Yisro: Adjudication and Compromise: Different Goals and Outcomes of Conflict Resolution

Parshat Yitro

by Rabbi Avi Billet 

In one of his essays on Parshas Yisro (“Justice or Peace?”) Rabbi Jonathan Sacks writes of the challenge Moshe’s father-in-law witnessed in the leader’s inability to process all of the people who came to him on the model day in question. In his suggestion to Moshe to delegate judgment responsibilities to others, Rabbi Sacks quotes Netziv’s analysis of methods a court can take, focusing on the Talmudic preference for pshara (compromise) through mediation. 

 This was an innovative solution because it went against Moshe’s innate ability to get to the core of an issue, and bring forth a ruling that saw through a case to its rights and wrongs. Moshe’s strength was justice, being able to discern a victor and one who must pay (or whatever the dispute concerned – who was in the right and who was less right or wrong). 

One of Yisro’s arguments was that Moshe was exhausted after a long day, and that if he would only delegate the responsibilities, the people would be able to get home sooner and go about their day. Rabbi Sacks rightly notes, the people weren’t exhausted! Only Moshe was! 

And why weren’t the people exhausted? Because they were coming to learn, to watch the process with others, to see Moshe’s greatness and to learn from it. 

In other words, Moshe delegating would thus be advantageous to him alone, giving him more free time, less cases to deal with. But insofar as the people go, they would have less of a connection to Moshe, they wouldn’t learn from him anymore… unless their particular dispute would make its way through the tiered system back to the man at the top of the chain. 

 How then, is this to their advantage? 

Because life is not only about seeing black and white – as Moshe did in judgment. Life is also about being able to come to a table, to realize that each side may have a valid claim, and that while one side might surely be more right, that doesn’t mean the side that is less right is totally in the wrong. In other words, sometimes compromise is better for everyone in the long run.

 Rabbi Sacks rightly notes “No one regarded Moshe as anything less than the greatest leader and prophet Israel has ever had. It is rather that no one individual can embody all the virtues necessary to sustain a people. A priest is not a prophet (with rare exception). A king needs different virtues than a saint. A military man is not a man of peace (though he can become one later in life).” 

In other words, we are not being critical of Moshe here. We are wondering if there are advantages to a different way, if Yisro’s suggestion has merit (and if so, how much) or if Moshe’s method is what is best for the people, even if it is quite taxing on Moshe. 

 Malbim notes on 18:13 that everyone stood around watching the proceedings because this was how they were engaged in “studying and learning of God’s laws.” This is irrespective of whether Yisro’s visit was before or after the giving of the Torah (as the debate goes) because even if the visit follows the chronology of the Torah (i.e. before the giving of the Torah), there were an unspecified number of laws and statutes that were given over in Marah. Surely some mitzvos were already made clear to the Bnei Yisrael, such as Shabbos, Bris Milah, Rosh Chodesh, Korban Pesach, as well as basics of living together no longer under Egyptian rule. 

In Malbim’s view, Moshe’s big concern was that no one (other than himself) had a handle on “the law” and their judgments, which would have to come about from their own logic and however they saw things, would not be accepted by the litigants. They would have to come Moshe anyway. 

Yisro, on the other hand, thought that Moshe was actually judging in that way himself! Yisro was unaware of a “law system” his son-in-law might be using, especially prior to Matan Torah! 

Malbim further notes that the verse describes the people as standing around Moshe, with the word עמד, while when Yisro questions him about it, Yisro describes their standing around him as נצב from morning until evening. The difference between the two words for standing, Malbim explains, is that עמד implies simply standing, the opposite of sitting. הצבה (the kind of action that is described as נצב) is how people stand in a situation that requires strengthening. The king’s guards, for example, are typically described as נצבים. His servants, on the other hand, are עמדים. Those who came to stand around are described by the Torah as עמדים, because they chose to stand in order to listen to Moshe’s teachings and rulings. Yisro looked at the people as נצבים because from his perspective each person really wanted to have his case heard and wanted to go home. In his mind, they needed strengthening to carry them through the day’s worth of proceedings. Yisro did not realize people were choosing to be there to bask in the light of Moshe’s illuminating teachings.

Moshe thus had to explain that people were coming for different possible reasons: 

1. To seek an answer from God, or to learn of the future 
2. Conflict resolution 
3. Remedial intervention – such as a person who knows he has damaged someone else’s property, might go to Moshe to find out what he owes
1. Sometimes both parties would go together                        
4. Sometimes people would come just to learn about the laws of God 

In verse 18:16 Moshe claims that he is not doing things based on his own facts and logic, but that he is works based on the חקי הא-לקים ואת תורותיו – God’s laws and teachings. 

