Parashat Mishpatim continues the Torah’s presentation, which began in last week’s parasha, of the mitzvot that were revealed to b'nei yisrael at Mount Sinai.
One of the topics that is shared between the two parashiyot is the primacy of creating a judicial system with integrity. The Torah admonishes us not to testify as a group with evil people. The Torah admonishes judges to not show favoritism to a poor person. The Torah forbids judges to accept bribes.
In last week’s parasha, the Torah records Yitro’s suggestion of the four qualities that a judge should have: accomplished, G-d-fearing, committed to truth and money-despising. Basing himself on the Mechilta, Rashi elaborates on the quality of commitment to truth. Rashi explains that these are trust-worthy people, and that, because it is reasonable to rely on them generally, people will listen to the judgments that they render.
The first part of Rashi’s comment is easily understood – a judge must be trust-worthy. Trust-worthiness is a measure of a person’s commitment to truth. If a person says that he or she will do something and doesn’t do it, the value that that person places on truth is rightfully suspect. However, the second part of Rashi’s comment is more difficult to understand. It is correct that trust-worthiness will lead to compliance with a judge’s decisions but why should our selection of judges be guided by a concern over promoting compliance with a judge’s rulings? That task would seem to be better left to the police!
I am currently learning the third perek of Masechet Sanhedrin with my students in the Cooper Yeshiva High School for Boys. This chapter discusses the procedure for selecting a court when two litigants do not have access to courts of expert judges such as those that existed in the Land of Israel during the time of the Sanhedrin. The Mishna presents the procedure of zabla – an acronym for ze borer lo echad. According to the position of Rabbi Meir, each litigant chooses one judge to sit on a court and the two litigants then cooperate to select a third judge to sit in judgment with the first two. The gemara wonders why such a convoluted process is necessary – wouldn’t it be easier for the two parties to come to a consensus about which court to use to hear the case? The gemara explains that by constructing the court through the zabla procedure – each litigant first chooses a judge – truth will be achieved. Rashi explains the meaning of the gemara. Truth will be achieved because each litigant – even when found guilty – will be more likely to comply with the court’s ruling because he knows that the judge that he chose represented his claim as completely as possible. Since the judge that he chose was involved in the ruling, the ruling must be fair. The litigant will follow the court’s direction.
It appears from this gemara that the Torah is concerned not only with arriving at correct judgments but at creating a society that complies with justice. If judges make rulings and nobody listens, justice is hollow. If courts issue decisions and litigants complain, justice is eroded. A just society is the goal – not simply just decisions.
Perhaps this idea explains Rashi’s understanding that trust-worthiness is a necessary quality in a judge. A judge’s trust-worthiness will lead to compliance with the litigant’s rulings. When judges are trust-worthy, people will listen. When society listens to the decisions of judges, society is more just overall.
One of the topics that is shared between the two parashiyot is the primacy of creating a judicial system with integrity. The Torah admonishes us not to testify as a group with evil people. The Torah admonishes judges to not show favoritism to a poor person. The Torah forbids judges to accept bribes.
In last week’s parasha, the Torah records Yitro’s suggestion of the four qualities that a judge should have: accomplished, G-d-fearing, committed to truth and money-despising. Basing himself on the Mechilta, Rashi elaborates on the quality of commitment to truth. Rashi explains that these are trust-worthy people, and that, because it is reasonable to rely on them generally, people will listen to the judgments that they render.
The first part of Rashi’s comment is easily understood – a judge must be trust-worthy. Trust-worthiness is a measure of a person’s commitment to truth. If a person says that he or she will do something and doesn’t do it, the value that that person places on truth is rightfully suspect. However, the second part of Rashi’s comment is more difficult to understand. It is correct that trust-worthiness will lead to compliance with a judge’s decisions but why should our selection of judges be guided by a concern over promoting compliance with a judge’s rulings? That task would seem to be better left to the police!
I am currently learning the third perek of Masechet Sanhedrin with my students in the Cooper Yeshiva High School for Boys. This chapter discusses the procedure for selecting a court when two litigants do not have access to courts of expert judges such as those that existed in the Land of Israel during the time of the Sanhedrin. The Mishna presents the procedure of zabla – an acronym for ze borer lo echad. According to the position of Rabbi Meir, each litigant chooses one judge to sit on a court and the two litigants then cooperate to select a third judge to sit in judgment with the first two. The gemara wonders why such a convoluted process is necessary – wouldn’t it be easier for the two parties to come to a consensus about which court to use to hear the case? The gemara explains that by constructing the court through the zabla procedure – each litigant first chooses a judge – truth will be achieved. Rashi explains the meaning of the gemara. Truth will be achieved because each litigant – even when found guilty – will be more likely to comply with the court’s ruling because he knows that the judge that he chose represented his claim as completely as possible. Since the judge that he chose was involved in the ruling, the ruling must be fair. The litigant will follow the court’s direction.
It appears from this gemara that the Torah is concerned not only with arriving at correct judgments but at creating a society that complies with justice. If judges make rulings and nobody listens, justice is hollow. If courts issue decisions and litigants complain, justice is eroded. A just society is the goal – not simply just decisions.
Perhaps this idea explains Rashi’s understanding that trust-worthiness is a necessary quality in a judge. A judge’s trust-worthiness will lead to compliance with the litigant’s rulings. When judges are trust-worthy, people will listen. When society listens to the decisions of judges, society is more just overall.
Comments
Post a Comment