EN ES
HomeThe Laws › Do Not Render a Biased Ruling
Commandment #416 · Negative #416

Do Not Render a Biased Ruling

לֹא תַעֲנֶה עַל רִב
Exodus 23:2 · Courts & Justice
לֹא תִהְיֶה אַחֲרֵי רַבִּים לְרָעֹת וְלֹא תַעֲנֶה עַל רִב לִנְטֹת אַחֲרֵי רַבִּים לְהַטֹּת
“You shall not follow a crowd to do evil. You shall not testify in court to side with a multitude to pervert justice.”

Two Prohibitions, One Verse — Response and Vote

Ex 23:2: “You shall not follow a crowd to do evil. You shall not testify in court to side with a multitude to pervert justice.” The rabbinic tradition derives two distinct commandments from this verse. The first (commandment #415) addresses the judge's vote: do not cast it based on what the majority is doing. The second (commandment #572) addresses the judge's response: do not frame your engagement with the case in a way that sides with the majority at the expense of truth.

The distinction matters because a judge can reach an independent conclusion but still articulate their reasoning in a way that is shaped by deference to authority, fear of the plaintiff, or desire to reach the convenient result. The prohibition on lo ta'aneh al riv (do not answer a dispute) targets this second dimension: the process of reasoning and responding, not only the final vote. A judicial opinion that is contorted to reach a pre-desired conclusion violates the spirit of independent judgment even if the verdict number is counted independently.

The Forms of Judicial Bias — What Shapes the Response

The cluster of judicial prohibitions in Exodus and Leviticus identifies several bias mechanisms. Lev 19:15: “You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.” Partiality to the poor is not justice — it is sentiment overriding evidence. Deference to the great is not respect — it is fear or status-seeking distorting the verdict. Both are forms of the bias that lo ta'aneh al riv prohibits: responding to who the parties are rather than what the case is.

Deut 1:17: “You shall not be partial in judgment. You shall hear the small and the great alike. You shall not be intimidated by anyone.” The Deuteronomy formulation makes explicit what the prohibition in Exodus implies: the identities of the parties must become irrelevant in the courtroom. The poor man's case is heard the same way as the great man's case; the response to their arguments is shaped by the arguments, not by who is making them. This is the judicial requirement that lo ta'aneh al riv enforces at the level of individual deliberation.

Samuel's Valediction — The Judge Who Responds to Facts

1 Sam 12:3: Samuel's public valediction offers one of Scripture's most striking judicial self-examinations: “Here I am; testify against me before the LORD and before his anointed. Whose ox have I taken? Or whose donkey have I taken? Or whom have I defrauded? Whom have I oppressed? Or from whose hand have I taken a bribe to blind my eyes with it? Testify against me and I will restore it to you.” The people respond: “You have not defrauded us or oppressed us or taken anything from any man's hand.”

Samuel's self-examination models exactly what lo ta'aneh al riv requires: a judge whose responses to cases were shaped entirely by the facts, not by the identity or status of the parties, not by the majority's expectation, and not by what outcome would be convenient for the judge. The valediction works as a judicial audit because Samuel is confident that his responses in every case can withstand public scrutiny. The judge who has been biased — who has adjusted their response to parties' identities — could not make this public challenge.

For reflection and group study
Ex 23:2 yields two separate prohibitions — not following the majority (#415) and not answering a case with bias (#416). Why does the Torah treat these as two distinct commandments rather than one? What does the distinction reveal about the different ways judicial independence can fail?
Samuel's valediction (1 Sam 12:3) presents judicial integrity as something that can be publicly verified after the fact. What does this suggest about the relationship between a judge's private deliberation and their public accountability? How does lo ta'aneh al riv protect both?

Read the source passage in the Torah reader.

Read in the Torah Reader — Exodus 23:2