Bekhorot 4:4
Is a judge personally liable for his flawed decisions?
诪讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪诪讞讛 讜专讗讛 讗转 讛讘讻讜专 讜谞砖讞讟 注诇 驻讬讜, 讛专讬 讝讛 讬拽讘专, 讜讬砖诇诐 诪讘讬转讜. 讚谉 讗转 讛讚讬谉, 讝讻讛 讗转 讛讞讬讘 讜讞讬讘 讗转 讛讝讻讗讬, 讟诪讗 讗转 讛讟讛讜专 讜讟讛专 讗转 讛讟诪讗, 诪讛 砖注砖讛 注砖讜讬 讜讬砖诇诐 诪讘讬转讜. 讜讗诐 讛讬讛 诪诪讞讛 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉, 驻讟讜专 诪诇砖诇诐. 诪注砖讛 讘驻专讛 砖谞讟诇讛 讛讗诐 砖诇讛, 讜讛讗讻讬诇讛 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 诇讻诇讘讬诐, 讜讘讗 诪注砖讛 诇驻谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讛转讬专讜讛. 讗诪专 转讜讚讜住 讛专讜驻讗: 讗讬谉 驻专讛 讜讞讝讬专讛 讬讜爪讗讛 诪讗诇讻住谞讚专讬讗 注讚 砖讛诐 讞讜转讻讬谉 讗转 讛讗诐 砖诇讛, 讘砖讘讬诇 砖诇讗 转诇讚. 讗诪专 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉: 讛诇讻讛 讞诪讜专讱 讟专驻讜谉. 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗: 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉, 驻讟讜专 讗转讛, 砖讗转讛 诪诪讞讛 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉, 讜讻诇 讛诪诪讞讛 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 驻讟讜专 诪诇砖诇诐.
If someone who was not an authorized expert inspected a first-born animal and it was slaughtered on his instruction [because he thought it to be defective], the carcass should be buried, and he must reimburse the owner from his own account. If [an unauthorized judge] ruled on a case, exonerating the guilty, or deeming guilty the innocent, or declaring impure that which was pure, or pure that which was impure鈥攈is decision stands, but he must pay restitution from his own account. But if [the judge] was appointed by the Beit Din, then he is exempt from paying [damages]. There was a case of a cow which had had its uterus removed, and Rabbi Tarfon, [considering it treife] fed it to the dogs. Then the Sages reviewed the case, and decided to allow [such a cow to be considered kosher]. Todos the physician testified, 鈥渘o cow or sow is let out of Alexandria until they have removed its uterus, so that it will not reproduce [elsewhere].鈥� Rabbi Tarfon said, 鈥淭here goes your donkey, Tarfon!鈥� Rabbi Akiva said to him, 鈥淩abbi Tarfon, you are exempt [from personal liability for the cow] for you are an appointed [judge] of the Beit Din, and whoever is appointed by the Beit Din is exempt from [personal] liability to pay.鈥�
Comment
The Torah declares that all first-born animals owned by Israelites must be given to God. Non-kosher animals such as donkeys would be redeemed; otherwise, the animal was presented to the priest. However, if it had a minor blemish, it was unfit for presentation and could be redeemed and then used by the owner. In the first case, the inexpert judge declared the animal to be unfit, thereby depriving its owner of the chance to fulfill the mitzvah. The second case revolves around whether a hysterectomy performed on a cow renders it treife, unfit for Jewish consumption. Rabbi Tarfon ruled yes, but the Sages determined, based on Todos鈥檚 testimony, that this was a routine procedure that didn鈥檛 render the animal treife.
Questions
- This Mishnah shields court-appointed judges from personal liability. Should this be our practice too?
- Should it matter whether the judicial error was one of fact or interpretation?
