Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/79051593/shapira
Timestamp: 2017-08-18 00:04:30
Document Index: 443152865

Matched Legal Cases: ['§17', '§79', '§26', '§17', '§17', '§17', '§4', '§17']

shapira | Mediation | Talmud
Uploaded by Ari Mermelstein
Talmudic literature documents a sharp debate among the tannaim regarding the legitimacy of the process of compromise or, to be more precise, of the process of bitsu‘a. This dispute appears in a well-known passage in Tosefta Sanhedrin, chapter 1, and in both Talmuds (y.Sanh. 1:1 [18b], b.Sanh. 6b), and is also mentioned briefly in Sifre Deuteronomy §17.1 Even upon first glance it can be seen that the debate assumes a principled character, relating to goals and values that lie at the very basis of the judicial process: truth, peace, and justice. Examination of the toseftan passage reveals that it is a well-fashioned and well-edited unit that not only presents positions but also discussion of the legal questions relating to compromise and the goal of the judicial process. However, this passage requires clarification and interpretation. First of all, concerning what kind of compromise, precisely, is there disagreement? Does it refer to every process of compromise or only to a particular kind of compromise? Second, what are the reasons underlying the controversy, and what are the different understandings of the judicial process that find expression therein? The question of the nature of compromise in the talmudic sources has been discussed by scholars on a number of occasions, but I think
1 Louis Finkelstein, ed., Sifre on Deuteronomy (New York: JTS Press, 2001), 28-29.
|183~*
that we have not yet attained an adequate analysis of this institution. In particular, the special nature of the process of bitsu‘a that stands at the heart of the tannaitic dispute has not yet been clarified. Hence, I will begin this paper with a fundamental analysis of compromise; thereafter, in the second section, I will examine what kinds of compromise are discussed in the tannaitic sources. This discussion will enable us to define the precise meaning of bitsu‘a, that type of compromise concerning which the tannaim disagreed. The third section will be devoted to a textual and literary analysis of the unit within which the tannaitic controversy is located. The fourth section will be concerned with a theoretical analysis of that debate. I will show that the talmudic debate presents a principled, jurisprudential dispute relating to the nature and goals of the judicial process. For this purpose, I shall make use of insights which have emerged in the course of discussion of compromise in contemporary legal literature. As I shall show, notwithstanding the great differences in time and culture, it is possible to make use of these insights in order to shed light upon the ancient texts.
I. Compromise: Conceptual Observations
Compromise is generally defined as a process in which two or more disputing sides arrive at an agreement involving mutual concessions in order to resolve the dispute between them.2 This definition involves two principal elements: one relating to the process, whose essence is agreement between the sides; the second pertaining to the result, whose essence is the resolution of the dispute by means of mutual concessions, that is, by finding a ‘‘middle way.’’ Both conditions are vital for the existence of a compromise. The resolution of the dispute
2 M. Golding, ‘‘The Nature of Compromise: A Preliminary Inquiry,’’ in Compromise in Ethics, Law and Politics, eds. J. R. Pennock and J. W. Chapman (New York: New York University Press, 1979), 3-25; J. P. Day, ‘‘Compromise,’’ Philosophy 67 (1992): 399-406; A. Hassid, ‘‘Ethical Compromise { Two Justifications’’ (Hebrew), Iyyun 50 (2001): 107.
|184~*
Debate Over Compromise
by means of agreement, in which one side accepts the demands of the other in full, is not considered a compromise, as the result does not reflect mutual concessions. A solution in which an authoritative thirdparty imposes upon both sides a ‘‘middle-of-the-road’’ solution is sometimes referred to as a compromise, but in fact only the result is a compromise. In the absence of agreement, there is no true process of compromise here. The process of attaining compromise may be done in a variety of ways. One way is by means of direct negotiation between the parties, at whose end they agree upon an agreement for resolving the dispute. In this method there is a direct relationship between the parties and the result of compromise attained at the end. A second method is by means of mediation, in which the parties find it difficult to conduct the negotiation between themselves directly, and resort to the assistance of a third-party who mediates between them, and who may even present various suggestions for compromise that might be acceptable to them. In this case, the mediator’s suggestions are not binding, and each party retains the right to agree to the solution proposed or to reject it. This method, too, reflects an explicit agreement between the parties for the compromise suggested. However, the involvement of a third-party is likely to exert influence upon the parties to agree to things about which they originally would not have agreed.3 A third way of attaining compromise is by means of arbitration. If both parties turn to this method, it is generally in a case where they are unable to arrive at a compromise by themselves or by means of mediation; therefore, they
3 The modern doctrine of mediation seeks to create a neutral mechanism of mediation that allows the sides to express their opinion and to realize their interests in the best way. See Roger Fisher & William Ury, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (New York: Penguin Books, 1983). On various kinds of mediation, see L. L. Riskin, ‘‘Understanding Mediators’ Orientations, Strategies and Techniques: A Grid for the Perplexed, 1,’’ Harvard Negotiation Law Review 1 (1996): 7-51. For a discussion of the theory of mediation, see M. Alberstein, The Jurisprudence of Mediation (Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2007).
|185~*
seek a decision from an outside party. Unlike the situation of mediation, in which the suggestions of the mediator are not obligatory, the decisions of the arbitrator are binding. However, not all arbitration ends in compromise. If the parties ask the arbitrator to decide in a dispute on the basis of what seems to him to be just, and he decides in favor of one party against the other, the result is not compromise. If, on the other hand, the parties ask the arbitrator to decide following the path of compromise, and he indeed issues a ruling of ‘‘the middle way,’’ then what has been accomplished is a compromise. That is to say, even in a case of arbitration both elements need to be present – agreement and result – in order to be considered a compromise. Yet, in the case of arbitration, the element of agreement assumes a different guise. One is no longer speaking of a concrete agreement involving the resolution of the dispute, but rather of a principled agreement between the parties involved to enter into a process of compromise and to accept upon themselves the decision of the arbitrator. These three methods were already known in ancient legal systems such as Greek and Roman law, and are to a large extent accepted to this day.4 As we shall see, they were also known to Jewish law and to the talmudic sources. Processes of compromise by means of negotiation, mediation, and arbitration are frequently conducted outside the courtroom and without its involvement. The parties can turn to these methods after the dispute has arisen in order to resolve the matter before it reaches the stage of litigation. On occasion, appeal to them may be done during the course of legal proceedings, after a lawsuit has already been presented. In such cases, the court is likely to be involved in the process of compromise. Its degree of involvement can take place on various levels, beginning with postponing litigation until the sides reach an agreement between themselves, pointing the parties towards a process of compromise,
4 Derek Roebuck, Ancient Greek Arbitration (Oxford: Holo, 2001), 17; Derek Roebuck and Bruno de Loynes de Fumichon, Roman Arbitration (Oxford: Holo, 2004), 11-15; S. Goldberg, F. Sander, and N. Rogers, Dispute Resolution (Boston-Toronto-London: Aspen Publishers, 1992).
|186~*
even where the court is permitted to do so. Indeed. Generally speaking. not all legal systems allow the court to become involved in processes of compromise and. so long as one is not speaking of illegal agreements. As against this. see below. there is a consensus among the authors as to their legitimacy. mostly regarding the comparison between arbitration and a judicial proceeding. |187~* . In ancient times there was usually a relatively clear separation between legal proceedings and extra-legal proceedings. If the parties were interested in compromise after the proceedings had begun. According to Roman law. Such involvement is perceived as liable to obscure the boundary between a decision required by the law and a solution made by the agreement of the sides. 3). the judge was required to rule according to law and was not permitted to become involved in making a compromise. both in terms of efficiency or effectiveness and in terms of the level of justice and other social considerations. One is speaking of agreements that belong to the private realm. the issue of the involvement of the court in proceedings of compromise is more problematic. 1. the degree of involvement tolerated varies from one system to another. there is room to discuss the benefits and drawbacks of compromise as opposed to judicial proceedings. On this matter. the question of compromise agreements is also discussed. And indeed. the two works mentioned above (n. In modern literature. Cf. it would appear that all legal systems recognize the legality of such procedures. Processes of compromise made outside of court do not generally raise any special problems of legitimacy or legality.Debate Over Compromise using mediation in attaining a compromise. they were allowed to withdraw their suit and to arrive at a compromise. the law has no special reason to oppose them. and even issuing a ruling of compromise. see the literature cited in n. The question that arose in Roman legal writings is whether the judge is permitted to 5 Such questions have already been discussed in ancient literature. On questions of justice discussed in this context. Of course. section 4 of this paper. even though they may give different justifications.5 But the very legitimacy of this procedure is not disputable.
‘‘dividing’’). |188~* . 1966). In any event. and even distinguish between them. I need to say some words about the history of the interpretation and research relating to compromise. M.’’ which is the more widely-used term. Roman Litigation (Oxford: Oxford University Press. and bitsu‘a (lit. §79a (Amendment 15). The most striking distinction finds expression in two terms used in the sources: pesharah. Compromise in Tannaitic Sources: Pesharah and Bitsu‘a Processes of compromise appear in tannaitic and amoraic sources in various contexts. the terminological distinction clearly indicates a distinction between two different kinds of compromise. and around which is conducted the tannaitic dispute. even the term pesharah includes various methods of making compromise. which has thus far not taken note of these distinctions. Such authority was first recognized in Israel in 1993: Law of Courts. At first blush. even if the sides agreed to do so. But before discussing this.Haim Shapira advance the process of compromise by suspending litigation and encouraging the sides to enter into a process of compromise. already in the amoraic sources this distinction is somewhat obscured. 13252.. In this section I wish to demonstrate that the tannaitic sources are familiar with the different forms of making compromise.6 Other systems that recognized the authority of the court to become involved in the process of attaining compromise did not recognize its authority to issue a ruling based on compromise. Both the Babylonian and the Palestinian Talmud identify 6 7 J. and are also referred to by different terminology. However. In Western legal systems. As we shall see below. which is less frequently used. it was clear to all that he was himself not permitted to offer suggestions for compromise. such authority was only recognized at the end of the twentieth century. Kelly.7 II. translated here as ‘‘compromise.
b..’’ Similarly in the conclusion of the discussion: ‘‘What mitsvah is involved here also? As R. s.8 In the wake of this. 6b.Sanh. part III. one should mention in particular the author of Halakhot Gedolot. |189~* .. For the modern scholars. 1987]. unequivocal answer.Debate Over Compromise bitsu‘a with pesharah. and all the other Talmud commentators there. The Talmud cites there the ruling of Rav: ‘‘The law follows R. Hildesheimer [Jerusalem: Mekize Nirdamim Publishers. who seems to have been the first scholar to deal with this subject in a systematic way. Korhah’’ (who said that ‘‘it is a mitsvah to divide . nor did the medieval commentators provide a single.1 [18b]) incorporates within the baraita concerning bitsu‘a the words of Rav Matanyah: ‘‘Even compromise requires a mental decision. Hil. 1994). Asher Gulak. it refers to a process performed in court (see. Rashi on b.v. one must ask: What kind of compromise is bitsu‘a? Does it refer to an agreement between the parties or to a judicial ruling of compromise? This question is not explicitly discussed in the Talmud. different opinions have been expressed. e. 6a.v.’’ 9 See. Dayyanim. all the traditional commentators and almost all of the modern scholars identified them with one another. Rashi. and tserikhah kinyan). 19. But even if one accepts this identity. 14-15). ed. Joshua b. explicit definition was given by Isaiah di Trani (the Younger). 6b-7a.Sanh. who interpreted pesharah as a process of mediation by which people who are not judges bring the litigants to an agreement (Sefer Halakhot Gedolot.. Another . and see them as one and the same thing. contrasting this with the practice of Rav Huna to inquire of the litigants: ‘‘Do you prefer [a decision by] law or by compromise. asur livtso‘a.Sanh. Joshua b Korhah said: It is a mitsvah to say to them: Do you . aval aharon. [perform bitsu‘a]’’). Rashi and tosafot did not give an exact definition of the process of pesharah but it follows from what they said that. b. s.g. according to whom one is speaking of a ruling of compromise issued by the court (Piskei Ria’’z ‘al Masekhet Sanhedrin (Jerusalem: Makhon ha-Talmud ha-Yisraeli haShalem. see below. was also the only one who attempted to 8 See. The two terms appear alongside one another and are seemingly interchangeable. according to them. bitsu‘a – pesharah.g.10 In scholarship as well. the controversy regarding bitsu‘a is a controversy over pesharah. Among those who did refer to the issue. 10 Many of the commentators did not relate to this at all. e. 1. e.Sanh. prefer [a decision by] law or by compromise?’’ The Palestinian Talmud (y.9 In their eyes.g.
the tannaitic dispute over bitsu‘a relates to the question as to whether or not the judge is allowed to transfer the resolution of the dispute to decision before a mediator. in Kovets Mishpete Eretz (Ofrah: Mekhon Mishpete Eretz. He likewise arrives at the conclusion that bitsu‘a is to be 11 A. pesharah and bitsu‘a refer to the same procedure. pesharah is based on agreement between the parties. ‘‘Bitsu‘a in Talmudic Sources’’ (Hebrew). While din is based on the law. 1966).12 In recent years this matter has been studied anew. in its source of authority. From that point on. 13 Berachyahu Lifshitz. Gulak. Yavneh 3 (1943): 19-34. ‘‘Pesharah’’ (Hebrew).’’ in Jewish and Roman Law II (New York: United Synagogue Book Service. 137-51. Boaz Cohen. but in his view the developed legal institution of pesharah means mediation or arbitration. scholars abandoned the attempt to distinguish between pesharah and bitsu‘a. and thus the result of pesharah would not be different from that of din (‘‘law’’). Bet Midrash Gavoah la-Halakhah u-Mishpat. according to which pesharah is a judicial process whereby the parties agree to have their case adjudicated before a court of law. and all assumed that they represent one and the same institution. He noted that in a number of tannaitic sources pesharah refers to a private agreement between the parties. but scholars continue to adhere to the opinion that pesharah and bitsu‘a represent a single institution. in which an official or judge who is authorized to do so brings the dispute to mediation. bitsu‘a is a process similar to that accepted in Roman law. In practice. 2002). Berachyahu Lifshitz has suggested an original interpretation. It differs from din.Haim Shapira distinguish between pesharah and bitsu‘a. ‘‘Arbitration in Jewish Law. and failed to convince subsequent scholars. In his opinion. the court would judge in both procedures according to identical legal principles. saw pesharah as a process of arbitration. 651-709. 12 Boaz Cohen. However.11 Thus. |190~* . this suggestion has no real basis in the sources.13 According to Lifshitz. who wrote a comprehensive study of arbitration in Jewish law. a regular judicial process. Itay Lifshitz comprehensively discusses the idea of pesharah in tannaitic and amoraic sources and in the medieval commentaries.
in which the two sides turn from the outset to a 14 A. bitsu‘a is not mentioned. It likewise indicates an initiated procedure.14 These two scholars interpret the talmudic sources in a homogeneous way (each consistent with his approach). the talmuds identified the two with each other. we shall see that the term pesharah designates a compromise that has been obtained through various means. To the contrary. 2004). the only attempt to distinguish between pesharah and bitsu‘a was that of Gulak. similar to arbitration. Pesharah is not subject to controversy. In what follows. 47-63. Bar-Ilan University. ‘‘Compromise in Jewish Law’’ (Hebrew) (PhD diss. Nevertheless. and cf. |191~* . and sees both as indicating a process of compromise made in court. and vice versa. As we mentioned. Moreover. as there is a certain proximity between them. the fact that the interpretation he proposed did not meet the test of criticism does not mean that the distinction per se is not correct. One who examines the tannaitic sources in a manner distinct from the amoraic sources will see that the two terms appear there in a manner distinct from one another. A. assuming that the term pesharah signifies a single legal institution that appears in the same manner in all the sources. But he rejects the position of Berachyahu Lifshitz. which failed. True. even those which speak of bitsu‘a.. Nevertheless. Lifshitz. the distinction between pesharah and bitsu‘a in tannaitic sources is quite clear. 65-101. but the point of departure for the historical interpretation of the tannaitic sources must be based upon a distinction between them.Debate Over Compromise identified with pesharah. In those places where pesharah is mentioned. It seems likely that its fundamental meaning was that of a private settlement made between the sides in order to resolve a dispute. it also appears in the context of an arrangement made in the court and through its good offices. the attitude towards them is completely different. To begin with. and thinks that the process of pesharah brings about a real compromise between the sides. while bitsu‘a stands at the heart of a tannaitic dispute. they appear in different contexts.
In m. and similarly with a creditor. As against this.Ketub. The second wife did not make any such commitment and therefore. pesharah is mentioned as a solution to a particular kind of problem. and indicates a process whereby the judge makes a compromise ruling in the context of a judicial decision. |192~* . The first wife. or due to a difficulty involving evidence. II. 10:6 we read: One who was married to two women and sold his field: [if] the first wife wrote [to the purchaser]. One is therefore speaking about three accepted ways of arriving at a compromise. is able to collect her ketubbah money from the purchaser.’’ the second one takes it [the field] from the hand of the purchaser. the term bitsu‘a appears in a specific context. The solution proposed in these sources is to conclude the dispute by a compromise agreement obtained by negotiation between the sides. which had been liened to the money specified in her marriage contract (ketubbah). Pesharah as an Agreement Between Litigants In the Mishnah and the Tosefta. and the first [wife] from the second. whose claim preceded that of the second. when the time comes. The purchaser.15 The first wife promised the purchaser that she would not attempt to collect the land. to which the law does not offer a legal solution due to the conflict of equal claims between which it is impossible to decide. and the purchaser from the first one – and so it continues around and around until they make a compromise (pesharah) among themselves. can then collect the land from the second wife. 1.Haim Shapira procedure of compromise. ‘‘I do not have any claims on you. whose claim takes precedence to that of the first wife. In another printing it is written: CGI \NTC F[B QMG. the claims thus pass from one to another in an endless 15 The text of the mishnah is brought here according to MS Kaufmann. can in turn collect it from her – and matters can continue thus indefinitely.
to put it differently: upon whom is the obligation to make the compromise incumbent?16 From a linguistic and formal viewpoint. a ‘‘peaceful agreement.’’ and did not elaborate (Maimonides. and see below). as one is speaking of a voluntary |193~* .’’ or.Debate Over Compromise circle. that they arrive among themselves at a compromise solution – that is to say. The language of the mishnah. . in Helkat . EH 100:4. ‘‘and they make a compromise between them. and ad loc. ‘‘compromise’’ – that is to say. an arrangement among the various parties that resolves the dispute. Perush ha-Mishnah to m. compromise between them.’’17 Thus. Hanokh Albeck. Ishut 17:12. 10:6. in his commentary on the mishnah. the gemara’’. according to the translation of Rabbi Kapah . hence. one cannot assume that it instructs the court to rule on this dispute by way of compromise. but does not explain why specifically those two. it can only be resolved by means of pesharah. Tur and Sh. 19 In practice. Maimonides. 17 If this mishnah were prescriptive. an agreement between any two of the three sides can stop the circle and resolve the dispute. one is speaking here of a private agreement among the parties to the dispute. ‘‘and it continues around and around. Hil. The law does not provide any solution to this problem.Ar. and in his wake the Tur and Shulhan Arukh.’’ can be read so as to suggest that the compromise needs to be made specifically between the two wives. and between the two wives. between the second wife and the purchaser. the suggestion is one addressed to the litigants. rather.19 16 The Talmuds do not discuss this problem. more explicitly. nor do the traditional commentators on the Mishnah. ‘‘the court makes a compromise between them. but merely says that the rights will continue to pass from hand to hand in an endless circle ‘‘until they make a compromise among themselves. Mehokek: ‘‘The manner in which they made compromise is not explained in . To whom are the instructions of the mishnah addressed: to the litigants or to the court? Or. interpreted the statement literally: ‘‘until they make a . However. it would have read. It does not state how one ought to behave. the mishnah does not propose any obligatory solution to the dispute.’’ 18 Maimonides.’’18 Hence. There are three possible coalitions: between the first wife and the purchaser.Ketub. explains that the compromise must be between the second wife and the purchaser. Mishneh Torah.
‘‘they shall make a compromise among themselves. Similarly. And indeed.. where the law is similar to that of ships.. whose essence is that the donkey with a rider takes precedence. the loaded one passes by before the one with a rider. 21 The Yerushalmi adds the case of wagons. with minor variants.e.22 In other agreement it is difficult to see what is would prevent the purchaser from making an agreement with either one of them. the solution must be that ‘‘one makes a compromise between them. §26. if both had riders. If both were burdened. it is clear that the compromise is made between the parties involved and not by the court. referring to ships. later authorities thought that an agreement between any two sides is possible. Qam. If one had a rider and one was empty. when both of those passing were equal to one another. the halakhah establishes rules of priority. donkeys] was loaded and one of them was being ridden. In a situation where there is a narrow passage. one makes a compromise between them. one allows the empty one to pass before the loaded one.’’ in a similar fashion. if both were empty. or both were loaded.’’ Is this instruction addressed to the parties involved or to those charged with judgment? From the language of the tosefta in the case of the ships. 8. one passes the empty one before the burdened one. 20 Saul Lieberman. one allows the empty one to pass before the one with a rider. |194~* . 22 One ought to understand the wording of the Yerushalmi. If both were unloaded. Similarly.Haim Shapira A similar problem is discussed in t. the one loaded takes precedence over the one that is empty.Sanh. 32b. and one is unloaded and the other loaded. See the parallel y. in which the Hebrew uses the feminine pronoun. in the case of ships.20 If one of them [i. 2:10. See H elkat . ed. and finally the one that is empty. one makes a compromise between them. 3:4 (3d) and b. thereafter the one that has a burden. Qam. Mehokek on EH 100:4.B.B. 2002). If one was burdened and one was empty.21 However. hence. two ships which were passing opposite one another. Tosefta ki-fshuta (New York: JTS Press. . there is no general rule enabling one to decide which takes precedence.