 The Rabbis teach us how Moshe trained the judges who ultimately formed his tier system. We know nothing of how they operated as the Torah does not describe it beyond that Moshe hired people to fill these roles, a narrative which is presented a little differently in Devarim chapter 1:13-18. [Those differences are discussed by various commentators]

In an ideal world, this method that Moshe used should be one employed by all Jews today when it comes to conflict resolution. We should not be going to secular court. We should be going to Beit Din to settle disputes, or to a qualified rabbinic scholar who could judge a case on its merits, and bring about an equitable solution. Some cases might be black and white and clear. Most cases likely have an area of gray in them, lending themselves to some kind of compromise. [People like to go to secular court because they feel if they win they’ll get a much bigger payout, and it’s more enforceable than a Bet Din judgment/ruling.] 

The problem is that some Batei Din have a reputation for being corrupt. Some Batei Din have fees that prevent people from coming to them. And Batei Din are limited in their power in that they can issue hazmanot (invitations) to individuals, but they have no authority to enforce that a person show up. Even if they call someone a m’sarev l’din (someone who refuses to come to work out their difference with someone calling them to court), invariably that person will delegitimize the Bet Din and will use stronger social media tactics than the Bet Din is interested in engaging in. As such, the entire system is undermined by the flaws that are inherent in it. [Not to mention that sending several hazmanot and several warnings against being a m’sarev l’din can take several months.] There are certainly unscrupulous people who take advantage of others (these "others" would never go to secular court), but also feel that going to Bet Din is a waste of time and money. Which leaves conflict resolution as a matter remaining in limbo – some conflicts are thus never resolved, and two parties may have nothing to do with each other - for a long time or for the rest of their lives! - on account of this, because there is no resolution. 

I’ll conclude with a masterful story about Rabbi Meir Shapiro. When he was the new rabbi in Glina, two people who shared ownership of a certain road in the town each wanted the other to pay for the post-winter repairs of the road. After their dispute eventually involved most of the Jews in town, they decided to come to the new rabbi in town to test him in his ability to resolve their issue. 

When they presented their case to him, he saw right away that it wasn’t about the money, as each could afford to fix the road himself. It was about ego and about being right – each wanted the other guy to pay for it, each for his own reasons. 

 As his biographer Rav Yehoshua Baumol told it: 

“He ordered each of them to produce the full amount of money that it would cost to repair the road properly. He soon had in his hand twice the amount that was needed. Without another word, he gave the money to one of his trusted attendants with orders to deliver it to the managers of the Talmud Torah. The money, he explained, was his fee for trying the case, and it was to be used for the school’s upkeep. “Now,” he said, “I will decide your case. Did you ever study the Mishna?” They answered in the affirmative. “When you have a chance, take a look at the beginning of Shekalim. There you will find a plain ruling that on the 15th of Adar the roads and byways have to be repaired. Why on that day? By then spring has certainly come. The winter is over, with all the rain and snow that must have melted, which has quite certainly left the roads an impossible and impassable mess of misshapen mud dried hard. So the 15th of Adar is a fine time to get the pathways and byways properly fixed and made usable. 

“On whom, though, does the duty fall to get the job done? Like the other rulings in the Mishna there, it is obviously the obligation of the Bet Din. That means that the matter is no business of yours,” he said to the fellow on the right, “nor is it any business of yours,” to the fellow on the left, “but entirely my affair.” 

 And then he took the money out of his own purse, to give it to a trusted attendant 

 “Since today is the fast of Esther, that means today is the 13th and since today is Thursday, the 15th falls on Shabbos, and consequently, the work cannot be started till Sunday. But that is in a mere detail. On Sunday,” he ordered his attendant, “you bring all the laborers you need and set [them] to work.” 

The impression that this stunning decision made on the community was beyond words. Everyone realized that by this master stroke of his, the new Rav of Glina had hit the target perfectly. Resolved and gone was the long-standing conflict, which had begun to turn acrimonious, drawing in evermore members of the community to take sides, and make matters worse. Now peace and quiet could return to the Jewry of Glina .

Just as important was the fact that Rav Meir emerged, completely clean and unharmed, untouched, and uninvolved. Had his decision favored one of the two the other would likely have remained resentful, and perhaps would even turn into something of an enemy of the Rav. Now, both the antagonist, and the Rav, could all live in peace. Neither had won, neither had lost . [- “A Blaze in the Darkening Gloom”, p. 64-66]

 It also helps that Rav Meir had those kinds of resources, as he had wealthy in-laws who supported him in his early years. 

This story is unique in that money was not an issue to either litigant, and the “compromise” achieved actually cost both sides the amount of the repair. They saw their monies go to support Torah study, though, and therefore each felt his money went to a good cause, while neither ended up paying for the road repair. 

Moshe’s cases were different – he was judging for right and wrong. Yisro’s goals for outcomes were also different. He was looking for mediation and compromise. And the Bnei Yisrael’s goals were also different – they wanted to learn from their new Rebbe, Moshe Rabbenu. 

May we all have a similar desire to learn and grow. May we merit to see proper resolution of disputes, and may Bet Din find a way to be relevant and fair to all parties, so that disputes can be resolved in the proper halakhic way, with everyone emerging feeling heard and finding a path forward through compromise.