant cautioned against [acting] thus. A scholar who has a case before his teacher should not arrive [at Court] first, [i.e.,] prior to his opponent so that it should not appear that he is [arriving first] in order to clarify his pleas in the absence of his fellow [-litigant]. However, if he has an appointed time to come and study before him and that time had arrived, he is permitted.
ו לא יהיה הדיין שומע מפי המתורגמן אם היה מכיר בלשונם ושומע טענותיהם אבל אם אינו יודע בלשונם כל כך שיודע להשיב להם להודיעם פסק הדין מותר להעמיד מתורגמן: הגה ע"ל סי' י"ג סעיף ג' אם טוענין בכתב אם א' רוצה לטעון בלשון א' והשני בל' אחר אין א' יכול לכוף חבירו (מהרי"ו סי' ק"א):
6 The Judge should not hear [the pleas of the litigant] from the mouth of an interpreter. [However,] if he knows their language and understands their pleas, save that he does not know their language well enough that he should know how to reply to them, [viz.,] to inform them the verdict, — he is permitted to appoint an interpreter. Rema:, supra §13, par. 3 whether they may present their pleas in writing. If one party desires to plead in one language and the other party in another language, [ the law is that ] one [ litigant ] cannot compel his fellow [ litigant ] to plead in his language ].
ז צריך הדיין לשמוע דברי הבעלי דינים ולשנות אותם שנאמר ויאמר המלך זאת אומרת בני החי וגו' ומצדיק הדין בלבו ואח"כ חותכו:
7 The Judge must hear the claims of the litigants and [then] repeat them, for it is written, 'Then said the king: The one saith: This is my son that liveth [and thy son is the dead; and the other saith: Nay; but thy son is the dead and my son is the living],' and he makes the case clear in his heart [mind] and then decides it.
ח דיין שדן דין ולבו נוקפו (פי' מכהו ונחבט בקרבו) לומר שהוא טועה לא יחזיק דבריו להביא ראיות להעמידם שהוא בוש לחזור אלא לכל הצדדים יחזור להוציא הדין לאמתו לא יעשה הדיין מליץ לדבריו של בע"ד אלא יאמר מה שנראה לו וישתוק ולא ילמד לא' מבעלי הדין כלל אפי' הביא א' מבעלי הדין עד א' לא יאמר לו אין מחייבין ממון על פי עד א' אלא יאמר לנטען הרי זה העיד עליך עד שיטעון ויאמר עד א' אינו נאמן עלי וכן כל כיוצא בזה:
8 A Judge who renders a legal decision and his heart smites him, i.e., it strikes him and he is conscience-smitten, that is to say, he [realizes that he] is erroneous [in his decision], should not strengthen his words to advance proofs [in order] to substantiate them being ashamed to retract, but he should again [re-examine] all the points [of the case] in order to execute the law in accordance with its truth. The Judge should not act as an advocate for the litigant's words, but he [the litigant] should state whatever appears to him [as valid argumentation relating to his case] and he [the Judge] should keep his silence. [The Judge] must not instruct at all [any] one of the litigants [by furnishing him with directives in pleading]. Even if one of the litigants produced [only] a single witness, he [the Judge] should not say to him [the litigant], 'We do not make one liable to pay money on the testimony of a single witness,' but he should [merely] say to the defendant, 'Behold this party has testified against you,' [and he should not furnish him with directives in pleading] until he [the litigant himself] pleads and states, 'A single witness is not reliable concerning me.' And likewise, anything similar to this.
ט ראה הדיין זכות לא' מהם ובע"ד מבקש לאמרו ואינו יודע לחבר הדברים או שראוהו מצטער להציל עצמו בטענות אמת ומפני החימה והכעס נסתלקה ממנו או נשתבש מפני הסכלות הרי זה מותר לסעדו ולהבינו תחלת הדבר משום פתח פיך לאלם וצריך להתיישב בדבר זה הרבה כדי שלא יהיה כעורכי הדיינים:
9 [If] the Judge noticed aught in favour of one of the parties and the litigant [who is aware of this] desires to state it but knows not how to put together [his] arguments, or they [the Judges] saw him having trouble to defend himself in [the presentation of his] true pleas and [only] on account of [his] excitement and anger [this valid argumentation] escaped him, or he became confused because of ineptitude, — [the law is that] in such a case he [the Judge] is permitted to assist him and give him to understand [how to present] the opening of [his] case on account of 'Open thy mouth for the dumb.' However, one must give very careful consideration regarding this matter in order not to play the part of an advocate.