.Yebam. too. the law does not give a solution. Indeed. but I do not know from which one of you.25 and he does not give them the rest until they make a compromise between them. As he admits that he owes no more than 200.’’ implying that the compromise is made by the court. |195~* . he is required to pay 200 to each one. Lieberman.’’ and this one says: ‘‘The 200 belongs to me.B. each one for 200 that was taken from them. Akiva said: This way does not save him from transgression. and does not know from which one he stole.’’ he gives each one a maneh [100]. he ought to have kept his silence. the thief himself admitted that he had stolen 200.26 In the second case. otherwise.’’ he pays this one 200 and that one 200. Tosefta ki-fshutah. the Talmud assumes that the pesharah is done as a judicial ruling. hence. until he pays each one of them. Cf.Debate Over Compromise words. and runs away: thus the words of R.’ he places the stolen object among them. 25 According to MS Erfurt: FRP FHNG FRP FHN Q\GR (and the sense is the same).23 A similar problem is discussed in t. and from one of you I stole 200. In the first case. This one says: ‘‘The 200 belongs to me. stole from one of five people. and the remaining hundred need not be paid until the parties make a 23 In the Babylonian Talmud. 171.’’ The mishnah in Bava Mesi‘a and the tosefta support R. The halakhah distinguishes here between two different cases. but does not know from whom he stole [that sum]. see on this below in the discussion of the Babylonian Talmud. 73. one is speaking here of a private compromise arrangement. In this case.B. But R. He said to two people: ‘‘I stole a maneh [coin worth 100 units] from one of you. However. one ought not to infer from the language of the Talmud regarding the literal meaning of the baraita. Hence. Mesi‘a 3:3 and in m. the law requires him to pay 100 to each of them. Mesi‘a 3:5:24 . the resolution of the dispute requires that the parties involved arrive at an agreement between themselves. 26 Something similar appears is m. Tosefta ki-fshuta. Tarfon. and each one says. 15:7: ‘‘If he . the two victims are both suing him. Tarfon. ‘He stole from me. the baraita concludes with the phrase ‘‘he imposes a compromise between them. 24 Lieberman.
‘‘When they shall have some matter [i. it would advise the sides to compromise between themselves. and I shall judge between a man and his fellow’’ (Exod. The law recommends this path only in those cases in which there is no other legal remedy. |196~* . The concept of pesharah thus indicates a private agreement between the sides that does not involve the court. Tosefta ki-fshutah.e. One may assume that the parties could arrive at a compromise agreement in other cases as well. Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael on the verse. Therefore. one is speaking of a dispute for which there is no solution under law. 171.27 As one cannot know to whom to give the additional maneh. ‘‘and his fellow’’ – this refers to 27 For a similar law.. the matter hinges upon the agreement reached by the two claimants. but in such cases there is no reason for the law to recommend this. One may assume that. and that one says.’’ See Lieberman.e.B. but in principle there is no need for involvement of the court – neither by means of mediation nor by judicial decision. 2. this one says: the 200 is mine. Pesharah in the Legal Process (Mediation) The term pesharah is also used to indicate an arrangement obtained during the course of a discussion in court. 18:16). were the matter to come to the attention of the court. the solution proposed by the halakhah is one of compromise. ‘‘Two people who left money with one person: this one left one maneh (i. see m. In all these cases. obtained by negotiation between the two sides. the 200 is mine { he gives this one 100 and that one 100. they shall come to me. Mesi‘a 3:4 regarding one who loans money: .. dispute]. comments as follows: ‘‘I shall judge between a man’’ – this refers to judgment in which there is no pesharah [compromise]. and the balance shall remain until Elijah comes. II.Haim Shapira compromise between them. The fact that a compromise of this type is mentioned in that case for which there is no other solution under law does not mean that compromise is illegitimate in other cases. 100) and this left 200.
but is appropriate to every kind of dispute between people and is intended to resolve it in such a manner that ‘‘the two of them part from one another as neighbors. Zuckermandel.e.’’28 In the verse expounded. The nature of this pesharah within the context of the legal process is clarified later in the midrash. 1970).’’ in Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael (Jerusalem: Wahrman Books. ed. but also by way of compromise. saying that Moses judged not only according to the letter of the law.. 18:21] – those who fear the Omnipresent when engaged in judgment. in which Moses is depicted as following the approach.. 18:16 (132). Thus says R. ‘Those who fear God’ – this refers to those who make a compromise 28 Horowitz. .Sanh. Moses describes the manner in which he behaved when judging Israel. 196. a compromise of this type is mentioned: ‘‘‘Those who fear God’ [Exod. strict construction that does not deviate from the letter of the law. ‘‘let the law pierce the mountain’’ { i. in which the two of them part from one another as fellows. Further on in the same section of this midrash. Eleazar the Modaite says.Debate Over Compromise judgment in which there is compromise. |197~* ..’’ It is clear that the compromise mentioned here is not a private compromise agreement of the type mentioned in earlier sources. Joshua.. Yitro. judicial procedure. in the course of a tannaitic dispute. The compromise mentioned here is not limited to those cases in which there is no solution available in the law.’’ that is. but rather an arrangement made in court when the parties come to clarify their matter before it. 29 This homily seems opposed to t. but it appears to refer to mediation in which the judge leads the parties to an agreement between themselves.29 Both situations mentioned in the homily involve ‘‘judgment. Parasha Bet.’’ The concise language of the midrash does not specify the nature of the judicial activity. The midrash attempts to include within this verse compromise as well.. ‘‘Masekhta de-Amalek. but R. 415). and see the similar language in the Mekilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai.. 1:2 and parallels (ed. The one involves regular judicial procedure – ‘‘judgment in which there is no compromise (pesharah)’’ – while the other is ‘‘judgment in which there is compromise.
Two Mekhiltot on the Amalek Portion: The Originality of the Version of the Mekhilta d’Rabbi Ishma‘el with Respect to the Mekhilta of Rabbi Shim‘on ben Yohay (Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Magnes Press. Joshua tending more towards a literal interpretation and R. it seems to be the case – that R. who claimed that both of these tannaim interpreted elohim as referring to judges.31 The making of compromise – that is.Haim Shapira within judgment. As against that. ed.’’ in Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael. Eleazar also reflect a normative dispute regarding the legitimacy of compromise? It is clear that R. |198~* .). bringing the litigants to an agreement – enables the judge to resolve the dispute without having to make a ruling as such. nor does it seem particularly likely. and see the next note. 288. consequently. 1999). Joshua when he says that ‘‘they fear the Omnipresent in judgment’’. Eleazar the Modaite tending more towards allegorical interpretation. Joshua views pesharah in a positive light. A similar dispute appears in the 30 Horowitz. Joshua disagree with him on this point? There is no need to assume this.. Joshua’s attitude towards pesharah. The two tannaim disagree in the Mekilta on a series of exegetical issues. Does the exegetical dispute between R. It is quite likely – indeed. But this is precisely the emphasis of R. ‘‘Masekhta de-Amalek. According to R. it ought to be interpreted in its literal sense: those who are informed by fear of ‘‘the Omnipresent’’ while sitting in judgment. does R. As others have already noted.’’30 The focus of the controversy between the two revolves around the interpretation of the word elohim [translated here as ‘‘God’’]. 31 Unlike Horowitz (ibid.32 According to the approach of the latter. Eleazar. one may incorporate compromise within the framework of the verse. Eleazar praises compromise. the word elohim needs to be interpreted in the sense of judges – and. Joshua. Parasha Bet. By doing so. it should be interpreted in the sense of judges: ‘‘Those who fear God’’ are those who are reluctant to sit in judgment – and therefore prefer performing compromises when sitting in judgment. one is not saying anything about R. R. 32 See Menahem Kahana. Joshua and R. according to R. 198. but simply does not see it as included within the rubric of the verse in question. their dispute is systemic.
in the previous and the adjacent homily. Eleazar says: . Pesharah as Arbitration Unlike the previous case. the principle of ‘‘beyond the letter of the law’’ is not implied by this verse. In the tannaitic sources there is a debate regarding the composition required for such a move. ‘‘Just as judgment is performed by three. R. According to one opinion. Eleazar the Modaite interprets the repetition of the language used as also including ‘‘beyond the letter of the law. R.’’ Should one assume that R. in which we spoke about mediation as bringing about a compromise within the framework of the judicial process. for two people engaged in judgment can retract 33 Ibid. 18:20] – this refers to a good act. 1:2. Joshua’s exegetical system.. ‘‘Judgment is with three and compromise with two. Joshua disagrees with the value of going ‘‘beyond the letter of the law’’? There is no reason to assume so. The power of compromise is stronger than that of judgment. |199~* . As against that.. 3. Gamliel. in t.’’ According to this view.. but he certainly accepts the principle as such. Joshua does not take exception to the institution of pesharah as such. there is no difference between the process of pesharah and the regular judicial process. Shimon b.Debate Over Compromise midrash near this same passage: ‘‘‘And the deed which shall be done’ [Exod. According to R. according to the opinion of R. II. according to R.Sanh. so ought compromise to be done by three. in which the two sides initially choose an individual or group of people to resolve the dispute through compromise. The same would seem to be the case regarding our matter as well. Joshua. in a process intended to resolve the dispute through compromise. ‘the deed’ – that is the letter of the law. The procedure involved is a kind of arbitration. it is also possible to bring about a compromise through a process initiated by the litigants ab initio. ‘which shall be done’ – that is going beyond the letter of the law.’’33 R. but does not see it as derived from Scripture.
