[Avodah] bribes

[Yitzchok Zirkind]

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 5:33 AM, Zev Sero <zev at sero.name> wrote:
>> Why? Judging false and taking bribes are 2 seperate issues.

> Because he's not an iver.

He is an Iver WRT Shochad. (we are not Doreish Taamei dKra)

> Are you suggesting that this is a case where we would be permitted to be
>> Oiver a Lav and cause another Jew to be Oveir a Lav, in order to save the
>> judge from judging wrong.

> I hadn't even thought of that, but now that you mention it, yes.
> How is the lav of taking shochad worse than the lav of deliberately
> giving a false judgement?  And if the two are equal, then how is the
> giver doing any lav at all?

You are being Doreish Taamei dKra there are 2 Issurim, a judge that took
Shochad and ruled wrong was Oveir 2 issurim not one even though both are
based on blindness.

>> (Of course all this is where one is 100% sure that his bribe will only
>> effect Lizkos Es haZakai)

> Every person believes that his case is right.  And when the judge
> solicits money in order to rule his way, that would tend to reinforce
> that belief.  A person can only act on what he believes to be true;
> ein lo ledayan ela ma she'enav ro'os applies equally to everyone.

Even the Chasam Sofer brought in the PT 9:3 (permitting) talking about
a non jew qualifies it more then just "if you don't believe me ask me".

Also I am not talking in a case where he is soliciting bribes as in that
case he is not an Iver. I am not aware of Dayonim doing such.

> I was talking only about (jewish) Dayonim

> But the original question wasn't only about them.   Most cases of
> bribery are not in courts at all, let alone in BD.

I only addressed part of the issue, RYG already addressed many of the other
points with his on mark MM to PT CM 9:1 an 9:3. Ayim Shom vTimtza Nachas.

>  In fact I think the very idea is
> ridiculous.  If an armed robber holds you up, must you refuse to give
> him the money, in order not to be over on lifnei iver, or mesayea`?!
> On the contrary, hal'itehu larasha veyamos.  How is this case different?

Because in the case of Jewish Dayonim there is recourse. A Dayon that Takes
Shochat is Possul.

> Surely he is transgressing lifnei iver!  This is "two sides of a river":
> if he would only stand his ground and refuse to pay, the teacher would
> not be able to sin.  And yet he is not only allowed but required to
> pay.  Why?  To me the answer is obvious: because he has no choice.
> The teacher is wrong, but what can you do if this is what he demands?

That is not one of the 365 Lo Saseh's, and we do have a special Limud as the
Rambam brings there, in any case "foon a kasha shtarbet men nisht" and
Shaarei Trirutzim Lo Ninalu.

[Email #2. -mi]

On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Yitzhak Grossman <celejar at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:28:55 -0400 Yitzchok Zirkind <yzkd at aol.com> wrote:
> ...
>> I was talking only about (jewish) Dayonim, (in a case of BN much can be
>> discussed see Minchas Chinuch Mitzvah 23).

> Pis'he Teshuvah HM 9:3.

Yes you already mentioned this thanks.  However I brought this M"M to
support reasoning WRT Lizkos Es haZaki by BN.

[Email #3. -mi]]

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 5:33 AM, Zev Sero <zev at sero.name> wrote:
>> (Of course all this is where one is 100% sure that his bribe will only
>> effect Lizkos Es haZakai)

> Every person believes that his case is right.  And when the judge
> solicits money in order to rule his way, that would tend to reinforce
> that belief.  A person can only act on what he believes to be true;
> ein lo ledayan ela ma she'enav ro'os applies equally to everyone.

I have much problem with this approach, as this leaves the room for anyone
that sees that a DT is not going his way to justify bribing the judge, since
he believes he is right hence the judge must be saved from judging wrongly
(which is worse then taking Shochad etc.). And again I am not talking where
he solicits which in that case he should seek help from another BD.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind