What are the implications of "v'Atah Sechezeh"?
Rashi: It means Moshe should appoint them based on Ru'ach ha'Kodesh. 1
Seforno: Yisro was telling Moshe that, although the adjudication could be performed by the judges, choosing the judges is something that only he could perform.
Mechilta: "V'Atah Sechezeh ... " - 'b'Ispaklaryah,' with the vision with which the Chachamim (the Nevi'im) see things. 2
What is the definition of "Anshei Chayil"?
Rashi: Men of wealth, who are not subject to flattery. 1
Ramban: Men who are capable of leading large groups of people; or who are strong and competent, 2 incorporating the other three Midos - men who are G-d-fearing, who love the truth and who detest extortion (dishonesty). 3
Rashbam: Men who are wealthy and powerful and who are not afraid of anybody,
Seforno (in Pasuk 25): "Anshei Chayil" means 'Charutzim,' men who are knowledgeable and diligent.
Mechilta: Men who are trustworthy - who keep their word. 4
Oznayim la'Torah: See 18:21:5:3 .
What is the definition of "Yir'ei Elokim"?
Targum Onkelos: Men who fear G-d.
Mechilta: Men who are prepared to compromise in Din. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 32.
What is the definition of "Anshei Emes"?
Rashi: men of integrity, on whose word one can rely, and to whom one therefore listens and - who are impervious to threat.
Ramban: who detest extortion (dishonesty).
Rashbam: Men of integrity.
Mechilta: Men of the caliber of R. Chanina ben Dosa and his friends. 1
See Ta'anis 25b.
What is the definition of "Sone'ei Batza"?
Rashi (citing Bava Basra 58b) and Mechilta: Men who 'hate' their own money in judgement. 1 If money is confiscated 2 from a Dayan in Beis Din, he is not a genuine judge!
Ramban #1 (citing R. Yehoshua in the Mechilta), Rashbam and Targum Yonasan: People who are loath to accept bribery (and what is stolen - Rashbam). 3
Ramban #2 (citing R. Eliezer in the Mechilta): People who hate gain - even their own money. 4 That is, they have no interest in much wealth. 5
Ramban #3 (citing Onkelos): People who are loath to accept money 6 - even in the form of a gift or a loan. 7
Ramban #4: Refer to 18:21:2:2.
Torah Temimah: The Pasuk is referring to people who, when they have a monetary dispute with someone, they prefer to forego their claim rather than go to Beis-Din, even though they know they are in the right.
Oznayim la'Torah: See 18:21:3.1:1 .
Mechilta: And how much more so, somebody else's!
Moshav Zekenim, Rosh, Mizrachi: But if it was collected in Beis Din, we see that it was not his money to begin with! See below, question 18:21:3.2 .
Rashbam: Or theft, or any money that is obtained illegally (Targum Yonasan). See for example, Chavakuk 2:9 and Bereishis 37:26.
Ramban citing Tanchuma: To the point that they will judge correctly even against the litigant's threat that he will burn their haystacks. The Moshav Zekenim places this under the category of "Yir'ei Elokim."
How much more so, in money belonging to others (see Ramban).
As the Gemara states in Kesuvos 105b.
So that he is not prone to favoritism.
Why does the Torah say "Sone'ei Batza" (those who hate unjust gain), and not just 'Einam Mekabelim Shochad' (those who do not take bribes)?
Oznayim la'Torah: Because a Dayan who would like to take bribery, 1 but desists because the Torah commands him to, is not a Dayan. 2
Oznayim la'Torah: As opposed to matters concerning Isur, about which the Chachamim say (see Rashi to Vayikra 20:26), that a person should say 'I would love to eat Chazir, but what can I do, the Torah prohibits it!'
Rashi (to Devarim 1:15) gives a total of seven qualifications that Yisro told Moshe (including those mentioned in Devarim 1:13 - "(Anashim) Chachamim, u'Nevonim, vi'Yedu'im l'Shivteichem." Why is the latter set not mentioned here?