It should be noted that this opinion relates to bitsu‘a. such a unit differs from a court and may consist of two people. intended from the outset to rule by way of compromise. Shimon b. and requires two only for purposes of testimony to the procedure. 6a. Shimon b. the process of compromise may be performed by a single judge or mediator. 36 According to the Talmud’s conclusion in b. 1:1 and b. while two who have mediated cannot retract.36 34 t. such a group acts as a court. I have cited the words of R. there are not three different views. Gamliel according to the version of the Yerushalmi and the Bavli. but only two.’’ But this version contradicts the final clause. for were we speaking about mediation. a single judge is sufficient. compromise differs from judgment in that it does not require a bench of three people. and also the Talmuds. so does compromise require three. |200~* .’’34 According to this view. 35 t. as in such a case the issue of composition of the bench would not have arisen.Sanh. and it would appear that the text is corrupt. in which the arbitrators are asked to make a ruling based upon compromise. or as judges laying down the law? It appears that we are dealing here with a ruling made by way of pesharah. According to a third opinion.Sanh.Haim Shapira their ruling. the validity of the arrangement would depend upon the agreement of the parties and not upon the number of judges involved. One is not speaking here of a compromise ruling made during the course of a regular legal procedure. the first part of his statement is as follows: ‘‘Just as judgment requires three. and therefore needs to include three judges.Sanh.35 These sources speak of a judicial move. as the one who thinks that ‘‘compromise requires two’’ agrees that it is sufficient even to have an individual arbitrator. whereas according to R. The use of this term here is connected with the meaning of bitsu‘a as a ruling of compromise (see below). It therefore seems clear that we are dealing here with a procedure similar to that of arbitration. 6a. But according to the version of the Tosefta. Gamliel. according to the third opinion. 1:9.Sanh. According to the first opinion. Are those making the compromise here acting as mediators between the parties.
it is always the judge who performs bitsu‘a. he is allowed to say to them: Go and divide (GTXCG GBX). and sometimes he should not divide. The nature of bitsu‘a may be inferred from a passage in the Tosefta which quotes the following statement of R.37 In other words. We are initially told that bitsu‘a is performed by the judge during the course of the judicial process. but further on the subject of the verb bits‘u is the litigants – albeit the act is performed at the behest 37 This association follows explicitly from the t. giving a little bit to each one. as in ‘He places the broken piece within the whole one and divides it. How so? Two people come before him for judgment. At the beginning of the passage.Sanh.Debate Over Compromise II. 1:3 in the words of R. The meaning of the term must be understood against the background of its original use in the context of breaking bread (\VF \TKXC): it follows from this that its meaning is of a ruling that gives a certain portion to one litigant and another portion to the other. 4. 6b: ‘‘Bitsu‘a refers to compromise. See Tosafot ha-Rosh. the subject of the verb yevatse‘a is the judge.Sanh. or if he has heard their words but does not yet know in which direction the law tends. The context is always that of judicial activity – that is. bitsu‘a is a ruling of compromise that divides the rights between the parties and does not rule unilaterally on behalf of one side or the other.’ So too is it the way of one making a compromise to break the matter and to divide it. Eliezer b. This would suggest that it does not refer to a compromise reached between the litigants. Bitsu‘a (TGXKC) The term bitsu‘a appears both as a noun and verb.’’ |201~* . and knows whence the law tends. Menasya: Sometimes a person should divide (TXCK). Shimon b. But once he has heard their words. Ya‘akov (in a section which I have skipped). he is not allowed to say to them: Go and divide. b. but rather to a judicial decision issued by the judge. before he has heard their words. and in various different declensions.
One needs to distinguish among the different circumstances in which the judge rules by bitsu‘a. The need for the parties’ agreement is first mentioned in the Talmud. Situations in which there is no other option and in which there is an obligation to perform bitsu‘a are mentioned in Sifre Deuteronomy §17. then there is no need for the agreement of the parties and the judge may perform bitsu‘a by himself. 6b). why then did his disciple Rav Huna ask the litigants: ‘Do you wish judgment or do you wish compromise?’’’ (b. see M.38 38 A parallel to this passage appears in a Genizah fragment. who states that it is a mitsvah to . Kahana. Korh ah. It was only in order to harmonize Rav’s ruling with the practice of Rav Huna that the Talmud added the phrase. 235. perform bitsu‘a. The Talmud asks: ‘‘If Rav ruled that the law is like R. In the first section of the midrash.’’ suggests that the text refers to a technical division which the parties are able to conduct by themselves. it therefore seems that the tannaitic sources do not require their agreement. a positive act.’’ Bitsu‘a is thus a judicial decision requiring . an arrangement that resembles the method of yah aloku. 2005). The language used in the ruling. Genizah Fragments of the Halakhic Midrashim (Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Magnes Press.e.Sanh. There are situations in which the judge is unable to arrive at any other solution and the choice of bitsu‘a results from the absence of any other option. hence. the litigants to divide amongst themselves.Haim Shapira of the judge. |202~* . it would appear that bitsu‘a does not require the agreement of the parties. Y. It should be noted that nowhere does the judge address the parties to receive their consent to this procedure. if bitsu‘a is considered to be a mitsvah. ‘‘go and divide. at least in the initial understanding of the Talmud.. ‘‘It is a mitsvah to perform bitsu‘a. Finkelstein’s version is preferable. ‘‘let them divide. As against that. It follows that. there are situations in which there is another solution – and in such cases the question arises as to whether the judge is permitted to perform bitsu‘a. but in the second passage the version from the Genizah fragment seems preferable. i.’’ meaning that one is required to ask the litigants whether they wish to make a compromise. Joshua b.
you are not allowed to be silent. But once he has heard the arguments of the parties he is no longer allowed to remain silent. but do not know whom to find deserving and whom to find culpable. you are required to divide (TGXCN CKKI). 1:17). If two people come before you. you are not allowed to be silent. before you hear their words you are allowed to remain silent. so quit before the quarrel breaks out’’ (Prov. once the law becomes revealed. impose a compromise. you are not allowed to be silent. 40 The wording of this passage in Finkelstein’s edition (and in the textual witnesses that it reflects) is corrupt. once you have heard their words. which includes the verse from Zechariah. 8:16). as the law has become apparent to you. so long as the judge has not heard the litigants’ arguments he is allowed to be silent – that is. you are allowed to be silent. and the conclusion.. i. he may recuse himself from judging the case. before you hear their words you are allowed to be silent. once you hear their words. The midrash 39 The following is the reading in the Genizah fragment: ‘‘If two people come before you for judgment.39 Once you have heard the litigants.e. What [kind of] judgment is it that makes for peace? We say: bitsu‘a.’’ It is therefore clear that one ought to prefer here the version from the Genizah fragment.40 In the first passage. It reads as follows: ‘‘If you heard the discussion and do not know whom to find innocent and whom to find culpable you are allowed to be silent’’ (in the rabbinic midrash: ‘‘to abandon it’’). the midrash states that. The answer is that he must perform bitsu‘a. 17:14). Thus it says. as it says: ‘‘These are the things that you shall do: Speak the truth to one another. In the second passage. ‘‘The beginning of strife is like letting out water. the section containing the verse from Proverbs was omitted. ‘‘This is bitsu‘a. because of its similarity. |203~* .Debate Over Compromise ‘‘You shall fear no man’’ (Deut.’’ It is easy to see that. This reading does not fit the continuation of the homily. but must rule on the case. the midrash discusses the question as to how a judge should behave once he has heard the arguments of the two sides and does not know how to rule. Before the law is revealed. render in your gates judgments that are true and make for peace’’ (Zech.
A decision arrived at in this manner is thus the result of a lack of alternatives and does not depend upon the consent of the litigating parties. Eliezer b. It should be stressed here that this ruling is given without the agreement of the sides. They asked him to decide according to law. he must rule by ‘‘division’’ (i. he must perform bitsu‘a – that is. however. in a case in which the judge does not know the legal solution. The view according to which the judge is required to perform bitsu‘a is explained by the verse from Zechariah: ‘‘Render in your gates judgments that are true and make for peace. in a case where the facts cannot be clarified there is no other solution but ‘‘let them divide.41 In any event. whereas the latter opinion.’’ The former opinion concurs with that of R. for which reason he must decide by way of bitsu‘a. corresponds to that of R. it is incumbent upon him to clarify the law.Ar. Further on the opinion of the sages is brought. in such a case. the way of compromise (bitsu‘a). that of the sages. also in the tosefta (below). In the course of this discussion. the tosefta (below). As against this. evidently. they did not agree to make a compromise between them. Korh ah in .’’ The later halakhah stated that. The litigants came in order to have their case judged.e. of the disputed sum). . It is difficult to assume that in such a case he is allowed to ignore the law. if the judge is unable to decide. we find the principled dispute concerning bitsu‘a. The flow of the argument seems to suggest that the dispute relates primarily to a scenario in which the judge does not know the 41 It would seem logical that. nor did they ask the judge to decide by way of compromise.. |204~* . the judge was incapable of doing so. according to which ‘‘whoever performs bitsu‘a is a sinner. R. HM 12:5). with a situation in which it is impossible to determine them. Joshua b. the judge is allowed to impose a compromise ruling upon the parties (Sh. Yose the Galilean.’’ which is interpreted as a recommendation for ‘‘a peaceful judgment’’ – that is to say.Haim Shapira does not clarify why the judge does not know how to decide in this particular case: does the judge lack information as to the facts of the case or is he ignorant of the law? It seems more likely to assume that we are dealing with lack of knowledge of the facts and.
Yose the Galilean said: Whoever ‘‘divides’’ (TXGCF) is a sinner. R. Yaakov said: What does Scripture mean when it says. Rather. it is difficult to assume that this is really the case. alongside the principal positions regarding the question of bitsu‘a.Debate Over Compromise law. 10:3: "’F WBR LZC TXCG"). We shall begin by bringing the text in its entirety: I. originally. R. 3. Concerning this it says. and he who praises the one who divides blasphemes before the Omnipresent. in a case in which he does not or cannot know the law. other passages related to them through various literary and substantive connections. other than in that manner? It would therefore appear that the principled dispute about bitsu‘a is transposed to that case in which the judge did not know the law.Sanh. Under such circumstances. in which case they disagree regarding the validity of the solution of bitsu‘a. How else can a judge rule. 1:1 [18b]. Eliezer b. let the law pierce the mountain. R. 1 and as it is repeated in both Talmuds (y. ‘‘He who praises a robber scorns the Lord’’? To what may this be 42 The version of the Babylonian Talmud here (according to MS Munich) reads: ‘‘As is said. This is an extensive textual unit that includes. as in such a context bitsu‘a is the only possible option.’’’ |205~* . We shall now turn to the substance of this dispute. b. 2:6). Eliezer b.42 But Aaron would make peace between man and his fellow. 6b).Sanh. ‘‘He who praises one who divides scorns the Lord (Ps. in which the judge could have decided according to the law. this dispute related to other circumstances. However. but nevertheless preferred bitsu‘a. ‘‘He walked with Me in peace and uprightness’’ (Mal. as is said. i. ‘for the judgment belongs to God. the question as to whether or not the judge is permitted to perform bitsu‘a arises in all its sharpness – for which reason the opinions differed so sharply. And so said Moses: Let the law pierce the mountain. I.San. The Controversy Concerning Compromise (Bitsu‘a) Our interest here shall be focused upon the tannaitic dispute as it appears in t.
