Parshas Mishpatim - Pear Pressure

Parshas Mishpatim

Pear Pressure

By: Daniel Listhaus

לֹא תִהְיֶה אַחֲרֵי רַבִּים לְרָעֹת וְלֹא תַעֲנֶה עַל רִב לִנְטֹת אַחֲרֵי רַבִּים לְהַטֹּת

“You shall not go after the many to do bad; and you shall not respond to a dispute to tilt after the many.”

-Mishpatim 23:2

This passuk (verse) in our parsha is alluding to a number of laws relevant to how the sanhedrin and beis din (Jewish court) must conduct themselves. There are many different views as to how to learn this passuk. Rashi¹ explains that when the passuk says, “Do not respond to a dispute...”, the word for 'dispute' (ריב) is written without the letter yud (as רב) to teach us that a judge cannot argue with someone greater (רב) than him in the court. For this reason, the sanhedrin would start voicing their opinions “from the side” - meaning starting from the lesser members of the court.

The Ohr HaChaim,² however, does not like Rashi's explanation because it is not the simple reading of the passuk. Instead, the Ohr HaChaim takes a completely different approach in how to interpret it. He explains that the Gemara³ brings a statement from Rav Kahana that if beis din unanimously declares someone guilty in a capital case, the accused is actually acquitted. The Ohr HaChaim continues to explain that the aforementioned passuk is coming to counter mistakes that people might rationalize and make in one of two situations. The first scenario is as follows. Imagine all the judges voiced their opinions and so far everyone voted that the person is guilty. Now it is your turn to vote and you think that the man is innocent. So you think to yourself the following, “If I say innocent, then the result will be that the man will be found guilty because both requirements will have been met. First, the overwhelming majority is saying guilty;⁴ and second, there is opposition of at least one person saying innocent – me. If I also say guilty, though, then the second requirement will not be met and indeed the person will come out innocent just as I honestly believe he is. Furthermore, I am anyway probably doing the right thing by saying guilty even though I think he is innocent, because everyone else said guilty and this way I could be mevatel da'ati l'rabim (lower my opinion and instead agree to others)”. This, writes the Ohr HaChaim, is a tremendous mistake to think. It is not your job to outsmart the Torah. Do not fool yourself to follow after the majority just to get your desired outcome. Rather you should say what you think and allow Hashem's system of rules to determine the conclusion that is supposed to be reached.

The Ohr HaChaim continues to explain another similar circumstance which one might rationalize that it is okay to distort the truth and follow after the majority. Imagine that all the judges have already stated their opinions, and they all think that the person is guilty. Inside your head you also agree that he is guilty. However, you are torn. If you say that you also agree that he is guilty, then because the vote will be unanimous that he is guilty, the one on trial will actually go free. So, instead you think to yourself that you should say that he is innocent in order to create resistance, and as a result, the man will be convicted. Again the Ohr HaChaim expresses the importance of not trying to outsmart the Torah. We must do our job and allow Hashem to do His. Our job is to voice our honest opinion. Hashem's job is to add up the figures and plug the grand total into the Torah's formulas and equations. A judge must remember his role in court. His job is not to make everyone else happy or to ensure that his opinion materializes. Rather, a judge's job is to claim what he honestly thinks.

The Ohr HaChaim seems to be teaching us that we must constantly be balancing two roles. On the one hand, we are each our own person and responsible for ourselves as individuals. On the other hand, we share a role as part of the rabim (public). We must understand when it is our duty to be independent and when the proper thing is to be mevatel (make oneself secondary) to the rabim. When it comes to the sanhedrin, the Torah says that each individual judge has the task of applying his Torah to the court case and come out with his own unique perspective, independent of what others have said, think, or what one could say to seem to be in consensus with the general public.

Rashi in Gemara⁵ seems to start off explaining the same way as he does in Chumash, but then seems to add in a little more information than necessary. Rashi starts by saying that the passuk is coming to teach an issur (prohibition) of arguing with the greatest member of the sanhedrin. However, Rashi does not stop here but instead continues to write, “And this is why the sanhedrin starts voicing their opinion “from the side” - from the least of the members of the sanhedrin, in order that one should not hear one of his colleagues declaring innocent, and agree to him.”

This Rashi seems to be self-contradictory! What is the reason that the sanhedrin would start from the lesser judge? Is it so that he could not contradict the most prestigious member of the court, or is it because we do not want him to hear what his fellow judges have to say?

The Mahar'shal⁶ comes to address this issue and explains that Rashi is bothered by the following question. Granted the passuk teaches us (according to Rashi) that one is not permitted to argue with the head of the sanhedrin, and therefore he could not be the one who gives his view first, but still, why not start with the second most esteemed member of the sanhedrin? This is what Rashi is coming to answer and is why Rashi continues to explain that if we would start by other great members of the sanhedrin, the people after him may be swayed to agree. Therefore, we start all the way by the least prestigious member of the sanhedrin.⁷

The S'forno⁸ writes a similar idea that the Torah is telling the sanhedrin that if ten people have voted innocent and eleven have voted guilty, the one whose turn it is now to vote should not say that he will vote guilty because that is what the majority has decided thus far. A judges decision must be completely independent of what others have said. Each individual's vote must be based on his own s'varos (logic) and applications, nothing to do with the opinions of others.