Gur Aryeh (to Devarim 1:15): Chazal derive (Devarim Rabah) that if we cannot find judges possessing all seven traits, we should appoint those possessing four, or three, or whatever traits are available. 1
Gur Aryeh (ibid.): Even to be "Yedu'im l'Shivteichem" is a trait of the judge himself. a. More than mere recognition, it means that he has acquired a good name for himself (see Rambam Hil. Sanhedrin 2:7). b. Onkelos translates "Yedu'im" as those who possesses Da'as - such that "Chachamim, Nevonim, Yedu'im" correspond to Chochmah, Binah and Da'as.
Why does the Torah begin with the highest figure, and progress downwards - from officers of a thousand to officers of ten?
Why are so many judges (more than thirteen percent of the population!) required to judge the people?
Oznayim la'Torah: Let alone the generation of Moshe - the Mishnah in Sanhedrin 17b requires a town to have a Beis-Din of twenty-three members, to cater to two litigants - in the event that they enter into a dispute 1 - to demonstrate the importance of justice, and the need for a sound judicial system.
See Oznayim la'Torah for more details.
What is the significance of the four qualifications that Yisro stipulates here, for appointment as a Dayan - "Anshei Chayil, Yir'ei Elokim, Anshei Emes, Sone'ei Batza"? Why are there four classes of judges?
Seforno: With four levels of judges, litigants who were not satisfied with the first, would go to the second, from the second to the third and from the third to the fourth - with the result that very few litigants would need to come to Moshe, thereby lightening his burden. 1
Maharal (Nesivos Olam, Nesiv Gemilus Chasadim Ch. 5, p. 165): One must appoint only judges who have no baseness or negative character traits. There are four components to a person - Guf, Nefesh, Sechel, and Mamon. 2 a. "Anshei Chayil" - those with strength of Guf; who need not flatter others; b. "Yir'ei Elokim" - of the Nefesh, such that they will not tilt the scales of justice; c. "Anshei Emes" - to determine the truth using Sechel; d. "Sone'ei Batza" in their possessions.
Oznayim la'Torah: It seems that the two lists are interconnected - 1. "Anshei Chayil" (strong men) - officers of ten wielding rods and straps to enforce the law; 3 2. "Yir'ei Elokim" - officers of fifty - i.e. over five Anshei Chayil, to ensure that they do not deal too harshly with the people while enforcing the law; 3. "Anshei Emes" - men of Torah, to enforce the law according to the Din Torah; and 4. "Sone'ei Batza" - officers of a thousand, the Beis-Din ha'Gadol, to make sure that the law is carried out without bias. 4
Which was after all, the main objective of the judges.
Maharal: Possessions, although they are not the man himself, are part of a man's whole; they are necessary for his sustenance. And to some people, their possessions are more dear to them than their Guf (Berachos 61b).
Oznayim la'Torah: Like the officers of ten in Egypt.
Oznayim la'Torah: It transpires that the first two are law-officers and the last two, judges - and this will explain why officers of fifty were necessary. See Oznayim la'Torah, DH 'Sarei Chamishim.'
Having written "Yir'ei Elokim," why does the Torah need to add "Anshei Emes"?
Moshav Zekenim: It means that they arrive at the correct Halachah. 1
Moshav Zekenim: Beis Shamai and Abaye were certainly Yir'ei Elokim, yet in most cases the Halachah is not like them when they argue with Beis Hillel and Rava, respectively.
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes: [You should appoint Dayanim] using the Ru'ach ha'Kodesh that is upon you." Yet, when Moshe retells this story in Devarim 1:13, Rashi comments "Who are known to your tribes - [Bnei Yisrael, you should select men] whom you recognize; because if someone comes before me (Moshe) wrapped in his Talis, I do not know who he is, what tribe he is from, or if he is worthy; but you know him, because you raised him!" That description does not seem to involve Moshe's Ru'ach ha'Kodesh!
Gur Aryeh (to Devarim 1:13): First, each tribe was commanded to nominate potential judges [whom they recognized and respected]. Then, any candidate that Moshe's Ru'ach ha'Kodesh agreed to, was confirmed to the office.