‘‘Execute a judgment of truth and peace in your gates’’ (Zech. and baked it. III. and held liable the one who is guilty – he does charity with the one who is liable. and separated the h allah.Haim Shapira compared? To one who stole a bushel (se’ah) of wheat: he ground the grain. R. we thus find that he performs charity with the one and justice with the other. How can they make the blessing over it? Such a one is not blessing. ‘‘What profit (betsa) is there if we slay our brother?’’ (Gen. is it not the case that wherever there is true justice there is no peace. II. who said. 8:16). Shimon b.’’ I. declaring the guiltless to be innocent and imposing liability on the guilty party – if he found the poor liable. is it not the case that wherever there is justice there is no charity. R. II. And he does justice to the innocent one. sons to eat. 37:26).’’ This refers to the brothers of Joseph. and gave it to his . what kind of justice also contains charity? Let us say: this refers to bitsu‘a. ii. or once he heard their words but did not know which direction the |206~* . and wherever there is peace there is no true justice? What kind of justice also contains peace? Let us say: bitsu‘a. II. and sometimes one should not divide. How so? Two people who came before someone to be judged: Before he heard their words. And so too does it say regarding David: ‘‘And David administered justice and charity to all his people’’ (2 Sam. Now.ii. for he restores that which belongs to him. Now. and acquitted the one who is innocent. as is said. and wherever there is charity there is no justice? Rather. for he removes stolen goods from his possession. If one judges a case. but blaspheming! Concerning this they said: ‘‘He who praises a robber scorns the Lord. Menasya said: Sometimes one should divide. Rabbi says: If one judges a case. Another matter: ‘‘He who praises one who gets unlawful benefit scorns the Lord. 8:15). . Joshua b Korh ah said: It is a duty (mitsvah) to divide. he should take payment from his own [pocket] and give it to him.i.
1:17) – do not withhold your words because of any man. 82:1). As is said: ‘‘Fear not any man. and knows some exculpatory argument on behalf of the poor man. 17:14) – until it is revealed. Korhah said: From whence do we know that if one is . he is not allowed to say to them: Go and divide. lest the strong one be found liable. Lakish said: Two who came before someone for judgment. and who is testifying with them. III. Joshua b. he is allowed to say to them: Go and divide. and he will pursue him [i. and the witnesses should know about whom they are testifying. you are not allowed to leave it. for you judge not for man. 19:6).. for the judgment belongs to God’’ (Deut. and before whom they are testifying. as is said: ‘‘Let both parties to the dispute appear before the Lord’’ (Deut. Judah b.i. and it also says of Jehoshaphat: ‘‘And he said to the judges: Consider what you do.Debate Over Compromise judgment is tending. you are allowed to abandon it. you are not permitted to say to them: I will not relate to your case. that he should not be silent? Scripture says: ‘‘Fear not any man’’ (Deut. IV. ‘‘For He is with |207~* . And lest the judge say: Why do I need this trouble? It has already been said. but for the Lord’’ (2 Chr.ii. or once you have heard their words but you do not know which way the judgment tends. in the midst of the judges [lit. one being strong and one being weak. and with whom they are judging and who judges together with them. you are allowed to say to them: I will not relate to this case. Before you hear their words. 1:17). But once you hear their words and you know which direction the law tends. R. and it is said. But once he has heard their words and knows which way the judgment is leaning. III. once the law has been revealed. gods] he judges’’ (Ps. R. or something critical holding the wealthy accountable.e. sitting before the judge. Of this it is written: ‘‘The beginning of strife is like letting out water’’ (Prov. and before whom they are judging. the judge]. The judges should know whom they are judging. ‘‘God stands in the congregation of God. 19:17).
e. At first glance.43 The question that lies at the center of our discussion is whether the judge is allowed to perform bitsu‘a – that is.Haim Shapira you in the matter of judgment’’ (ibid.. . Eliezer b. In the Palestinian Talmud. it would seem as if the principal opinions were incorporated within the text in an almost random and associative manner. Three opinions are brought regarding this question: the first view. diametrically opposed view.’’ and also ‘‘this is difficult for Rabbi. The subject of the unit is the issue of the legitimacy of bitsu‘a. Yad Ramah ad loc.’’ etc. Both Talmuds incorporate within this unit various additions and exegetical comments that are not an integral part of the baraita. it is forbidden to impose bitsu‘a.. is that of R. . The second.Sanh.). 243. Several rishonim have observed further interconnections. The parameters of this unit are determined both by the subject matter and by the terminology. to impose a ruling based upon compromise. according to which it is a duty (mitsvah) to perform bitsu‘a. Shimon b. that of R.). that of R. is that the judge is ‘‘permitted to divide’’ – that is. see Y. On the structure of this chapter. Yose the Galilean (I) is that ‘‘One who performs bitsu‘a is a sinner’’ – in other words. Hiddushei ha-Ritsad. see. Joshua b. 44 The Talmud already took note of the back-and-forth play between the two passages in the text (see b.. Within these parameters. Korh ah (II). R. However. III (Jerusalem: Mossad ha-Rav Kook. 1990). Z. which must be interpreted in its entirety. Dinnur. Menasya (III).44 We are therefore dealing with a well-structured and edited unit.g. ‘‘Should the judge say { you have naught but that which your eyes see. the baraita is brought in both Talmuds. 6b: ‘‘We have come to the [words of] the tanna kamma: He judged the judgment. upon deeper examination it becomes clear that the additional sections inserted between these positions and adjacent to them relate to the principal opinions and create a kind of dialogue or negotiation among the various opinions. it concludes with the verse from 2 Chronicles. which is the exclusive subject of the discussion. |208~* . We shall thus begin by offering an initial interpretation of the 43 In the Babylonian Talmud this unit is brought precisely within these parameters. You have to take account only of what your eyes see. The third opinion.’’ is missing. bitsu‘a falls under the rubric of legitimate options. and the final sentence.
’’ which alludes to this verse. R. R. ‘‘He who praises’’ refers to one who praises the judge for his ruling. but is opposed to that performed by Moses. One who praises the judge in such circumstances is as if he derides the law. however. Eliezer. In Sifre Deuteronomy §17 this opinion is brought in the name of the sages: ‘‘And the sages say. but also against R. as is said. in the subsequent section.46 In this explanation. Rashi interprets thus: |209~* .]. Moses represents the judge sitting in court. but the judge corrected it by ruling with wisdom and justice. Eliezer b. this one praises the judge and blasphemes his Creator. a slight difference between them. Eliezer or whether it is brought in opposition to it. Yose the Galilean. I. Eliezer’s position opposing bitsu‘a. This raises the question as to whether this passage belongs to the words of R. who is portrayed as ‘‘making peace between man and his fellow. formulated with the words.’’ as he has not carried out his obligation to judge according to the law. According to the opinion of R. ‘‘He who praises one who divides scorns the Lord. Kahana. According to the conventional explanation. delve more deeply into the significance of the various approaches. He then adds. the judge who imposes a compromise ruling is a ‘‘sinner. R.. in which case he is not entirely opposed to compromise: he agrees with the type of compromise made by Aaron. blasphemes. ‘He who praises one who divides scorns the Lord’ – i. while Aaron corresponds to the person who acts outside of the judicial framework. whoever divides (mevatse‘a) is a sinner. 46 There is.e. 235. not only against Moses’ approach. as if to say: The law as such is unjust.’’45 Immediately following in the same section. Eliezer’s position appears.’’ In this sentence. and hence is tantamount to one who blasphemes. as expressed in the words of Rashi and tosafot [ad loc.Debate Over Compromise unit as a whole and thereafter. §17. Opposed to that model is the figure of Aaron. ‘‘let the law pierce the mountain’’ – an approach attributed to Moses. Eliezer 45 Sifre Deut. Genizah Fragments of the Halakhic Midrashim. There is missing here the phrase ‘‘he who blesses one who divides. Most traditional commentators assume that these are the words of R.’’ The praise for Aaron creates a certain tension and opposition.
it is certainly permitted for him’’ (tosafot. R. Sanhedrin. R. the judge is not allowed to perform bitsu‘a even outside of the judicial framework. asur livtso‘a ) { that is to say. Yose the Galilean. cited . matters may be seen as a kind of protest against his approach: if R. s.Haim Shapira only objects to compromise made during the course of the judicial process. but he permits and may even praise those who make compromise outside of the courtroom. Another explanation of the distinction between Moses and Aaron appears in the words of R. s. in another version.v. according to whom the distinction depends upon the nature of the compromise made: R.Sanh. Even ha-Ezer. in Hiddushei ha-Ritsad. Eliezer relies upon ‘‘Once they came for purposes of judgment.’’ thereby bringing them to agreement. Hiddushim le-Sanhe. 1964). These views are brought in Shiltei ha-Gibborim on Rif. ad loc.v.48 It should be noted that this passage. there is nothing objectionable about this. 6b. the judges cannot impose a compromise’’ (b. does not appear in the parallel in Sifre Deuteronomy. Sanhedrin (Jerusalem: Makhon ha-Talmud. in which Moses is contrasted with Aaron. who organized this chapter in the form of a dialectical halakhic discussion. There are. the matter depends upon the framework of the judicial hearing. 1984). in which case one could say that bitsu‘a is forbidden. |210~* . As against this. Yose the Galilean opposes a ruling based upon compromise. drin. Eliezer b. but it is permitted to one who was not a judge. n. Isaiah Trani the Younger. Should the judge mediate between the litigants by ‘‘appeasement and persuasion. aval Aharon).. and. According to this. 48 Sefer Raba’’n (Jerusalem: Vagshal. above. §4. 44. but pesharah (voluntarily-reached compromise) is permissible. tosafot see it as dependent upon the function: ‘‘As he was not a judge and the judgment did not come before him but before Moses. 47 Piskei Ri’’az. but disagrees with him. but outside of this framework even the judges are permitted to make a compromise. however.47 This approach is consistent with the fact that the dispute focuses upon bitsu‘a. such was the way of Aaron. those commentators who think that the introduction of the figure of Aaron does not reflect the view of R. This may imply that it was added by the redactor of the Tosefta. but does not object to compromise arrived at by agreement. Eliezer b. On that basis.
