The Torah commands in Parashat Mishpatim (Shemot 23:3), “Ve’dal Lo Tehedar Be’ribo” – it is forbidden for a judge to favor a poor man who is standing trial before him. This command is repeated in the Book of Vayikra (19:15), where the Torah states, “Lo Tisa Peneh Dal.” Targum Onkelos translates the word “Tehedar” to mean “Terahem” – “have compassion.” As the Sefer Ha’hinuch cites from the Sifreh, this means that a judge might figure that since the Misva of charity obligates all people, including him and the other litigant, to assist the needy litigant, he should rule in his favor. Even if the other litigant is actually correct, the judge might think that he fulfills the Misva of charity by ruling in favor of the needy litigant. The Torah therefore commands the judges to decide the case objectively, even if this means ruling against the pauper and thereby exacerbating his financial hardship. Rashi interprets the word “Tehedar” differently, to mean that the judges should not show the poor litigant special honor. Out of compassion for the pauper, the judge might speak to him in a kinder, more respectful manner than the way he speaks to the other litigant. The Torah forbids doing so because judges must treat both litigants equally, in order to ensure fairness and impartiality in the courtroom. A judge who shows favoritism to a needy litigant has violated this command, though he does not receive Malkut because this law is transgressed verbally, without performing an action (“Lav She’en Bo Ma’aseh”). The verse in the Book of Shemuel II (8:15) says about King David, “Va’yehi David Oseh Mishpat U’sdaka Le’chol Amo” – he served as a judge for the people, in the capacity of which he performed “Mishpat” (justice) and “Sedaka” (kindness). The Gemara raises the question of how David could perform both “Mishpat” and “Sedaka.” These two are, in a sense, opposites, as “Mishpat” refers to strict justice, and “Sedaka” means extending kindness beyond that which is deserved. Several answers are given to explain this verse. One view is that this refers to “Peshara” – compromise. David achieved both “Mishpat” and “Sedaka” by working with the litigants to arrive at a mutually acceptable compromise, thereby blending justice with kindness. Others explain that when the defendant was poor, and David ruled in favor of the plaintiff, David would pay the plaintiff out of his own pocket in order to assist the pauper. This way, he performed “Mishpat” by giving the correct ruling, but also performed “Sedaka” by paying the plaintiff in order to assist the underprivileged defendant. Yet a third explanation is that if the defendant indeed owes the plaintiff money, then it is in his best interest for the court to rule against him, so he will not bear the guilt of keeping money which does not rightfully belong to him. Thus, when David ruled in favor of the plaintiff, he performed both “Mishpat” and “Sedaka” – he issued the correct ruling, and also helped the defendant by ensuring that he would not keep with him somebody else’s money unlawfully.