The Mitzvot - Justice, 1

1. The Mitzvot - Justice 1
Introduction -
We now begin a series on important additional requirements related to
justice. We have already spent time on guidance about living with love,
mercy, and justice toward others in our own lives. Now we move beyond
that, essentially to principles affecting the administration of justice in our
broader community. While we are personally expected to do justly and love
mercy, the expectations of justice and mercy are not created for individuals
alone. They also apply within the community as a whole and guide how the
community lays out and enforces a system of justice with respect to its
members and inhabitants. So, in order to assure justice and mercy among
us all, we are instructed also in establishing a process and ways for fair
judgment and wise governance in the community.
As we considerthese mitzvot, we shall explore why and for what purpose
people then and now need communal institutions to administer justice,
what form they should take, and how they can best be implemented.

2. Today we’re going to consider mitzvot that guide us in one specificarena of
justice - the selectionand work of judges and a variety of matters relating to
the process and act of judging itself. This guidance is most directly about
judging in a judicial setting, but I want you to think about whether they also
help inform us in the proper ways of judging when, in life more broadly, all
of us are called upon to make judgments.
I. Read Deuteronomy16:18.A. Describe all the key elements of this
mitzvah and its fundamental purpose.
(First, this mitzvah directs us to have judges and officials in all the
gates. This suggeststhat there are both judges and other officers in the
judicial system and that they be available to do their work in each and
every part of the land. Further, this suggests that the work they do,
which we will discuss shortly, is work that is needed to be done
throughout the land and with dispatch, not delay.)
B. They judge the people with just (righteous) judgment. What does that
mean?

3. (It’s insufficient that there just be judgment. The judgment must be in
accord with tzedek, with righteousness, or rightness, which means in
accord with the mitzvot.)
C. And to what end?
(Maimonides: without effective and generally available justice, robbers and
sinners would go unpunished. Their wrongs would neither be prevented nor
punished. Persons intending evil or simply living with a sense of
imperviousness to the way of justice and righteousness would not be
discouraged and rather might be encouraged. And those who are wronged
would not be compensatedand made whole. Such a state of affairs would
be unhealthy and indeed cruel, hardly consistent with God’s expectations of
us.
God’s ways, especiallywith respect to expectations of justice, cannot be
dependent forfulfillment on the will of individuals alone but rather require a
community organized to dispense justice in the manner these mitzvot
prescribe. And we should know that God desires that we who dwell in His
midst live within such a system of justice.)

4. D. While we’re talking about judges in a setting of a judicial system, do you
think this mitzvah (and the ones that follow) might have a broader
application, that they apply more generally, perhaps to all of us in many
ways of our lives? If so, how?
(Aren’t we all judges in a way? Don’t we, indeed mustn’t we, judge what’s
right and wrong in all sorts of ways in our day-to-day lives? Don’t we make
decisions about others? Don’t we make judgments all the time in many
phases of our lives? Could the criteria we draw from the mitzvot about
righteous judging in the judicial context be relevant to, and inform, the ways
in which we make many of our discriminating decisions and judgments?)

5. II. Read Deuteronomy1:17. There are two mitzvot here. We’ll focus on the
first and return to the second later today.
A. What does the first say? Why is it important? And do you have thoughts
about what many sages say the deeperlessonmight be?
(No partiality. No favoritism. This is obviously key to the administration of
justice. Otherwise, it’s as if Lady Justice peaks past the blindfold, right?
But while this is the clear and powerful surface intent, the sages go to a
place one can’t see directly on the surface but is required to achieve the
stated goal. Any ideas of what that might be?

6. They believe the command leads to certain required practices: The criteria
for the selectionof judges must be based on their learning and living in the
way of God and Torah, not factors such as popularity, power, money,
favors, relations, politics, or even general knowledge, or “smarts.”
Maimonides argues that the risk of going the wrong way on the selection
process creates a markedly higher risk of favoritism or other sorts of
partiality playing out, which increases the chance of the innocent being
condemned or the guilty going free.)
B. Are they right? Why or why not?
(If judges are picked on the basis of knowledge of,and fidelity to, the
mitzvot, there will ipso facto be no partiality in judgment. If they’re picked on
other factors, there is no such assurance.

7. Couldn’t one conclude, again more broadly, that these criteria for picking
judges are also relevant to selecting other leaders or even our companions
whose judgment matters, or even the process of making decisions of our
own that involve judgment more generally?)
III-VII.Read Leviticus 19:15 and Deuteronomy24:17.There are five
mitzvot in these two verses. Let’s break them down.
A. What’s the overarching objective we first encounter?
(There shall be no perversionof justice, in judgment. What values,
principles, and general practices do we rely upon to avoid perversionof
justice?
This must involve fairness, even-handedness, judgment based on truth,
and an understanding of the requirements of standards in the mitzvot and

8. the application of such standards, with equity, to the matters brought before
the court.
Other ideas include being deliberate in the work of doing justice, being
knowledgeable about the law, showing level-headedness, ruling on a
timely basis, and encouraging compromiseand settlement, if possible.)
B. Look at the middle two ideas in the Leviticus verse and the Deuteronomy
verse. What do they mean together?
(Our inclination is to be biased to the side or positionwe feel closest to or
identify with the most. Or we might see our own positionbest served by
siding one way or the other.
We might fear one who is rich or powerful and rule his/her way, or see a
benefit from doing so, or believe they are “betterbehaved,” or due special
regard, or be seen as unlikely to have acted wrongly.