‘‘He who blesses. These homilies seem to have been incorporated here on purely associative grounds since all interpret the same verse. ‘‘what profit (betsa) is it to us that we slay our brother..’’ in the first passage. Eliezer. thereafter he brings two rebuttals of the use of the verse in Proverbs as a source for the principle that ‘‘one who performs division is a sinner. by means of the figure of Aaron. But the purpose of citing them here was to show that the same verse may be expounded differently. According to the former. two more homilies appear on the verse. 8:16). the verse refers to the brothers of Joseph.49 In other words.e. (‘‘blesses’’) – that is.’’ Following the passage dealing with the words of R. he blasphemes God. R. In any event.’’ (I. R.ii). I. who ‘‘made peace between man and his fellow. Eliezer b. In brief. ‘‘let the law pierce the mountain. who said. Eliezer here.’’ then he is opposed by Aaron. according to these tannaim. ‘‘Execute a judgment of truth and peace in your gates’’ (Zech. It follows that the unit we have designated as (I) is edited as a discussion of the words of R. Korh ah thinks that ‘‘it is a mitsvah to perform .’’ |211~* . saying that they ought not to be praised simply because they refused to kill him but sold him as a slave.. who noted that. botse‘a – ‘‘takes’’) and thereafter separates hallah . ‘‘bitsu‘a in judgment is preferable. they disagree with R. Yose the Galilean. The redactor may have already questioned the principle.’’ This homily is introduced to criticize Joseph’s brothers.’’ basing his position on the verse in Zechariah.Debate Over Compromise the approach of Moses. the verse is interpreted as referring to one who performs a (supposed) mitsvah while doing a transgression. the verse refers to a person who stole wheat (i. who said ‘‘let the law pierce the mountain. According to the second homily. As he explains it: ‘‘What kind of judgment also contains peace? Let us say: that is 49 This matter is similarly interpreted by the Yad Ramah.’’ II. Joshua b. and need not necessarily be interpreted as criticizing one who engages in compromise rulings (bitsu‘a) or praising one who does so. bitsu‘a.i.. let us sell him to the Ishmaelites.
Nevertheless. whereas charity only applies when it is the weaker and poorer side that is found culpable. there is a difference between the two reasons mentioned.’Abot 2:7: ‘‘He who increases tsedakah increases peace.e. which only mentions the verse from Zechariah and the accompanying homily: ‘‘What is meant by justice in which there is peace? Let us say: This refers to bitsu‘a.’’52 In issuing rulings based upon compromise there is a kind of charity to the one found culpable. and in the biblical lexicons. in a manner analogous to tsedek (‘‘justice’’)51 – but rather in the sense accepted in the rabbinic lexicon. An opinion identical to that of R. Weinfeld. I wish to thank Radzinger for sharing this paper with me prior to its publication..685687. hence. y. Joshua. 51 In biblical Hebrew. In MS Erfurt: ‘‘What is a true judgment? One in which there is peace’’ { and it is clear that the former reading is preferable. anonymously in Sifre Deuteronomy §17. Another justification for his words is brought on the basis of the verse. Social Justice in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East (Jerusalem: Magnes Press. Justice Shall You Pursue’: Different Conceptions of Judicial Justice in Tannaitic Teaching’’ (Hebrew). money. as expressed in m.53 That is: the procedure of bitsu‘a reflects compassion towards the one who is culpable and needs to pay. in which it signifies charity. See also A. Licht. 53 It is interesting to note the relationship between the two reasons. Korh ah is brought . M. 8:15): ‘‘What kind of justice also contains righteousness? Let us say: that is bitsu‘a. ‘‘‘Justice.’’ |212~* . Joshua b.’’ Encyclopaedia Biblica 6.’’50 According to R. ‘‘And David administered justice and righteousness for all his people’’ (2 Sam.Haim Shapira bitsu‘a. a voluntary action in which one assists one’s fellow man: ‘‘tsedakah [charity] with his money. See J. The principle of peace is applicable to every dispute. gemillut h asadim [acts of kindness] with both his body and with his . tsedakah is etymologically related to tsedek. Radzinger. and also in the printed version. 1995). ‘‘Justice.’’ The 50 As in MS Vienna. mishpat u-tsedakah refers to a social and royal conception of justice. and the idiom. 52 t.Pe’ah 1:1 (15c). the value of ‘‘peace’’ is preferable to that of ‘‘truth’’.’’ The term tsedaka (righteousness) is no longer used here in the biblical sense of the word – i. Justice Shall You Pursue.Pe’ah 4:19. he justifies issuing a ruling based upon compromise.
but only to the procedural question: at which stage is it permissible to perform 54 Nor does it appear in the parallel in the Palestinian Talmud. In any event. the question treated by R. Shimon b. |213~* . who thinks that this does not refer to R. the approach of Rashi. According to him. which is even more severe. R. one is speaking here of an attack against the approach of R. . Joshua b. The subsequent passage (II. 6b. s. But compare Yad Ramah. and he proposes another solution other than bitsu‘a. Menasya. every judgment involves an element of tsedakah. according to whom bitsu‘a is an optional solution. namely that the discussion here involves the opinions mentioned in this unit. and there is no room for tsedakah in the sense of charity at all. In these passages. He does not relate to the legitimacy of bitsu‘a per se.v. At face value.i. However. Law must be issued according to the letter of the law. the Talmud already saw this as R. III. Eliezer b. the necessity for bitsu‘a by reason of tsedakah is challenged.) deals with the case in which the judge found a poor man culpable. though according to the continuation of the baraita in the Yerushalmi. Joshua b.. seems preferable. in that the judge ‘‘removes stolen goods from his hands. is a distinction between law and righteousness. it would appear that the homily is part of this unit. The third opinion is that of R. 55 b. there . Eliezer but rather to the tanna who said ‘‘once the hearing has been completed you are not allowed to perform bitsu‘a. there is no contradiction whatsoever between law and tsedakah. Another option is that the matters are stated here according to the view of R.54 It therefore appears that the mention of tsedakah in the tosefta is connected with the discussion thereafter.Debate Over Compromise subject of tsedakah is not mentioned there at all.ii) brings the opinion of Rabbi. a decent judge will ‘‘take out [his money] and give him from his own. Shimon b.55 By this reasoning. Rashi ad loc. atan letanna kamma.Sanh. but if the judge sees that the culpable party was a poor man. The subsequent passage (II. Korhah. he gives him charity from his own pocket. Shimon b. In that case.’’ And indeed. Korh ah. justice is always determinative.’’ According to this approach. in the next two passages. Menasya differs from that discussed by his predecessors. Yose the Galilean’s answer to R. Menasya.’’ who thought that bitsu‘a is an optional matter. dealing with tsedakah.
’’ In other words: bitsu‘a is seen as optional. the focus of his words is his position that the judge is ‘‘permitted to perform bitsu‘a. you are allowed to abandon it. mentioned at the beginning of the chapter. Shimon b. once the law has been revealed. The litigants must accept upon themselves the judge and he must |214~* .. becomes evident]. i) regarding the abandonment of judgment. we need to better understand the rule regarding abandoning the law.e.’’ Consideration of this possibility may be understood in light of a situation in which the judicial process is based upon agreement between the litigants and the judge. And indeed. Immediately thereafter. the text quotes the view of R. according to the approach of R. Once he has formed an opinion he is no longer allowed to leave it. so is he allowed at this stage to practice bitsu‘a. bitsu‘a falls under the rubric of the permissible or optional. is allowed to leave the bench. Shimon compares bitsu‘a to abandoning the law: just as the judge. However. Menasya. Menasya’s position is explained by the midrash on the verse in Prov. Note that the tosefta does not develop here the procedural question and does not mention here the dissenting view. until the law is revealed [i. he is not allowed to do bitsu‘a’’). according to which the judge may perform bitsu‘a until the litigation has been completed (‘‘once the trial was completed.’’ R. According to this. Why does the same restriction apply in both cases? For this. so long as he has not formulated a position on a given case. Shimon b.’’ and that ‘‘at times a person may issue a compromise ruling and at times he may not. we need to understand the analogy between performing bitsu‘a and abandoning the case. R. His words imply that the background for the judge wishing to abandon the case is his fear of personal harm against him by one of the litigants: ‘‘Lest the strong one be found liable and he pursues him. at that stage he is no longer allowed to perform bitsu‘a. 17:14: ‘‘‘Quit before the quarrel breaks out’ – that is. hence. Judah b. you are not allowed to leave it.Haim Shapira bitsu‘a? It is nevertheless clear that the citation of his position in the present context is intended to express a position regarding the legitimacy of bitsu‘a as such. Lakish (III. the Talmud likewise concludes that.
he cannot refuse to judge those who come before him. The parties operate under a ‘‘veil of ignorance’’ with regard to the results of the procedure. in his Studies in Jewish History (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press. the expenses entailed by the legal procedure itself – and on this basis they agree to a certain compromise. One essential consideration relates to the opportunities and risks they perceive in the judicial process. At that point in time when they are considering the possibility of compromise. scholarly opinions on this matter are divided and it requires further clarification.) So long as the judge has not heard the arguments of the two sides and has not formulated an opinion. The approach which gives the judge the authority to make a compromise is based upon the fact that he will act in the name of and in place of the litigating sides. Albeck. It would appear that the distinction between the two situations is connected with the principle of honesty and fairness. see G. Allon. When the judge issues a compromise ruling. S. At this stage the prohibition. he does so in place of the parties themselves. who may do so on the basis of various considerations. he must 56 This was evidently the widespread reality in talmudic Palestine. However. he is no longer allowed to abandon the case. 1980).56 (In the situation of a fixed court that is required to judge the parties. and it is reflected in m. Once he has entered into the deliberations and formulated an opinion. The judge has the right not to rule on a case that has come before him. This being the case. Law Courts in Talmudic Times (Hebrew) (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press. 1976). they calculate their chances of winning. The principle of fairness likewise applies to the situation of bitsu‘a. it would be inequitable for him to leave the case simply out of concern that the losing side will harm him. he may refuse to judge this particular dispute.Debate Over Compromise also agree to judge them.’’ becomes applicable.Sanh. 15-57. In the meantime. 3. the right to make a compromise belongs to the litigating sides. the risks of losing. as is customary today. ‘‘Illein Demitmanin Bikhsaf’’ (Hebrew). Once he has heard the arguments and arrived at a position concerning them. ch. Fundamentally. but must express this position at the beginning of the hearing or immediately after hearing the arguments of the parties. ‘‘You shall fear no man. |215~* .
as the goal is to bring about peace between them. Indeed.e. This being so. Joshua b. Against this background. that the judge is allowed to impose a . According to the approach of R. Joshua b. but rather upon the interests of the parties – and therefore is merely an option.Haim Shapira operate under the same conditions and in accordance with the same considerations as the two sides would have. according to the approach of R. Menasya. it would seem that the per. that ‘‘it is a mitsvah to perform bitsu‘a’’ (like R. So long as the judge has not formed an opinion.. he is indeed acting under the same ‘‘veil of ignorance’’ and is able to arrive at results similar to those which the parties involved would have reached had they made the compromise themselves. Shimon b. Menasya and R. ‘‘peace’’ and ‘‘charity’’ – and therefore falls under the rubric of mitsvah. the side that knew it would win would likewise not have agreed to a compromise. Shimon b. bitsu‘a is not based upon a set of values. Korhah. as only then is he able to act honestly in the interests of both sides. it follows that. on the other hand. one . bitsu‘a is based upon the principles of . formance of bitsu‘a is not necessarily limited to this stage. Once he has formed an opinion and knows which side will win the case (i. These divergent approaches are likely to lead to different limitations upon the process of bitsu‘a. Had the two sides been in this situation. according to R. but. Joshua b. If there is a mitsvah to rule on the basis of compromise. on the one hand. Joshua b Korh ah). By contrast.57 |216~* . by law). it may be justified to do so even after the judge knows that the law favors one or another of the sides. that the judge is allowed to perform bitsu‘a so long as the trial has not yet been completed. According to R. According to R. Korh ah. compromise ruling so long as the judicial proceedings have not been completed. he is no longer able to arrive at an honest compromise. must adopt the other approach mentioned in the tosefta – namely. Korhah. Joshua b. Korh ah. the post-talmudic halakhah determines. we may sharpen the distinction between the approaches of R. Shimon b. Menasya. . the judge is allowed to impose a compromise so long as he has not formed his own opinion about the case.
