“You shall not corrupt judgement; you shall not respect someone’s presence, and you shall not accept a bribe …” (Devarim 16:19).
The Talmud in Sanhedrin (21b) cites R’ Yitzchak who stated that the rationalization for the various Torah commandments is not revealed, because when two rationales were disclosed Shlomo HaMelech himself blundered. It is written (Devarim 17:17), “And he shall not have too many wives, so that his heart should not turn astray.” Shlomo HaMelech reasoned that he would take more wives and he would not stumble. Yet, when he became old, we learn that his wives did begin to turn his heart away from Hashem, i.e. he was tolerant of his wives who worshipped idols. It is also written (Devarim 17:16), “He shall not have too many horses so that he will not return the people to Egypt [to accumulate more horses].” Shlomo HaMelech rationalized that he would take more horses and not return to Egypt. We learn, though, that people moved to Egypt in order to participate in the business of acquiring horses for Shlomo HaMelech.
Our sages note that rationales are given as well for why one should not take bribery or corrupt justice. Why didn’t Shlomo HaMelech rationalize that he would not fail here as well? The prohibition of bribery leaves no room whatsoever to say that anyone is above it. It is impossible to say that a person will not be blinded by a bribe, because even a great individual can be swayed, as it says, “for the bribe will blind the eyes of the wise …”
Our sages expound that the judge’s demeanor should not differentiate between the two litigants who appear before him. For example, one party should not sit while the other stands, nor should the judge smile or greet one litigant and not the other, because that would appear to indicate that the judge is favoring one over the other. Likewise, even if one of the litigants usually greets the judge, because he knows him, he cannot do so in the courtroom because that could be considered a bribe, which would ultimately result in the perversion of judgment.
Although one may protest that he would never take a bribe the Mishna in Avos (2:4) states, “Do not believe in yourself until the day you die.”
The commentaries write that if a judge accepts a bribe, there is no doubt that the verdict will be tainted. They note that this is a given, and it is, in fact, alluded to in the Torah. The Hebrew letters that follow each of the letters of the Hebrew word shochad are sav tes, hey – sateh, as the pasuk reads: lo sateh mishpat – you shall not corrupt judgment … v’lo sikach shochad – and you shall not accept a bribe, because one will surely follow the other.
Our sages tell us (Shabbos 10a), “Any judge who judges a true judgment truthfully it is as if he became a partner to Hashem in the creation of the world.” The Shulchan Aruch rules that the judge’s verdict must be absolutely true. The commentaries say that even if one has followed the rules that would determine the litigant’s innocence or guilt, but he somehow intuits that such a ruling would be improper, he cannot issue a decision until the matter is investigated further.
A very wealthy merchant came to the city of the Noda B’Yehudah, where he was hosted for Shabbos by a wine merchant. The guest gave his host a bundle of money to put away over Shabbos, and the host put the money in his wine cellar, among some barrels of wine. Later that night, though, the host removed the money from its hiding place to another location.
After Shabbos, the guest came crying to the Noda B’Yehudah because the money could not be found. There were no witnesses and nothing to prove what had actually taken place. The general rule is that the burden of proof is incumbent upon the plaintiff, in this case being the guest.
However, the Noda B’Yehudah did not feel comfortable making a ruling because something seemed off.
The Noda B’Yehudah called in the wine merchant and asked if he knew what had happened with the guest’s money. The wine merchant confirmed that he had put the bundle among the barrels of wine in his cellar, but he had no idea what happened to it.
“Do you have a servant in the house?” asked the Noda B’Yehudah.
“Yes,” said the wine merchant, “but I doubt he would touch the money.”
The Noda B’Yehudah sat quietly for a few minutes and then said, “You certainly didn’t touch the money. I wouldn’t think of accusing a Jewish person of doing such a thing. After all, you are a generous individual, who invited a guest into your home and hosted him at your table. I must then consider the strong possibility that it was your servant who did this. And since he is permitted to go into the wine cellar it is very probable that he touched some of the wine, rendering it yayin nesech – wine that was left unattended with non-Jews. We will have to let everyone know that no benefit can be derived by Jewish people from this tainted wine.”
The wine merchant realized that the money he had stolen was a pittance compared to the barrels of wine that would now be considered not kosher for Jewish consumption.
“It was me,” he cried out. “The non-Jew didn’t touch anything. I couldn’t overcome my intense desire for money!”
The Noda B’Yehudah said that he couldn’t believe the wine merchant. “You just want to save your wine,” he told him.
The man protested and ran to retrieve the bundle of money that he had stolen. Indeed, not one coin was missing. The wealthy visitor took his money and thanked the Noda B’Yehudah. It was the perspicacity of the Noda B’Yehudah that had determined the truth. Although the Noda B’Yehudah had not abided by the general rule, he was ultimately able to bring the truth to light and issue an accurate verdict.
