Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

It says in Choshen Mishpat Siman 9 that it is forbidden for a Dayan (judge) to take a shochad (bribe). What about if a particular Dayan is dealing with a case between Reuven and Shimon, both of whom want to give the Dayan $500 each. Is this still called a "shochad" if he is receiving the same amount of money from each side of the case?

share|improve this question
Are they doing this jointly (we want to pay the dayan for his efforts), or is each doing it on the sly and the amounts just happen to be the same? If the latter, why wouldn't the first one be a bribe at the time (he doesn't yet know about the second)? – Monica Cellio Jan 23 '13 at 14:06
down vote? .... – Yehoshua Jan 23 '13 at 22:31
I think one would reasonably conclude from (a) the pshat of parshat Shoftim and (b) common sense that a bribe is a bribe no matter what other bribes you're taking. I'd like to see some foundation in the question for the (counter-intuitive) possibility that this might not really be a bribe. Or, in other words, what have you learned or heard that leads you to this question? – Monica Cellio Jan 23 '13 at 23:11
@MonicaCellio The answer below with all of the sources validates the question (so I left out any "disclaimer" that I had originally written in the question since at first I didn't believe it was so much of a question until I found out it's a gemorah in Kasubos with many achronim! – Yehoshua Jan 24 '13 at 6:28
Yehoshua, I'm not saying the core question doesn't have merit, but in my personal opinion a question that relies on following a link-only answer for context is weak. Questions (and answers...) should stand reasonably on their own. I'm not asking for a whole treatise, just some basis for thinking the "obvious" interpretation (which turns out to be true) might not apply. Thanks for considering the feedback. – Monica Cellio Jan 24 '13 at 13:52

R' Hershel Schachter was quoted in an interview with Ami Magazine, lamenting how Batei Din often (mal)function (emphasis mine):

Q: Do you have a problem with the borerim system [in which two of the dayanim are chosen by the litigants and the two dayanim choose a third]?

A: The borerim system is also a shanda. A lot of the borerim act like toanim. I was involved in a din Torah. The borer took shochad (bribes). I had to resign from the case. He felt insulted. It was before Rosh Hashanah, and he told me that he was not going to be mochel [forgive] me. I told him, “I don’t need mechila. You took shochad. You’re pasul to be a dayan.” It says in Shulchan Aruch that you can’t have one litigant pay his dayan and the other pay his dayan, unless, which Reb Moshe writes in a teshuva, it is clear that both are being paid the same amount, in which case each one can pay his dayan and they both pay the third. But that isn’t what happens. They don’t pay the same amount. The payment depends on how long each one bothers the dayan. So they don’t pay the same amount and it is true shochad.

share|improve this answer
Where's the teshuva from R' Moshe? – Yehoshua Jan 24 '13 at 19:07
@Yehoshua, I wish I knew. – Seth J Jan 24 '13 at 19:13

See this post from Bein Din L'Din, explaining that it's generally prohibited.

share|improve this answer
This answers the question. However perhaps you could post here in the answer itself some of the basic sources that he quotes – Yehoshua Jan 23 '13 at 14:01
When the answer is updated and all of the relative sources are posted here I will accept the answer – Yehoshua Jan 24 '13 at 9:51
While this link may answer the question, it is better to include the essential parts of the answer here and provide the link for reference. Link-only answers can become invalid if the linked page changes. (See here for more information) – Shokhet Dec 18 '14 at 3:44

The Sm'a in that siman s.k. 2 says explicitly that it is not allowed even though the regular logic of bribery does not apply. He says to look at what he wrote in the Drisha. There he quotes a gemara in Ksuvos 105a which says taking bribery even in order to judge justly is assur. Tosafos and the Meiri there disallow the taking of money from both parties in the form of bribery. Taking from both parties in the form of payment for judgement would be a different issue, as brought in the Shulchan Aruch in that siman siff 5.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.