He is with you in giving judgment. Korh ah that it is a .Debate Over Compromise The next passage (III. . via its use of the . 1b.’’ elaborates the idea that ‘‘judgment belongs to God. 22:4. Mishneh Torah. Judah b.Sanh. who is warned not to fear the judge. Korhah.’’ The connection between this and the preceding passage is based on the appearance of these two phrases next to one another in the Torah: ‘‘You shall fear no man. according to R. Shimon b.. In contrast. R. in Bar-Ilan Law Studies (forthcoming). Korh ah’s homily disagrees . 58 For a more extensive discussion of this matter. ‘‘Do not fear any man. ii). Joshua b. ‘‘You shall fear no man. verse. Lakish. Sanh. According to R. this homily seems to have been brought simply because of the homily on the same verse. Joshua b. which is consistent with that of R. let the fear of the Lord be upon you. Maimonides. Now then.Ar..’’ followed by an allusion to 2 Chr. Shimon b. R. Joshua b. mitsvah to perform bitsu‘a. 1:17). Menasya. Offhand. The next passage. ‘‘If the judges knew. Joshua b. Joshua b. And indeed. but for the Lord. it is worth noting that there is a connection on the structural level. Nevertheless. with the approach of R. the prohibition ‘‘You shall fear no man’’ applies to the judge. warning him not to fear the litigants. Lakish. Menasya – that is. b. |217~* . with that of Resh Lakish. for judgment belongs to God’’ (Deut. applies to a student sitting before the judge. The source of the relationship is in the exegetical midrash on these phrases.’’ According to R. Joshua b Korh ah it . see my paper ‘‘For Judgment is God’s { On the Metaphysics of Judging in Jewish Law’’ (Hebrew). Korh ah’s homily indicates a disagreement .58 57 Rif. the interpretation of ‘‘You shall fear no man’’ is immediately followed by that of ‘‘for judgment belongs to God. relates to the remarks of R. IV. brought in the name of R. Hil.. Tur and Sh. Judah b. in Sifre Deuteronomy as well.’’ and has no special connection to the earlier-stated position of R. 19: ‘‘Judge not for man. HM 12:2. the . verse is expounded differently: ‘‘Do not withhold your words before any man’’ (interpreting GZGD\ BN as GZDB\ BN). Korh ah.’’ The next passage in the Tosefta is a full and comprehensive exposition of the idea of God’s presence in judgment.
Thus. then. three biblical verses are invoked to provide a basis for the idea of God’s presence in judgment. 1:1 (18a). In addition to God’s (expected) function as He before whom – that is. If the judges err in judgment. He who judges with them enjoys the merit of this act. and you take from this one and give to that one contrary to law. for the wicked that they take money from this one and give it to that one unlawfully.Sanh. there is also implicit here another meaning that goes beyond the concrete rectification of the judicial ruling.60 As God is a participant in deciding the law. and if they judge properly. in the third part. describing God’s multifaceted functions in judgment. but that they trouble me to return money to its rightful owners’’ (b. 8a). whether in the positive sense – as a true judge – or to be held accountable – as one who has distorted judgment. son of R.Sanh. under whose aegis and supervision – judgment is conducted.Haim Shapira The first part of this halakhah contains a series of ‘‘statements’’ directed to the judges and the witnesses. The Almighty needs to correct that which the judges have upset. God is ultimately held accountable and must intervene to correct the judgment. If the judges stand in for God. Hanina said: The Holy One blessed be He says: It is not enough . |218~* . According to this logic. I need to pay him and to take away from the other person. there is a certain move balancing the 59 y. Hama . Thus. In the second part of this halakhah. 60 The Yerushalmi’s explanation does not require that the Divine presence be located in the courtroom.’’59 The disruption of the just order of the world requires that God restore the proper order. only that the judge serve as a delegate or emissary of God. the Holy One blessed be He says: I am the one who said that Reuben shall receive a hundred dinar and Shimon shall receive nothing. However. and requires further explication. This third function is quite surprising. He also serves as judge and even as the one being judged. Then. when they distort justice. and in the Bavli as an independent statement: ‘‘R. he bears shared responsibility for its consequences. God is literally judged by the judges. whoever has judged together with them is also hold accountable. the Palestinian Talmud asks: ‘‘Can a person judge his Creator?’’ It answers: ‘‘Rather.
In this section. R. according to the version in the Bavli which explains the conviction that ‘‘let the law pierce the mountain’’ by the principle that ‘‘judgment is God’s. Nevertheless. In principle. the authority of the judge had been discussed in terms of the concrete goals of the legal procedure: a truthful judgment on the one hand. R. Eliezer b.Jurisprudential Aspects The positions of the tannaim regarding compromise rulings are quite clear. it is worth noting that. representing God. on the other. The concept of God’s presence is not invoked here as supporting one or another of the opinions. The judge now fulfills not only a social function. To this the halakhah responds: ‘‘Has it not already been said.’’ The placing of this passage here indicates an expansion and elevation of the discussion. Until this point.e. metaphysical dimension to the discussion of the function of the legal procedure. Eliezer b.Debate Over Compromise two. hence. |219~* . but also a quasi-theological one. it might fit both the principle of ‘‘the law pierces the mountain’’ as well as that approach which holds that ‘‘it is a mitsvah to pursue a compromise solution (i. perform bitsu‘a). The Dispute Over the Goals of the Judicial Process .’’61 Rather. the judge must be committed 61 However. Yose the Galilean holds that the function of the court is to implement the law. R. ‘And He is with you in the matter of judgment’ – You have to take into account only that which your eyes see.. and achieving peace and charity. this passage bears no direct relation to the question discussed in the chapter. 4. liable to elicit fears that will ultimately result in their refraining from sitting in judgment. it is invoked here to lend an additional. Yose the Galilean. The perception of the judicial process as one in which God is present and in which He participates as a partner imposes a very heavy responsibility upon the judges.’’ a relationship is established between the last section and the stance of R. we turn to the metaphysical realm.
Menasya proposes an intermediate position. expressed in the founding of a movement known as ‘‘Alternative Dispute Resolution. according to the opinion opposed to bitsu‘a. the judicial process is conceived as a mechanism for resolving disputes. allowing him to decide each dispute according to its particular circumstances. which is connected with the concept of truth. the underlying motivation for this approach |220~* . a few words on the background of this discussion would be in place. Shimon b. According to that view which favors bitsu‘a as a way to advance peace between the parties. From the 1970s on. which require that he follow a suitable procedural framework. nor to that of peace.Haim Shapira exclusively to the law. including Israel. These approaches have been discussed in contemporary legal literature with regard to dispute settlement. according to which the judge is not committed to any external values beyond the resolution of the dispute at hand.’’ This movement advocated a model according to which there would be multiple ways of resolving disputes. R. on the one hand. Korh ah believes that the court ought to advance . As against that. The judge is only limited by the principles of honesty and fairness. By contrast. there began to emerge in the United States a tendency to use alternative means of resolving disputes. Justice or Peace The rationales offered for and against bitsu‘a reflect two fundamental approaches towards the judicial procedure. He is not required to be consistently loyal to the value of truth. on the other. giving them preference over those of law and truth. this dispute would seem to reflect a more fundamental dispute concerning the nature and goals of the judicial process. He has discretionary judgment. Joshua b. the judicial process is conceived of as a mechanism of social order aimed at implementing ideals of law and justice in society. primarily through solutions involving compromise and mediation. However. Initially. the values of peace and charity. R. The influence of this trend expanded and spread to other countries. thus.
Fiss. and Multi-Culturalism’’ (Hebrew).’’ Yale Law Journal 93 (1984): 1073-90. Bar-Ilan Law Studies 24 (2008): 373. Owen Fiss. Jurisprudence of Mediation. Fiss noted two alternative conceptions of the judicial process. ‘‘justice rather than peace. Other reasons were also introduced. including personal and emotional aspects not dealt with by the legal process. there is no authorized figure who is allowed to make concessions in the name of the group that he represents. the purpose of the legal process is to resolve disputes. Legal Consciousness. esp. chs.Debate Over Compromise was related to efficiency and the need to alleviate the burden of courts faced with overcrowded dockets. 64 The other arguments are of a more procedural nature and relate to the limitations on compromise as a solution that can bring about just results. This refers to disputes involving groups of citizens who are not organized in any formal framework. 2. see Alberstein. 3-4. Over the course of time.’’63 In his paper. there were also those who were critical of this approach. His most substantive and serious argument related to the preference for the value of peace over that of justice. However. From this viewpoint. the result of compromise will also not be just. |221~* . In many procedures involving compromise. of a more value-oriented nature. The compromise process does not allow for follow-up or ongoing handling of problems which may arise following the initial agreement. Fiss presented a number of arguments against compromise. ‘‘The Opposition to Mediation: Between Rights. In this context three main arguments have been raised: 1. 62 For an analysis of the rise of this movement. connected with a more comprehensive way of dealing with disputes. ‘‘Against Settlement. challenging the possibility of its providing decent and reasonable solutions to disputes. 3. principled position in his well-known article. see Alberstein. According to one conception.’’64 In this context. and therefore in the case of lack of balance between them. On the criticism against this movement.62 One of its harshest critics. 63 Owen M. The process of compromise reflects the power relations between the two sides. articulated a theoretical. there developed other reasons. ‘‘Against Settlement. held by those supporting solutions based on compromise. related to a preference for solutions based upon agreement and peaceful resolution of disputes over judicial decisions.
