Parashat Matot-Masei
Question
A Gutten Erev Shabbos!
This week we find a very interesting question.
Suppose a friend of yours is involved in a court case and asks you to daven that he should win. Is it appropriate to do so?
On the one hand, why not? Davening for another person is certainly a great act of chesed.
But on the other hand, if he is truly liable according to the Torah, then justice demands that he should be found guilty. Are we asking Hashem that the judges should err in judgment and declare him innocent when the truth is that he is guilty?
This question is connected to this week's parashah.
The Torah tells us that a person who kills someone accidentally (b'shogeg) must flee to the Ir Miklat and remain there until the death of the Kohen Gadol. Rashi explains why his release depends on the death of the Kohen Gadol:
"לפי שהיה לו לכהן גדול להתפלל שלא תארע תקלה זו לישראל בימיו".
The Kohen Gadol should have davened that such a tragedy would never occur during his lifetime. Since he bears a measure of responsibility, the accidental killer remains in the Ir Miklat until the Kohen Gadol dies.
The Gemara in Makkos (11b) discusses an interesting case. Suppose someone killed accidentally, but before his trial was completed the Kohen Gadol died and a new Kohen Gadol was appointed. The court then finds the person liable, so the Mishneh says that he must remain in the Ir Miklat until the death of the second Kohen Gadol.
The Gemara asks: What responsibility does the second Kohen Gadol have? After all, the incident happened before he was even appointed?
The Gemara answers:
שהיה לו לבקש רחמים שיגמר דינו לזכות ולא ביקש.
He should have davened that the defendant would be judged favorably, but he did not.
Same too we can ask;
What was the Kohen Gadol expected to daven for? If the defendant truly deserved to be sent to the Ir Miklat, was the Kohen Gadol supposed to pray that the Sanhedrin should make a mistake and acquit him? Can one daven that a court should rule contrary to the truth?
Answer
So, I asked this question to Mori VeRabbi, HaGaon Rav Amram Fried shlita, and he gave a very interesting psak halachah l'maaseh. But before we get to his answer, I'd like to learn the sugya and present two explanations offered by the Meforshim who address this question.
The first explanation is given by the Iyun Yaakov in his commentary on the Ein Yaakov, and similarly by the Teshuva Me'Ahavah.
They explain that we find a halachah in Maseches Sanhedrin (17a) that if all the judges unanimously find a defendant guilty in a capital case, he is not punished, and he does not receive the punishment of misas Beis Din.
The Teshuvas Me'Ahavah, suggests that the same Halacha would apply to the punishment of golus. If every dayan on the Beis Din were to find the person guilty of accidental murder, he would not have to go into exile (Although the Teshuvas Me'Ahavah questions whether we can derive the halachah of golus from the halachah regarding capital punishment, see there.)
So now we can understand the above Gemara, that the Kohen Gadol should have davened that, if the person was really guilty, then all the judges should unanimously rule that he was guilty, because that would be the true verdict. If that had happened, then he would not have had to go to golus.
However, since the judges were divided, with some finding him guilty and others not, and only the majority found him guilty, so the verdict was that he needs to go to exile. In that case, the Kohen Gadol bears a measure of responsibility for not having davened, and therefore the rotzei'ach remains in the Ir Miklat until the Kohen Gadol passes away.
The second approach I found Be’ezrat Hashem, is from the Oruch la’Ner on the Gemara in Maseches Makos. He explains that the Kohein Gadol was not to daven that the Dayonim should make a mistake or judge unfairly. Rather, he should have davened that Hashem should have mercy on the rotzei'ach and forgive him for his unintentional murder.
Had Hashem forgiven him, He would have caused the Sanhedrin to find sufficient merit to acquit him. The fact that they ultimately ruled that he was obligated to go into golus shows that Hashem had not forgiven him and that the kohein Gadols Teffilos were missing.
As I mentioned earlier, I asked this question to Mori v'Rabbi, HaGaon Rav Amram Fried shlit"a: Can one daven for someone who is about to stand before a Beis Din or a court, asking that he should be found innocent?
He answered that one may daven for him. The Rav cited Rav Tzadok HaKohen of Lublin in his sefer Ohr Zarua LaTzadik, Middos V'Hanhagos, os 12, where he writes:
וְכֵן בְּדִינֵי אָדָם מוֹעִיל בַּקָּשַׁת רַחֲמִים, אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּזְכֶּה בַּדִּין, וְלֹא שֶׁיַּטּוּ הַדִּין, רַק שֶׁיָּאִירוּ עֵינֵיהֶם לִזְכוֹת, כִּי בְּכָל דָּבָר יֵשׁ כַּף זְכוּת וְכַף חוֹבָה
Even in a court case, it is effective to ask Hashem to have mercy on the person standing in judgment, so that he should be judged innocently. This does not mean davening that the judges should make a mistake or distort the law. Rather, one asks Hashem to enlighten the judges so that they recognize the merits in the person's case, because every case contains both side of merit and a side of guilt.
(This is in a case where the matter is not clear-cut, and there are two sides to consider in judging the case).
On behalf of the entire Sheilot website team, we wish you a Shabbos Shalom u'Mevorach.
