Q&A: A Judge and the Laws of a Court Ruling
A Judge and the Laws of a Court Ruling
Question
There are several Jewish laws that prevent a judge from issuing a ruling—for example, that specifically two witnesses are required, two valid witnesses, that even if there are a hundred valid witnesses but one related witness among them the testimony is void, that a prior warning is required, that the warning must be given immediately beforehand, that the accused must answer that he accepted the warning, that separate testimony is not admissible, and so on and so on.
But on the other hand, there is also the rule that a judge can rule based on what he senses, like the story with Rava and his wife. Even if he does not have the formalistic legal requirements that Jewish law demands, he can still rule and find the litigant liable.
Why don’t these two things contradict one another? In other words, why does Jewish law require the judge to have all sorts of things in order to convict a litigant, if in the end he can rule based on what he senses?
Answer
See Maimonides at the beginning of chapter 20 and the beginning of chapter 24 of the Laws of the Sanhedrin. This was said only regarding monetary cases, and even there it was abolished by the enactment of the two academies. But according to the basic law, in monetary cases a judge may rule according to what appears correct to him, and only when he has no clear position does he follow the regular laws of evidence. There is no contradiction at all.
Discussion on Answer
In capital cases there is the law of a fraudulent case: if he is sure that the ruling that emerges from the evidence is not correct, he withdraws. That is also true in monetary cases after the enactment of the two academies.
The difference apparently stems from the fact that in monetary cases, when you rule incorrectly, you harmed another person. A leniency for one is a stringency for the other. In capital cases, even if you erred and were lenient, the Holy One, blessed be He, will already take care of him.
And in capital cases, even if he has his own view (what seems right to him), he is still forbidden to follow that, and instead must follow the rules of Jewish law, right?
Why is there a difference between monetary cases and capital cases in this matter?