י אין לדיין לרחם בדין על דל שלא יאמר עני הוא זה ובעל דינו עשיר וחייב לפרנסו אזכנו בדין ונמצא מתפרנס בכבוד ולא להדר פני גדול שאם באו לפניו עשיר וחכם גדול עם עני והדיוט לא יכבדנו ולא ישאל בשלומו שלא יסתתמו דברי בעל דינו ולא יאמר היאך אחייבנו בדין ונמצא מתבייש אלא אפטרנו ואח"כ אומר לו שיתן לו את שלו אלא יחתוך הדין מיד לאמיתו ואם באו לפניו אחד כשר וא' רשע לא יאמר זה רשע וחזקתו משקר וזה בחזקת שאינו משנה בדיבורו אטה הדין על הרשע אלא לעולם יהיו שני בעלי הדין בעיניו כרשעים ובחזקה שכל א' מהם טוען שקר וידון לפי מה שיראה לו מן הדברים וכשיפטרו מלפניו יהיו בעיניו ככשרים כשקיבלו עליהם את הדין וידון כל אחד לכף זכות:
10 A Judge should not show mercy towards a poor person [who is a party] in a lawsuit, [viz.,] that he [the Judge] should not say, 'This man is poor and his adversary is wealthy and he is required to support him; [therefore,] I will pronounce judgment in his favour and he [the poor man] will thus make a respectable living.' Nor may [the Judge] favour the person of the mighty, [viz.,] that if there appeared before him a wealthy person or a distinguished scholar with a poor man or an ignorant person [respectively], he should not show him [the wealthy person or scholar] honour, nor should he extend a greeting to him, so that the words of his adversary [the poor or ignorant person] should not become stopped up; nor should he [the Judge] say, 'How can I pronounce him guilty at the trial for he will thus be put to shame, only I will acquit him and subsequently I will say to him that he should give him whatever rightfully belongs to him,' — but [the law is that] he should issue the verdict forthwith in accordance with its truth. If before him appeared one [litigant who] is a worthy person and another [litigant who] is a wicked person, he should not say, 'This one is a wicked person and has the status of making false statements and that one has the status that he does not change [i.e., stands by] his word, [consequently,] I will turn the verdict against the wicked person,' — but the two litigants should be regarded by him as if they were [both of them] wicked [guilty] on the presumption that each one of them is making a false claim. And the [Judge] should adjudicate [the lawsuit] according to that which becomes apparent to him [as a result of] the arguments, and when they leave his presence they should be regarded by him as if they were [both of them] worthy [guiltless] after having accepted the verdict, and he should judge each one in the scale of merit.
יא צריך הדיין לפסוק הדין מיד אחר שיתברר לו שאם מענה את הדין ומאריך בדברים הברורים כדי לצער א' מבעלי הדינים הרי זה בכלל לא תעשו עול:
11 The Judge is obliged to issue the verdict forthwith, [i.e., immediately] after it becomes absolutely certain to him, for if he delays judgment and [unduly] prolongs [the examination of] established matters in order [thereby] to afflict one of the litigants, such a one falls into the category of 'Ye shall do no unrighteousness [in judgment].'
יב כשא' מבעלי דינים מגזם לחבירו בפני הדיין ואומר לו כך וכך תתחייב לי בדין אם אין הדין כך צריך הדיין לומר לו שקר אתה דובר: הגה בעל דין שתבע חבירו בעד דבר מועט והדיין רואה שיתחייב לו על פי הדין יותר ממה שתבע אין לו לדיין לפסוק יותר ממה שתבע ואם פסק לו יותר הוי טעות בדין וחוזר (דעת עצמו מפ"ק דב"ב רוניא אקפיה רבינא וכו' וכ"כ הריב"ש בסי' רכ"ז):
12 When one of the litigants threatens his fellow [-litigant] in the presence of the Judge and says to him, '[Were I to make] such and such [a claim] you would be held liable to [pay] me according to the law,' — [then] if the law is not so, the Judge is obliged to say to him, 'You are making a false statement.' Rema: A litigant who made a claim against his fellow for a small amount and the Judge sees that according to the law [ the defendant ] would be liable [ to pay ] more than the amount which was claimed, the Judge should not give a decision [ that the defendant pay ] more than that which was claimed, and if he [ the Judge ] decided for him [ the claimant ] a larger [ amount than he claimed ], it is considered an error in judgment and he may retract.
Previous ChapterNext Chapter