Rashi writes: "'Men of truth' - Men of integrity ('Ba'alei Havtacha'), who are deserving that we rely on their words. Thus, their words will be obeyed." Why is that people who keep their own promises, will have their directives obeyed?
Gur Aryeh: One who does not keep his own words is looked down upon by others, such that the litigants will not heed the judges' directives. Furthermore, when he commands that a certain thing be done, they will not rely on his decision; they will say that he does not truly mean that it should be carried out. Whereas, when a judge who keeps his word pronounces a verdict, the litigants will rely on what he says must be done.
Rashi writes: "'Sone'ei Batza' - They hate their money in judgment; as [Chazal] say, 'Any judge from whom they remove money in Din, is not a judge!' (Bava Basra 58b)." Mizrachi asks - If, despite his claims, the Dayanim rule against the judge and collect the money, then we see that it was not his own money, but someone else's! To what sort of case do Chazal refer?
Ramban #1: Chazal refer to a case in which, despite that the Dayan knows that the money is his own, he knows that his opponent will nonetheless be able to collect it in a Din Torah. (For example, he bought an Eved without witnesses, and has no proof that he is now his. 1 ). A Dayan "hates" such money from the outset; and will cede it to his opponent even before the case comes to Beis Din. 2
Ramban #2: When adjucating a case, and a violent litigant threatens to damage the Dayan's property, he pays no heed to his own money, and judges the case properly without fear or bias. 3
Moshav Zekenim, Hadar Zekenim #1, Rosh: A judge who is appointed over the community may not withdraw due to threats. He must judge without fear - "Lo Saguru mi'Pnei Ish" (Devarim 1:17)! If however, the Dayan gave a wrong verdict due to a litigant's threat, 4 and then a higher Beis Din obligated him to reimburse the victim of that ruling, out of his own pocket - he is not a Dayan.
Hadar Zekenim #2: When Beis-Din forces him to pay, 5 he is not a proper judge, since he should have paid of his own accord! Had he been well-versed in Din, he should have anticipated the outcome.
Gur Aryeh: Chazal speak of a case in which the Dayan was ruled liable, even based on his own claims - only that he was unable to see this. When a person loves money, he is unable to see any fault in his own claim 6 against his opponent. He is therefore unfit even to judge others; because he loves his own money, he will identify with the defendant's position, and lack the fortitude to collect money from other people either.
Mizrachi asks - But in such an example, the plaintiff would not collect! Rather, the defendant would take a Shevu'as Heses and be exempt. Gur Aryeh - No; that would be true of Metaltelin objects that do not move, because possession thereof constitutes presumption (Chazakah) of ownership. The Ramban specifically uses the example of an Eved, who like flocks (Goderos), can move around at will, and therefore current possession does not constitute presumption of ownership (Bava Basra 36a).
Gur Aryeh asks - But perhaps when the Dayan did not cede the case, it was not out of the love of his own money, but rather in the hope that once reaching Beis Din, his opponent would not be so brash as to lie in court!
Gur Aryeh asks - This would not be termed "hate of unjust gain," but rather, 'love of justice and truth.'
Riva: Or out of favoritism of an Ashir over an Ani.
Riva: The 'Dayan' had denied responsibility, yet his opponent verified his liability with witnesses. However, when a Dayan volunteers to pay so as to avoid having to take a Shevu'ah, he is not disqualified as a Dayan.
Mizrachi had argued that if the Dayan was mistaken in how the Din would turn out, it was not due to love of his money, but rather to not being well-versed in applying the Din. Gur Aryeh seems to be addressing this point - This Dayan's love of money removed his objectivity, and he could not see that he himself was at fault. Only one who "hates" his money and can objectively see himself at fault, can be a Dayan.
Rashi writes that there were 600 officers over thousands, 6000 officers over hundreds, 12,000 officers over fifties, and 60,000 officers over tens. The Gemara (Sanhedrin 18a) gives the total as 78,600 Dayanim. Tosfos (loc. cit.) asks - After the 600 Sarei Alafim were appointed, the pool of Bnei Yisrael who needed judges, was diminished (to 599,400. The Sarei Me'os would then number only 5,994; and so on -- yielding a total of about 76,616 judges)?
