by Rabbi Avi Billet
In his book “Unlocking the Torah Text” Rabbi Shmuel Goldin (former long-time rabbi of Ahavath Torah in Englewood, NJ) has several essays on the verse צדק צדק תרדף, Justice Justice you shall pursue.
There are a number of ways that justice can be pursued. One is through simply establishing court systems and maintaining order under the rules of the Torah. Another approach has judges who are most qualified, through their study and through their engagement in the real world, to judge on the one hand, by instinct, while on the other hand, if they don’t have enough information, they must do a tremendous amount of “due diligence” to pursue truth. As a result of reaching truth (though truth in justice is often enough gray, and not at all black and white, as many cases are complex), the judge must become a force in administering the law.
Quoting Rav Ashi (Sanhedrin 32b), the legitimacy of two distinct judicial paths of justice and compromise are noted. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha maintains that a judge is obligated to negotiate or arbitrate a compromise between two disputants.
It is certainly possible for disputants to negotiate a compromise on their own. However, Rabbi Eliezer is of the view that when actually judging a case, a judge is forbidden to pursue the route of compromise. The judge who arbitrates, for example, isn’t seeking justice or what is right. A compromise, by definition, has each side giving a little for the sake of peace. “Truth” doesn’t enter the picture because it is what Rabbi Goldin calls “a legal fiction through which neither of the parties completely loses.” Rabbi Eliezer views compromise as an acceptable settlement only before the court becomes involved. Once the judge is in fact judging, he must reach a conclusion that is not a compromise.
The Rambam (Hilchot Sanhedrin 22:4) offers a compromise (pun intended). The judge may ask the litigants beforehand “Do you wish a legal ruling or to negotiate a compromise?” If they wish to compromise, the court should help that happen.
And so we come to our day-to-day interactions with people. Most interactions, as they go, are fairly pleasant. Most people do not engage in disputes in any significant way, unless their pocketbooks are impacted. Then some pursue arbitration and compromise to settle differences, while others seek proverbial blood.
Let us briefly examine two questions:
How can disputants emerge from any kind of dispute still having respect for one another?
How can a judge reach a conclusion while not being hated by the side against whom a ruling goes?
To the first – this is one of the biggest challenges we face in our society. Perhaps this is a challenge that has faced mankind since the very beginning. When each side sees itself as being the only one who are right, and there is no merit to the other side, there is already no attempt at the sides having respect for one another. Were people to truly see that each side has some merit, peace would have a chance. This is an attitude recommended in Pirkei Avot, to walk away from a dispute in peace having accepted a ruling as just.
To the second – the judge must truly be humble about his role, and must go through every hoop possible to reach the correct conclusion. Too often people fall into the trap of their own biases and forget that there is much that remains unknown.
Even in our present time and period there are people who are referred to as “experts,” who are more bias-driven or pre-conceived-notion driven than data and information driven.
Whether we like it or not, we are all products of our own biases. The challenge for everyone is to ask how we can look past our biases to reach fully-informed decisions and conclusions that are, at their heart, compromise positions, rather than positions that are extreme in any particular direction.
Truth is complicated. Some truths are absolute. Some truths are gray. Some truths come about by consensus. Some things never have any consensus. One thing is sure. Many times when we hear an expression that “everyone agrees” regarding something which is not an absolutely provable fact, there are certainly people who do not agree. Remaining on a similar page in any walk of life or pursuit of a direction requires listening to different sides and reaching equitable compromise that can more readily bring people together, and not draw them further apart.
In compromise not everyone is fully happy. But not everyone is fully upset either, because the goal of compromise is to achieve a sort of peace.
Hopefully through this form of pursuit of justice, peace can rule the day, and all people involved – disputants, litigants, judges – can emerge respecting one another and being respected by those they encountered through having the common goal of compromise for the sake of peace.
That is a justice worth pursuing!
No comments:
Post a Comment