Yisro: Judges, Compromise, and the Torah's Philosophy of Getting Along

Rabbi Zweig opens with the story of Yisro advising Moshe to appoint judges to share the burden of judging the Jewish people. Yisro specifies that these judges must be "anshei chayil, yirei Elokim, anshei emes, sonei betza"—people of substance, God-fearing, truthful, and "haters of money." Rashi (רש"י) offers two interpretations of "sonei betza" (hating money). The first: a judge who won't be intimidated by threats to his property. The second, which the shiur focuses on: a person who, even when he knows he will lose a case in court (e.g., because he lost the documentation proving he bought a field), does not insist on going to court just to publicly denounce the opposing party as a thief. Such a person truly "hates money"—he values peace over vindication, even at personal financial cost. The Maharal raises two questions on this second interpretation. First, why shouldn't the person go to court—perhaps the opponent will back down when confronted publicly? Second, why does loving one's own money disqualify someone from being a judge for others? A judge deciding a case between strangers should be able to reach the correct decision regardless of his personal attitude toward his own money. The Maharal answers that a person's relationship with his own money colors his judgment of others—if he loves his own money, he will sympathize with litigants who also cling to money that isn't rightfully theirs. Rabbi Zweig finds this difficult and proposes a deeper explanation rooted in the fundamental purpose of the Torah (תורה)'s judicial system.