As we enter the book of Deuteronomy, a long speech by Moses retelling and reminding the people of what is important, it is telling that it begins with justice.
In the first chapter of the book, in the Weekly Portion of Devarim, it says:
Do not be partial in judgment. Listen to the small as the great. Do not fear any person for judgment is God’s. And anything that is difficult for you, you shall bring to me and I will hear it.” (Deut 1:17)
This is powerful language, centering us on treating people with respect and equality, regardless of their power.
The Talmud approaches this verse in a number of ways that I’d like to explore together:
1. If two come before you for judgment
We receive two responses in the Talmud when two people come before a judge on Sanhedrin 6b:
Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: If two litigants come before you for a judgment, before you hear their respective statements and claims; or after you hear their statements but you do not yet know where the judgment is leaning, meaning that it is not yet clear to the judge which party is in the right, you are permitted to say to them: Go out and mediate.
But after you hear their statements and you know where the judgment is leaning, you are not permitted to say to them: Go out and mediate, as it is stated: “The beginning of strife is as when one releases water; therefore leave off contention before the quarrel breaks out” (Proverbs 17:14).
Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya interprets the verse to mean: Before the resolution of the contention is revealed, you can cast it off. Once the resolution of the contention is revealed, you cannot cast it off.
Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya sets us up with a situation: two people have come before you for judgment, and it is unclear what the right answer is, or the resolution is not immediately apparent.
In this circumstance, we are permitted to direct them to resolve it between themselves.
However, if the judgment is clearer when reviewing the facts, and our opinion is leaning one particular way, we are no longer permitted to allow them to resolve it on their own.
We have now become part of the encounter and must see it to the end. This is due to Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya’s understanding of the verse in Proverbs. The meaning of the text of the verse isn’t obvious, and so he understands it to mean that once there’s a reasonable understanding in a disagreement, you cannot back out of it.
The Talmud continues with a similar case:
And Reish Lakish says: If two litigants come for a judgment, and one is flexible and agreeable and one is rigid and contentious, before you hear their respective statements, or after you hear their statements but you do not yet know where the judgment is leaning, it is permitted for you to say to them: I will not submit to your request to judge you.
The judge may refuse the case out of fear that perhaps the strong and contentious one will be found liable, and it will turn out that the strong one will pursue the judge with intent to harm them.
But once you hear their statements and you know where the judgment is leaning, you may not say to them: I will not submit to your request to judge you, as it is stated: “You shall not be afraid before any person” (Deuteronomy 1:17).
Reish Lakish’s take is similar but fundamentally different. His measure is focused on the people who are in conflict. He also agrees that if the judgment does not lean in one direction clearly, a judge can recuse themselves.
But then, we learn that we might be concerned about the behavior of the litigants themselves. If one believes that they will be harmed by one of the people in the case, they might refuse it in advance.
This sets up a deeply troubling dynamic.
However, as Reish Lakish draws from our verse, if one has listened to the case and they have a sense of which direction it should go, one cannot recuse themselves. Why? Because the Torah tells us not to fear anyone, big or small.
So what can we take away from this?
If you have a sense of the truth, you cannot back down, even from fear.
I think this goes beyond just judging cases but encountering many kinds of truth.
There is great fear in many of us of doing the wrong thing, accepting a hard truth, or getting embroiled in a conflict.
However, if there is any clarity at all, backing down is not permitted. You have to push forward and let justice play its course.
2. The judgment of a single peruta
Are all cases the same? Should big and important cases take precedence? This is the question tackled a page or two later on Sanhedrin 8a:
“You shall hear the small and the great alike” (Deuteronomy 1:17).
Reish Lakish says: This teaches that the judgment of one peruta should be as dear, i.e., important, to you as the judgment of one hundred maneh, i.e., ten thousand dinars.
The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this said? If we say it is with regard to the need to study it carefully and to decide the case justly, it is obvious that even cases relating to small sums must be judged thoroughly.
Rather, Reish Lakish was speaking with regard to giving it precedence: The small claims case may not be deferred in favor of the larger claim merely because the disputed sum is smaller.
Reish Lakish explains that every case should be treated with importance. It doesn’t matter if the case is about a small amount of money or a tremendous amount. In this case, a peruta is the smallest unit of currency made of copper compared to maneh, the largest, made of silver.
To get specific, 1,920,000 peruta are equal to 100 maneh. Yet, the cases should be treated with the same deference.
3. Do not be afraid.
The text on Sanhedrin 8a moves through by commenting on the other parts of the verse:
“You shall not be afraid before any person.”
Rabbi Ḥanan says: Do not suppress your statement of opinion due to any person.
Rabbi Hanan makes it clear: Do not be afraid of anyone. Be honest and true. Seek integrity.
This is easier said than done, certainly, but important.
4. God will take care of it.
The verse continues: “For the judgment is God’s.”
Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: The Holy One, Blessed be God, says: It is not enough for the wicked judges, that they take money from this person and they give it to that person unlawfully, but they even trouble Me to return the money to its rightful owners. As proper justice is ultimately in the hands of God, God takes responsibility to bring about the rectification of the errors of unfit judges.
God will rectify the mistakes made by unethical judges.
Rabbi Hama, son of Rabbi Hanina, makes a powerful theological claim here, and one I think many of us wish was more true. First, he recognizes the reality that wicked judges are willing to be bribed.
Second, from the verse itself, he recognizes that sometimes, we are powerless to restore justice on our own and must rely on the Divine.
I have a hard time with this. I’m not confident that God truly works in this way. However, if for no other reason, I would love for this to be true. The universe works in ways we cannot always imagine.
In each of these explorations, the overall theme is clear:
Justice is paramount.
Honest and integrity matter as litigants and judges.
Everyone should be treated fairly and equally.
Ultimately, God is the true judge.
As we walk through life, dealing with conflicts, not just legal ones, but interpersonal, familial, between hevrutot, we should remind ourselves of these core truths.
To absolve ourselves of responsibility when conflict has found us, for sometimes that’s how it goes, is to act without justice in mind.
There are many situations upon which we must step forward, not backward, and do what is right.