9. On the other hand, we might be sympathetic with the poor, want to show
him/her pity, or give a break, or want to show mercy to the needy, whether
mercy is actually merited. We shouldn’t, but nor should we hold it against
the stranger or fatherless because of their appearance or weakness.
We’re to walk the straight path dictated by the mitzvot, again, without
favoritism, but rather with equality, disregarding human inclinations that
lead away from fairness and equal treatment based instead on the call of
the mitzvot.)
C. What’s the fourth requirement, and what idea does it add?
(To judge with righteousness, tzedek - this could be argued to be
subsumed in the language we’ve already studied and discussed. Or it could
be a summary of it. Or it could be for emphasis. Or it could put us on the
search for even more ways of doing it, which the sages have done,such as
in treating all litigants the same as to procedure, giving all parties an
appropriate benefit of the doubt, or trying to engender harmony and
reducing suspicion.)

10. VIII-IX.Read Exodus 23:6 and Deuteronomy 19:13.The emphasis on the
absolute requirement of impartiality in judging continues in this pair of
mitzvot. Thoughts?
(It’s unjust to judge and punish a personwho has been charged with a
particular offenseon the basis of his/her having sinned in the past. (The
sages interpret destitute as meaning generally wicked.) Nor can one be
lenient solely out of pity to one who has committed a wrong, explicitly here
a murder.)
X-XI. Read Exodus 23:8 and Deuteronomy1:17 (the mitzvah here is in the
second part of the verse).

11. A. What do these mitzvot teach us?
(A judge is forbiddenfrom committing perversionin justice by taking action
based, not on the just result, but rather on what’s in the judge’s best
personal interest, whether it’s in the form of a reward or the avoidance of
personal harm.
Maimonides and others read the Deuteronomyverse as teaching us not to
fear the face of any party.)
B. Let’s pull this out of the arena of the courtroom and talk about ways in
which we judge people or make other judgments in our own lives. Are there
ways in which we accept gifts from people with whom we have a stake and
thereby sway our views and actions? Are there times when we fail to act in
accord with the requirements of justice because we fear the consequences
for ourselves from others. How, and it ways? Is this guidance relevant to
such situations? If so, how?
(Discussion.)

12. C. Does this mean the judge (or we) must proceedin judging even in the
face of a threat on our lives?
(There’s a differenceof opinion among the sages on this. Some say the
mitzvah speaks clearly and that we must take on the risk, while perhaps
seeking protection, as would, say, a soldier.Others say putting one’s life in
the path of evil is not required.)
XII.Read Exodus 23:1.There are two mitzvot in this verse. We’re looking
at the first clause regarding a false report. What does this teach us?
(Some say that it simply means that false accounts should be kept out of
the process. But most sages say it’s, more specifically, designed to keep
one litigant from being heard in the absence of the other litigant. As a
lawyer, I appreciate that reading. The bestguarantee against a false
account being made and/or swaying judgment is to be sure the opposing
party hears it and has the opportunity to rebut and defeat it. Otherwise, the

13. judge would be affectedby a false report the advantaged litigant might be
tempted to offer.
Falsehood brings on malediction and curses, the opposite of happiness,
peace, and gratification (the manifestation of God’s attributes of truth,
mercy, and kindness).)
XIII.Read Exodus 23:2.We’re looking at the first idea in the verse in the
judging context.
A. What does this mean to you?

14. (The sages say it means that a judge should not rely on a fellow judge’s
opinion in convicting or acquitting, without doing his own investigation,
inquiry, and reasoning as to guilt or innocence. A judge must substantially
rely on his own learning and reasoning ability.
Why?
The judge occupies a positionof authority and responsibilityand is
accountable to do his duty by the standards that govern his service. Taking
shortcuts violates that duty. It’s not his elder’s job, his better’s job, or
anyone else’s job to do his job. It’s his. This matters in any case that
requires a majority, and even more in a capital case, where the vote has
greater consequence. So, each vote must be true and independent.)
B. Could this principle apply in the judging we do more generally in our
lives? How?
(We need to make thoughtful, inquiring, and reasoned decisions whenwe
make judgments of people, ideas,etc., and not rely overly on the opinions

15. of others. It’s our duty. We can only be accountable if we do the work of
judgment ourselves.)
XIV.Read Exodus 22:27.Know that while this (nasi) covers rulers,
Maimonides says it refers to the judge, too. As we complete our
considerationof the mitzvot regarding judges and judging, I wanted to ask
you to opine on the significance of this mitzvah.
(It certainly doesn’tmean that we can’t be aware of and act on wrongdoing
by a judge. We can criticize a judge who is operating outside the framework
of the mitzvot.
The more typical situation, however, is when a judge administers justice in
a way that goes against our personal interests. In such circumstances,
we’re not to vent our anger at, or curse, him/her. Cursing a judge is akin to
cursing God. One who damns a judge becomes ripe forwrongdoing and
also unjustly punishes a servant of God and deters him and other such
good people from serving in such an important and difficult capacity.)

16. Conclusion.