Lesson # 338 (part bir) •A Beth Din of One Judge Many times, I, and I am sure so have other rabbis, been asked to judge a dispute between two parties. I have almost always declined because as I shall show in these lessons, only Hashem should judge as an individual judge. There are, however, provisions made for a single judge to adjudicate a dispute. Many small towns had only one rabbi who served in many capacities and one of them was to adjudicate disputes. As will IYH be shown in a future lesson, ordinarily a decision of a Beth Din of two judges is not valid. That being so, then certainly the decision of a Beth Din consisting of only one judge should be invalid. How then are there situations where one judge may adjudicate a dispute and his decision will be binding on the parties to the dispute? Under what circumstances may a court consisting of less than three judges validly decide monetary cases without the necessity of the litigants conferring jurisdiction on the Beth Din? The question may be phrased another way: Are there situations where even a one-man Beth Din may compel the litigants to have their dispute decided by this Beth Din? The Talmud (T. Sanhedrin 4b) cites a Baraita which states that monetary disputes are judged by three judges. But if an individual judge is a recognized expert he may judge alone. The first part of the Baraita, stating that three judges may judge monetary actions is a reformulation of the Mishna we cited many times. The second part, however, introduces the novel concept that a single recognized expert has a status similar to that of three judges. As will be shown, according to some authorities there are limitations to the similarities; but basically the judgment of the individual expert judge is as enforceable as that of a Beth Din of three judges, and he may compel the litigants to appear in his Beth Din. According to Rashi, the Baraita permitting one recognized expert to judge monetary actions is reconcilable with the view in the Talmud (that of R' Acha) that according to Torah law one judge may judge monetary cases. (There is a dispute in the Talmud between R. Acha who holds that according to Torah law one judge may judge monetary cases. There is also the contrary view of Rava, that according to Torah law three ordained judges are required to judge monetary cases. According to Rava there was a Rabbinic enactment to permit three laymen (as distinguished from three ordained judges) or one recognized expert to judge monetary cases. Most commentaries reconcile the statement to both views set forth in the Talmud. According to R. Acha, although one ordained judge may judge monetary cases, this was relaxed to permit three laymen or one expert to judge monetary cases. This was done to promote commerce, for if one who had a commercial claim against another could not have an adjudication of his claim until an ordained judge could be found, he would not enter the commercial transaction. Also, as was stated in a prior lesson, there came a time in the middle of the 4th century c.e. when ordination lapsed. Thus in order to permit people to engage in every day affairs, especially commerce, there had to be a recourse in case of disputes, the enactment for three laymen or one expert to judge monetary disputes. According to the view of Rava that the Torah required three ordained judges to adjudicate commercial disputes, in order to promote commerce the requirement was relaxed to permit three non-ordained judges to adjudicate the disputes or else one expert. The expert was not ordained. The Talmud in defining the words recognized expert states that R. Nachman and R. Chiya were qualified as experts because they were “learned and capable of reasoning”. Rashi explains that the term “learned” means that the person learned the law from a qualified teacher, and that the term "capable of reasoning" means that the person is able to deduce conclusions from his knowledge. To be regarded as a “recognized expert” an individual, in addition, to being “learned” and “capable of reasoning” must also be an experienced judge whose decision have generally been free from error. There was a time when the individual, in addition to being a recognized expert also had to have received authorization from certain persons. While they were living in the Land of Israel the leader of the Jewish community was the Nasi. While the Jews were living in Babylonia, they were led by the Exilarch (Rosh Galuta). For the purpose of our discussions, there are four levels of authority. The judge with greatest jurisdictional scope is the recognized expert. Judges having lesser jurisdictional powers, listed here in descending order of authority are the expert judge, the learned person, and the layman. Not all the commentators use the terms in the same way. Thus, what one commentator may term an expert may be designated by another as a learned judge or a recognized expert. Accordingly, great cae is required in studying the sources to ascertain which type of judge is actually being discussed. In this and the next lesson three questions must be answered. First, what if any, is the relationship between these four levels of authority? Second, does authorization enhance the authority of the single judge? Finally, is authorization necessary for the single judge? The subject matter of this lesson is more fully discussed in volume I chapter 1 A Restatement of Rabbinic Civil Law by E. Quint. Copies of all volumes can be purchased via email: orders@gefenpublishing.com and via website: www.israelbooks.com and at local Judaica bookstores. Questions to quint@inter.net.il [The Parshat Balak Homepage]
|
