Ketubot 105: Judges, Bribes, Errors of Judgement

If a woman claims that her husband's family owes her sustenance because he has died while overseas,  must she make an oath regarding the truth of her claim only when she confirms he has died? Or must she have made an oath at the beginning of his journey, as well?

In debating this Mishna, the rabbis examine how judges do their jobs.  The Mishna states that there were only two judges in Jerusalem at the time of the Second Temple who were able to make sweeping decrees.  Our notes suggest that there was at least a third judge, and that there were in fact hundreds of judges at that time.  It is not clear how to understand the status of these particular judges.  

Regardless of how many judges were given great importance, however, all judges were strictly bound to ethical dealings.  Judges should never take bribes - but one judge did ask both parties to pay him before he heard their case.  How could this be?  Perhaps the judgement was sound only if both parties paid the judge?  Or perhaps the judge was not being paid to judge but he was being paid to compensate the time he could be working elsewhere (in this case, as an expert sommelier).

There are a number of restrictions placed on judges - should their judgments be valid:

• they cannot borrow from anyone whom they will judge
• they cannot lend to anyone whom they will judge
• they cannot judge those whom they love
• they cannot judge those whom they hate

The Gemara lists several instances where people perform simple kindnesses for judges. When the judges learn that a case is to be heard including each person who has done a favour, the judges refuse the favour and then they refuse honour of residing over their cases.  

One of those cases involves a man who brings a basket of fish to Rav Anan.  Upon learning that the man is requesting him to reside over a court case, Rav Anan refuses the basket and says that he is disqualified from residing over the man's case.  However, the man begs Rav Anan to accept the fish, for otherwise he is prevented from presenting a priest with the gift of bikurim, first fruits.  We learn that a gift to a Torah scholar is like that of first fruits.

Rav Anan says that he does not wish to accept the fish but will do so to enable the performance of a mitzvah.  He then sends the man to Rav Nachman with a note asking him to judge the man's case, for Rav Anan is disqualified.  Rav Nachman assumes that they are relatives.  He is residing over a case with orphans at that time, and he chooses to put that case on hold - although it is a positive mitzvah to prioritize a case with orphans - to elevate the positive mitzvah of trying a case regarding the honour of Torah.  The case is lost; the litigant became tongue-tied when he saw the importance given to his case.  It is said that Eliahu departed from Rav Anan following this unintentional gaff and Eliahu only returns in a frightening form. 

The rabbis take their responsibilities as judges very seriously.  Their calling is to uphold G-d's intentions as they understand those intentions through rabbinical interpretation.  Sometimes, as in today's daf, their efforts to comply with rabbinical law leaves them, unwittingly, at odds with Torah law.