Tosfos (to Sanhedrin 18a) #1 1 : The count of 600,000 only included the men between the ages of twenty and sixty (see Bava Basra 121b). Perhaps the (senior) judges were appointed from among the elders, who were above the age of sixty, 2 so we should not deduct them from the total. The Sarei Asaros, who were last to be appointed, indeed could have been among the 600,000 men under age sixty -- such that each was appointed over nine other men, in addition to himself. 3
Tosfos (ibid.) #2: The Gemara is not counting the number of people appointed to the job; but rather the number of appointments. First they appointed 60,000 Sarei Asaros; then from among that group, the most important were also appointed as Sarei Chamishim; and so on. 4
Hadar Zekenim (citing Bechor Shor): Although they first appointed 600 officers of 1000, and then 6000 officers of 100, etc., even a higher officer (e.g. of 1000) had lower officers (of 100, 50 or 10) over him.
Gur Aryeh: Tosfos assumes that Bnei Yisrael were sub-divided into groups of ten, one of whom would be appointed a judge over his specific nine fellows. But who is to say that those ten men will do business only among themselves!? 5 Rather, the Pasuk is simply delineating the various levels of judges. Someone whose wisdom stands out among ten of his fellows, is worthy of being a Sar Asaros; and someone whose wisdom is one-in-a-thousand should be appointed a Sar Alafim. 6 Each judge is considered appointed over Bnei Yisrael as a whole -- not limited to any specific group. 7 It follows that Tosfos' question does not begin - there is no reason to deduct the Sarei Alafim from the whole. 8
Compare Hadar Zekenim, Da'as Zekenim, Riva.
Moshav Zekenim citing R. Yeshayah: Or, from the tribe of Levi.
Gur Aryeh: Tosfos is pushed to explain this way, because it is hard to imagine that they found 78,600 judges with the required qualifications, among the elders alone! (Rather, only the 18,600 senior judges need have been over 60.) But Gur Aryeh asks on Tosfos - If so, the Sarei Asaros were counted mil'Gav (i.e., as part of their set of ten); whereas the Sarei Chamishim and higher were counted mil'Var (outside their group, over a complete set of fifty)! How would the Gemara know this? Furthermore, if this insight is the reason the Gemara gives the total number, it should have explained this fully.
Also see Mizrachi. Thus, the total number of people appointed as judges remained at 60,000. To be a Sar Alafim, meant a .appointment over 9 others as a Sar Asaros; b. as well as over 49 others (four of whom were Sarei Asaros themselves) as a Sar Chamishim; c. as well as over 99 others (9 of whom were Sarei Asaros [one of whom even a Sar Chamishim]) as a Sar Me'os; d. and finally over 999 others (99 of whom were Sarei Asaros [19 of whom even Sarei Chamishim (9 of these even Sarei Me'os)]) as a Sar Alafim. Gur Aryeh -According to this answer, the Gemara's Chidush is that the Dayanim (at all levels) were counted mil'Gav - within the total number. See also Targum Yonasan on Pasuk 25 and Perush Yonasan.
Gur Aryeh: Were that to be true, it would emerge that the Sarei Alafim would have the heaviest caseload -- as they would be the most likely to have both litigants among their constituents! Such a system would be counter-intuitive.
Tosfos' second answer, that each Sar Chamishim was also a Sar Asaros, would be relevant only if each Dayan is assigned a specific group of people. But according to Gur Aryeh, the title describes the judges' level of wisdom; such that it would be contradictory to assign two different titles to the same person.
But take note that Rashi to Devarim 1:15 explains "Sarei Alafim" as "One appointed over 1,000;" etc. (EK)
Tosfos' question assumed that each Sar Asaros is appointed over ten specific people; and that there is therefore no reason to assign a Sar Asaros over someone who is himself a Sar Chamishim (for example). Gur Aryeh explains that there were no specific groups. He adds, that even a Sar Alafim sometimes needs to file a claim against his fellow, and will need a Sar Asaros to judge the case. Thus, there were 78,600 individual judges, as the Gemara states.