Let us stop a minute and think about who exactly we are talking about. We are dealing with the sanhedrin. The sanhedrin was comprised of the most outstanding people. They were not only fluent in all of Torah, not only humongous ba'alei middos and yirei shamayim (G-d fearing people with great traits), but they had overcome and conquered some of man's hardest desires. The judges of sanhedrin had to meet a specific set of qualifications. They had to be wealthy people, G-d fearing, men of truth, and people who despise money.⁹ These Rabbanim were independent thinkers and open-minded within the limits of the Torah. Even the least prestigious of the sanhedrin was still so incredible in terms of his Torah knowledge and yiras Hashem. For example, we know that there were 600,000 Jewish men between 20 and 60. Multiply that by two to include women of the same age bracket, and let us multiply that number by two to include all people from 0 to 20 and 60 to 80, the product is 2,400,000. The 71 or 23 member sanhedrin represented a tiny fraction of the population and every single one of them were really the cream-of-the-crop. Is it really necessary for the Torah to demand of the sanhedrin to start from the least among them in order to ensure that one will not just copy what someone greater than him said, or even worse, just state an opinion arbitrarily based on which direction most of the sanhedrin already voted towards? How could a member of the sanhedrin, with all the incredible qualities previously discussed, actually decide to vote solely based on what he heard his colleagues say so far, or voice his opinion only based on where the majority is standing at this point? How could a member of the sanhedrin consciously do something like this?

Perhaps the answer to this question could be learned from a pear.¹⁰ If you ever have an unripe pear that you would like to ripen a lot faster than it wants to, there is a simple solution. You could take a ripening banana and put it in a paper bag with the pear. The reason this works is because bananas produce a lot of Ethylene,¹¹ the chemical that stimulates fruits to ripen, when ripening. Therefore if you put a ripening banana in the same bag as a pear, the pear will benefit from the extra supply of Ethylene in the air, and will in turn start to ripen as well. This is an amazing fact – just by being in the same bag as a ripening banana, the pear will start to ripen as well. The “pear pressure” is just too great to bear. Whether the pear wants to start ripening or not makes no difference, it will find itself unconsciously start ripening under the pressure of its fellow fruits.

Perhaps this is what the Torah is trying to teach us as well. Of course the sanhedrin consisted of the best people in the world. However, in the end of the day, being in the same room as others, especially when others are greater or one side has more members in agreement, there is an incredible pressure which effects us subconsciously and tells us not to think for ourselves, but instead follow after the crowd. The rationales start to kick in and then mistakes could, G-d forbid, be made. This is not the job of a member of the sanhedrin. Someone appointed as part of the sanhedrin is expected to bring his Torah to the table and offer his insights and opinions on the subject based on his own thoughts and perspective.

Peer pressure is something which effects us whether we like it or not. We are influenced by our family, friends, neighbors, and colleagues. Like many things, however, this pressure could be used for good or bad. The mishna in Pirkei Avos¹² states that Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Eliezer are of the opinion that the proper ways a person should cling to in order to ensure reward in olam haba'ah (The World to Come), are to cling to a good friend and a good neighbor, respectively. However, the opposite holds true as well. Being around a bad friend or living in a community with bad values is the worst thing for a person. It will subconsciously change him as a person and effect him in every decision and aspect of life.

We cannot ignore the fact that people must live and interact with others on a daily basis. At the same time we must also realize that, as a result, one will, by definition, be influenced by those who he or she comes in contact with. The only way that one could prepare oneself for this is if one learns the lesson from the sanhedrin. Just like the smallest of the sanhedrin must state his opinion first before hearing those of his colleagues which may effect his decision, so too we must make sure that we solidify our values, beliefs, and opinions so that we could have a proverbial bar setting our standards.

On the other hand, the powerful force of peer pressure could be harnessed and used for tremendous good. One who takes the time in researching those he will spend time with, and follows the advice of Pirkei Avos¹³ to “acquire for yourself a friend”, will allow himself to grow and become an even greater person through sharing with a friend each others' strengths and positive motivations.

May we take the lesson of peer pressure to realize that our environments and influential circles have a tremendous impact on us whether we be a person or a pear.

1Shemos 23:2

2Ibid.

3Sanhedrin 17a

4Rashi (23:2) in our parsha as well as the gemara Sanhedrin explain that to convict someone in a capital case, there has to be a winning majority of at least two votes. (And if you will ask: Q. How is it possible to have a winning vote of [at least] two in a sanhedrin of 23? The sanhedrin had to consist of an odd amount of members so, mathematically, it is impossible for there ever to be a winning majority of exactly two. A. The sanhedrin had to consist of an odd amount of members but they were allowed to abstain.

5Sanhedrin 36a

6Ibid.

7See Mahar'sha there to see his many questions on this Mahar'shal and his alternate explanation.

8Shemos 23:2

9Shemos 18:21

10Okay, I admit you could learn it from other fruits too, but then I lose my pun.

11H2C=CH2 or C2H4

12Pirkei Avos 2:13-14

13Pirkei Avos 1:6
Photo Credit: Edited version of http://www.dailypainters.com/paintings/220858/-Pears-with-Paper-Bags-watercolor-13-x-18-framed/Diane-Morgan and http://super.abril.com.br/blogs/planeta/casca-de-banana-pode-despoluir-a-agua/