~
Thoughts on the Parsha ~
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. Rashi[1]
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 Gemara[3]
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 His 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 Gemara[5]
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'shal[6]
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'forno[8]
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 judge’s 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. It
is incredible. 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 fruit.
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 a concern even for the greatest members of
society. The Sanhedrin must be warned that they are expected to bring their
Torah to the table and offer their insights and opinions on the subject based
on their individual thoughts and perspective, and the Sanhedrin had to
be set up in a way to mitigate this concern.
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 Avos[12]
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 so that his
decision not be swayed, we too 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 to research those he will spend
time with, and follows the advice of Pirkei Avos[13]
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.
[1] Shemos 23:2
[2] Ibid.
[3] Sanhedrin 17a
[4] Rashi (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.)
[5] Sanhedrin 36a
[6] Ibid.
[7] See Mahar'sha there to see his many
questions on this Mahar'shal and his alternate explanation.
[8] Shemos 23:2
[9] Shemos 18:21
[10] Okay, I admit you could learn it from other
fruits too, but then I lose my pun.
[11] H2C=CH2 or C2H4
[12] Pirkei Avos 2:13-14
[13] Pirkei Avos 1:6
No comments:
Post a Comment