This [command is addressed] to the one who appoints judges, etc. For it is already written [to the judges], "And you are to judge right." But in Parshas Shoftim (below 16:19) regarding, "Do not display favoritism," Rashi explains: Even at the time of litigation — this is a warning to the judge not to be gentle to one litigant and harsh to the other, etc. The answer is: It cannot be explained there the same as here. Otherwise, the verses should be reversed and say, "Do not show favor in judgment" before, "Do not bend justice," [as will now be explained:] the previous verse was dealing with appointing judges. For it is written, "And they will judge the people justly," and Rashi explains, "Appoint judges who are expert and righteous." And since, "Do not show favor in judgment," is written after, "Do not bend justice," (which is referring to the judges), then it too must be referring to the judges. Rashi does not explain here as he does over there, because here the verse says, "And you are to judge right between a man and his brother." If he should be gentle to one litigant and harsh to the other, it would not be judging rightly. Therefore, "Do not show favor in judgment," is unnecessary. Rather, it must be referring to the one who appoints judges.
[Litigation involving a peruta
] should be as dear to you, etc. It seems that the word כתרגומו is printed in the wrong place, and should read: "Small and great alike will you hear out," can be explained as
Targum Onkelos has [adding the word מילי (matter)]: Litigation involving a
peruta should be as dear to you, etc. Rashi's [first] explanation is Talmudic
(Sanhedrin 8a), and the last two are from
Sifrei (
Nachalas Yaakov).
So if a [minor litigation] comes before you first, etc. For if you [incorrectly] think to interpret this verse literally as, "Whether the defendant is an average person or whether he is a figure of authority," this can be learned from the phrase, "Between a man and his brother." (Re"m).
Another explanation: Small and great alike will you hear out, etc. The first explanation is problematic, for the verse should say כמעט כהרבה (a little or a lot). Therefore, Rashi says: Another explanation... [This one is a poor man, etc.] And the second explanation is [also] problematic, for the verse should say גדול כקטן (the great like the small). I.e., you should rule in favor of the rich man if he is innocent, just as you would try to rule in favor of the poor man to support him in a tidy manner. Therefore, Rashi says: Another explanation: He should not say, ["How can I offend] etc." Yet, this last explanation is [also] problematic, for the verse should say קטן כגדול (the small like the great) will you hear out. And with only the last two explanations there is [also] a problem, for the verse should say כעני כעשיר (wealthy and poor alike). Therefore, the first explanation is also needed.
Do not be afraid. I.e., a judge should not say, "I am afraid of this man, for perhaps he will kill me or he will set fire to my stockpile of grain."
Do not gather in [suppress] your words, etc. For example, a disciple who is in the presence of his rabbi, and a judgment is presented to his rabbi and he judges incorrectly, the disciple should not remain silent. Rashi's first explanation is problematic, for the verse should have said אל תיראו (do not be afraid). Therefore, Rashi says: Another explanation, Do not gather in, etc. But, the second explanation is problematic, for the verse should have said לא תאגורו (do not gather in) [with an
aleph], an expression similar to אוגר בקיץ (gathering in the summer)
(Mishlei 10:5). Therefore, the first reason is also needed.
Re"m explains: Do not keep your words [hidden] in your heart out of fear to speak them out and tell the litigant that he is liable or guilty in his dispute.
That you diverted the judgment upon Me. Otherwise, what is the meaning of, "Justice belongs to Hashem"? Justice pertains only to the litigants!
Because of this [statement] the law eluded him, etc. Because Moshe likened himself to Hashem: For it is written, "For justice belongs to Hashem," and afterwards it is written, "And the matter that will be too difficult for you, present to me," as if Moshe himself were Hashem. Therefore, the laws pertaining to inheritance which are a simple matter eluded him. For everyone knows that if a man has no sons, then a daughter inherits instead of a son. For Rachel and Leah said
(Bereishis 31:14), "Do we have a portion anymore, etc," meaning: We do not share the inheritance along with the males. Yet, this eluded Moshe. Rashi did not explain that because of this statement the law regarding the woodchopper, or regarding the ritually impure eluded him — for those are not simple [laws], and therefore Moshe did not know. But the laws regarding inheritance are simple.
בשביל דינר. אזכינו עכשיו, וכשיצא לחוץ, אומר לו: תן לו שאתה חייב לו.