Cases adjudicated in the courts are an opportunity for them to interpret the constitution and laws and to determine suitable norms of behavior. the judicial process is not intended simply to resolve disputes. as |222~* . but rather to execute justice. They need to determine the rules of suitable behavior and to bring society closer to the ideal which it envisions. the function of the judge is to implement the law. Over the course of time. to interpret the laws. According to the view of R.Haim Shapira one is speaking of a fundamentally private procedure. The purpose of the judicial process and the function of the judges is thus not merely to resolve disputes. then it is clear that resolution of the dispute by agreement was preferable to a decision rendered by a stranger or an outside party. Yose the Galilean. Fiss offers a totally different conception of the judicial process. is that one should not encourage compromise arrangements. The origin of this process. accomplished by means of interpretation of the constitution and of the laws. similar to those presented here. therefore. but to perform justice. If this was the goal of the procedure. From this point of view. Consonant with this. and to establish new norms. but rather respond to those cases that are referred to them. As against this approach. according to which the state invests resources in order to appoint experts to judicial functions. the state assumed this role and established a judicial system. Two approaches or models of the judicial process. as described by some historians of law. who decided between them. there is no room for a procedure of compromise. The courts are the legislature’s partners in performing justice. Transferring disputes to private arrangements would deprive the courts of the opportunity to confront reality. but rather should allow the court to say its piece and shape the life of society. but the original purpose of the procedure – to resolve the dispute – remained intact. They do not determine the rules of behavior from the outset. The conclusion. would seem to underlie the talmudic dispute. The difference between the legislature and the courts is that the courts function in a reactive manner. Eliezer b. lay in bringing the dispute between the parties to a disinterested third-party. R.
First. R. he does not impose an obligation to always rule by way of compromise. The choice as to which solution should be adopted in each case and in any given dispute is left to the discretion of the judge. By contrast. Joshua b. and therefore does not impose any obligation upon the judge to rule consistently according to the letter of the law. Korh ah in favor .’’ Tsedakah is an important consideration in determining the law and is likely to lead to a ruling by way of compromise. two arguments are brought against the link between justice and tsedakah. one must draw a distinction between law and charity. but to resolve the dispute between parties. Joshua b. On the other hand. Joshua b. the litigants are permitted. The judge must rule in accordance with the law.Debate Over Compromise such a process is not intended to do justice. however. Korh ah. one must always grant pre. As we have seen. of ruling by compromise relates to the reason of tsedakah. the dispute concerning the question of bitsu‘a is connected to that of charity. at any given stage. the law does not enjoy any priority over other solutions. Shimon b. to prefer some other solution. if he wishes to perform a charitable act. Korh ah. Corrective Justice and Distributive Justice Another aspect deserving of mention relates to the nature of the justice that operates within the framework of the judicial process. According to R. As against that. ‘‘What is justice in which there is charity? Let us say: that is bitsu‘a. mitsvah. The law simply provides a default option for the resolution of the dispute. This being the goal. At times a solution which achieves justice for one of the parties is preferable. He does not think that the solution of peace is always preferable. the judicial process is not primarily intended to execute justice. he |223~* . Menasya likewise thinks that the purpose of the judicial process is to resolve disputes. according to the approach of R. who sees compromise as a . ference to that solution which advances peace between the parties over one that leaves the enmity between them. One of the reasons offered by R.
The judge must not give charity to the poor man at the expense of the one who has won the case. even if the latter is wealthy. and justice to the innocent one. 1925). Distributive justice ‘‘is manifested in distributions of honor or money or the other things that fall to be divided among those who have a share in the constitution. Rabbi requires one to give charity to the poor and needy.ii). for he removes stolen goods from his possession. Ross (Oxford: Oxford University Press. and justice with that’’ (II. One may assume that in such contexts. whose source lies in the legal philosophy of Aristotle. His argument is that. one must not take into account the consideration of charity.Haim Shapira should take the money from his own pocket and give it to the poor man. for he restores to him what belongs to him’’ (II. is the quintessential act of charity. Aristotle draws a distinction between these two concepts. Offhand.i). W.’’ This matter itself depends upon the 65 Aristotle. Rabbi would seem to be identifying the concept of justice with charity: if justice has been carried out. This tannaitic debate seems to reflect a dispute as to what concepts of justice are relevant in legal deliberations. one may not assume that Rabbi rejects the concept of charity in extra-judicial contexts.’’65 The principle according to which these things are distributed is whether the person is ‘‘deserving of it. then charity has also been given. as within that framework justice is the only goal. trans.D. ‘‘If one judges a case. However. ‘‘If he found the poor man culpable. within the framework of the judicial process. In this context. as well. The Nicomachean Ethics. one must introduce into the discussion the concepts of corrective justice and distributive justice. requiring that the culpable party pay what is due. In the Nicomachean Ethics (book V. he takes [from him] and gives him from his own. the performance of justice. chapter 2). and held liable the one who is guilty – he turns out to do charity with the one who is liable. A sharper argument is attributed to Rabbi: according to him. and acquitted the one who is innocent. we find that that he does charity with this. |224~* .
A poor person is likely to be more deserving than a rich one. not according to that kind of proportion. For example. but is basically consistent with the framework which he outlined. A person who took a loan from his neighbor and did not return it in time is tantamount to one who caused him direct damage |225~* . (This socialistic insight was not explicitly suggested by Aristotle. and treats the parties as equal.’’ In chapter 4. One who has invested 50% of his wealth in the partnership and a similar proportion of labor will also be entitled to the same proportion of the profits of the partnership. if one is in the wrong and the other is being wronged.) As against that is corrective justice. Was damage caused? 2. but according to arithmetical proportion. one takes into consideration the person’s status and his contribution to society. Similarly.Debate Over Compromise individual’s contribution to the common wealth and upon his status. and if one inflicted injury and the other has received it. When a person harms his fellow and causes him damage. For it makes no difference whether a good man has defrauded a bad man or a bad man a good one. Corrective justice examines only two parameters: 1. in this same framework one may also weigh a person’s needs. This principle applies not only to the law of damages but also to contract law and all other branches of private law. nor whether it is a good or a bad man that has committed adultery. Was the act done in an illegal or unjust manner? If the answer to these two questions is positive. In the framework of distributive justice. The person’s status or contribution is irrelevant in such cases. distributive justice determines what a person deserves on the basis of his contribution to the partnership. within the framework of a partnership. he needs to compensate him and restore the situation as it had been previously. than the one causing the damage must be held accountable for the damage caused. Aristotle defines and elaborates the principles of corrective justice: The justice in transactions between man and man is a sort of equality indeed. and the injustice a sort of inequality. the law looks only to the distinctive character of the injury. ‘‘which plays a rectifying part in transactions between man and man. however.
decision must incorporate considerations of distributive justice. he must ignore all other aspects of the two sides – whether one is dealing with an honest man or a criminal. To this end. the modern discussion of the question is different. reflects an approach of corrective justice. At the time of Aristotle. according to the principles of corrective justice. As opposed to this. The commission of a crime was seen as similar to causing damage to one’s fellow. which plays a role in jurisprudential discourse even today. in regard to all these matters the judge is required to relate to the two sides as if they were equal and to examine the matter in concrete terms. According to Aristotle. is what considerations of justice need to be taken into account by the court. criminal law was not administered by the state. the judge must deviate from this and rule by way of compromise. the judge needs to rule according to the law alone and must ignore the status and needs of the litigants. the same principle holds true in criminal law. The question as to whether the one found culpable under law is poor is thus relevant to his judgment. The question to be examined by the judge is whether the defendant acted properly and whether he caused damage to the plaintiff. it is important to emphasize that. a poor man or a rich one. Korh ah. Nevertheless.Haim Shapira and. as well as in the words of Rabbi. according to the approach of R. even according to R. In order to apply considerations of distributive justice. The question that underlies the tannaitic dispute. the judge’s . In any event. into account considerations of corrective justice. Joshua b. Those who argue that one must take into account considerations of distributive |226~* . rather. and may not be ignored by the judge. He must ignore the issue as to whether the plaintiff is deserving of something for any other reasons. Korh ah. a decision based upon the letter of the law only takes . That position which finds expression in the words of the anonymous tanna who sought to separate between law and charity. the side that was harmed sued the other one. and punishment was understood as correction and restoration of the status quo. According to their approach. must return the debt to its rightful owner.66 66 In this respect. Joshua b.
the law is merely a default option. one is not speaking of considerations of ‘‘charity’’ made in the framework of compromise and the like. For a discussion of this question. This question relates to the boundaries of judicial discretion and to the extent of the judge’s authority. as he thereby betrays his obligation. e. 313-52. As against that. Mass. The question as to whether this is to be treated justice.: Harvard University Press. the purpose of the judicial process is to perform justice on the basis of objective standards. According to the approach of R. Eliezer b. Just as the parties involved are permitted to agree upon some other solution to their dispute. mediation. 1993). see E. The Problem of Jurisprudence (Cambridge. the aim of the judicial process is to resolve disputes among human beings. reflect fundamentally different approaches to the nature of the judicial process. Mass. Is the judge allowed. In this respect. The sharp controversy among the tannaim focuses upon the process known as bitsu‘a. 1995). R. as I have shown. Yose the Galilean. which is a compromise made by the ruling of a judge. say that the matter ought to influence the results of the litigation. Hence. if it serves some positive value. and arbitration.: Harvard University Press. Those procedures based upon agreement of the litigants are generally seen as praiseworthy. for example. to depart from the law and to rule in the form of a compromise? Three opinions were expressed regarding this matter which. According to the two other approaches. R. see.. in the framework of economic analysis of law. A judicial decision inconsistent with these criteria is a sin. but rather of considerations that determine the nature of justice and of law. Posner.g. and are not subject to controversy among the rabbis. for various reasons. so too the judge is permitted to rule in a manner that departs from the law. Weinrib. The Idea of Private Law (Cambridge. it is forbidden for the judge to perform bitsu‘a. |227~* .Debate Over Compromise Summary Tannaitic sources were familiar with the different forms of compromise: negotiation. According to this approach. The question at the core of the dispute is thus whether or not the judge is authorized to do so.
e. According to R. a move is based upon agreement and brings about peace between the parties. Menasya does not automatically give preference to compromise. incorporating back and forth debate between the various positions. Shimon b.. the only limitation that applies to the judge is in the procedural realm. R. The decision as to what is the best approach in each case must be left to the judge. |228~* . As we have seen. Korh ah it is always preferable to make a compromise.’’ thereby elevating the discussion from the social plane to the metaphysical. as such . As against that. Joshua b. so as to assure the equity of the procedure. According to him. mitsvah) is subject to dispute. the passage in which this dispute appears reflects an extended discussion of this question. The discussion concludes with a passage that explicates the idea that ‘‘judgment is God’s.Haim Shapira merely as an option open to the judge or as a duty that he must actively pursue (i.
Documents Similar To shapira
Promotingamicablesettlementatthelocallevelthebarangayjusticeservice 141208083152 Conversion Gate02
CAM Encoded
The Emperor's New Clothes Providing Negative Feedback
IJETR032811
Standard Professional Services Contract July 2009
More From Ari Mermelstein
Lorberbaum and Shapira, Maimonides' Epistle on Martyrdom in the Light of Legal Philosophy
David Flatto, Theocracy and the Rule of Law