Lined up for Moshe to adjudicate their civil disputes. Moshe was busy hearing people’s disputes the entire day. Yisro saw that this was very draining on Moshe’s time and energy. He gave his famous advice to set up a hierarchical system of courts. He instructed Moshe: והודעת להם את הדרך ילכו בה ואת המעשה אשר יעשון - “You shall make known to them the path in which they should go and the deeds that they should do” (Shemos 18:20).
The Gemara in Bava Metzia (30b) derives two types of instructions from this pasuk. “The path in which they should go” refers to the letter of the law and “the deeds that they should do” refers to action beyond the letter of the law (lifnim m’shuras hadin).
The concept of lifnim m’shuras hadin is that even in a situation where a person could take another person to court to enforce his monetary legal rights and win — he should still be prepared to compromise more than the law would require. He should not always enforce his rights.
The Gemara there says in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that Yerushalayim was destroyed because people insisted on enforcing their rights based on Torah law, rather than accepting the concept of going “beyond the letter of the law”.
This is a rather frightening Gemara. The very term “beyond the letter of the law” seems to imply that I am fully within my rights to insist on the letter of the law — to take my adversary to a ‘Din Torah’ and to demand justice. How could it be, then, that Yerushalayim was destroyed because people insisted on their legal rights?
The Chofetz Chaim says that Yisro’s advice to Moshe went beyond just setting up a hierarchical court system. Part of his advice was to teach the Jewish people that there exists a concept of ‘lifnim m’shuras hadin’. They were to be instructed that it is not always necessary or even appropriate to insist upon one’s rights. There is a place for and a value in compromise and non-judicial solutions to disputes. That, in and of itself, was part of the solution of lightening the judicial burden. People would not always be running to court with every argument. They would start settling by compromise, outside of court.
In practice, when two people come before a Beis Din, the first thing that the court advises them is to settle via compromise (peshara) rather than via a court case (din).
One of the meforshim on the Shulchan Aruch, the Sem”ah, questions why the judges are allowed to implement such a procedure. How can the judge, in good conscience, advise a party to settle via compromise when he feels that one of the sides is 100 percent correct, and entitled to full compensation or restitution?
Normally one is forbidden to give someone bad advice – be it spiritual or financial. This is included in the prohibition of not placing a stumbling block in front of a blind person. So, if someone has an ironclad contract and is fully entitled to 100 percent of his claim, why is it not considered ‘bad advice’ on the part of the judges to suggest that he settle via compromise?
The Sem”ah answers that it is never bad advice to suggest compromise. Even though from a financial perspective, one party may be short changed, the long term advantage of emerging from the dispute as friends rather than enemies outweighs any financial loss. One might win the case and receive his money, but buy an enemy for the rest of his life. Therefore, compromise is GOOD advice.
Good, you’ll nail him. You’ll be able to take him to the cleaners. But then try sitting at the same table with him at a wedding. Try being in the same room with him. It will never be the same again. When two people go to court at each other’s throats, the winner might win — but he also loses. That is the way people are. They do not forget.
This is what the Sem”ah is teaching. “Yes, you might win your case — but you will acquire an enemy for life. I’m giving you good advice: Compromise.” This was also the advice that Yisro gave to Moshe. Lighten the load through compromise. This is good advice for every judge.
Rav Pam commented that now we can understand the Gemara that says Yerushalayim was destroyed because they insisted on adjudicating by Torah law, rather than going “beyond the letter of the law”. We had asked how that is possible. “It’s not fair! Don’t I have my rights to a Din Torah?”
The answer is that this Gemara complements another Gemara (Yoma 9b) which says that Yerushalayim was destroyed because of sinas chinam [unreasoned hatred]. How does one acquire sinas chinam? Sinas chinam results from a society where people act in a “dog eat dog” manner. They are at each other’s throats and are constantly taking each other to court. It is possible for 10 people seated together at a wedding to refuse to talk to one another because they all lost court cases with each other.
When the Gemara speaks about a society that insists on Dinei Torah rather than compromise and lifnim m’shuras hadin, it is talking about a climate that breeds unreasoned hatred. It was not the lack of lifnim m’shuras hadin per say, but it was the result of such a society — namely one filled with baseless hatred — that caused the destruction of Yerushalayim. (R’ Frand)
