The Mitzvot Justice, 2

1. The Mitzvot – Justice 2
Introduction - today we’ll look at the mitzvot that largely guide fair
procedure in court. If we’re to have justice, these rules work to assure it. It’s
amazing to understand how many of the best core principles in our own
justice system have their roots in these mitzvot.
Let’s also think as we work our way through our study how valuable this
guidance might be more broadly in our lives, especially when we’re called
upon to ascertain facts and make judgments about people and all sorts of
matters in our everyday encounters.
XV. Read Exodus 22:8.Let’s focus here on the direction with respect to a
whole host of civil disputes that there be the expectationof resort to court
for resolution. Thoughts about the significance here?

2. (Even before we get to the substance of the law by which disputes are
resolved, it’s crucial to recognize that the resolution take place in a court
presided overin properfashion by properlyappointed judges who
administer the law. This certainly felt implicit in the discussionwe just had
about judging. But it’s crucial that the guidance be explicit.
It must be clear that there is an orderly and fair process to achieve a just
resolution of disputes over matters addressed by the law where the parties
cannot resolve disputes on their own. The failure to have such a path or to
leave resolution to force or other unacceptable means are incompatible
with the requirements of a just community. A civilized community requires
fair process to assure, among other things, peaceful coexistence of its
members.
Think more broadly and deeply. Do these words teach you anything about
how you should make judgments more generally in your lives, whether it’s
in regard to disputes within your family, or with friends, or others in the
community? Even more broadly, are these words relevant to how you make
discriminating decisions in life?
Discussion.)

3. XVI.Read Leviticus 5:1. What is crucial for the sake of justice in this
mitzvah?
(If a person has evidence that is relevant and important to the dispositionof
a case,to resolve a dispute, he/she is duty-bound to present it to court.
Though it might be uncomfortable or even involve risks to come forward,
we are per se a character in the drama of the dispute and, as partners with
God, must bring forward what we know to assist in the administration of
justice. In a sense, we are God’s voice speaking truth that perhaps only we
and God know. If we do not speak, we bear a piece of the iniquity of the
injustice that could be done in the absence of the evidence we carry.
Again, I want to go deeperinto the way we make decisions about
ourselves, others, even ideas and views we might develop and live by? Is
this guidance relevant outside the court and in these ways? How?

4. Discussion.)
XVII-XVIII.Read Deuteronomy 13:15 and Deuteronomy19:19.How do
these mitzvot complement perfectlythe one we just studied?
(Since testimony can turn an outcome from one side to the other, we need
to be rigorous in the examination of the witness who brings it forward. We
need witnesses to come forward, but justice requires that the evidence that
is produced be authentic, true, worthy, and properly understood.
The injustice that could be effected by false testimony is so great that there
must be a severe disincentive to engaging in it. The idea here is that the
false witness should be punished with the same fine or punishment that
would have beenimposed on the party wronged by the false testimony. It
must be clear this is not about testimony that has simply been contradicted

5. or not ultimately dispositive, but rather testimony that is proven false and
could lead to an unjust result.
Relevance in our own decision-making,more generally?
Discussion.)
XIX-XXI.Read second part of Exodus 23:1,Deuteronomy 24:16,and
Numbers 35:30. What do these mitzvot prescribe, and what do they add to
our understanding of these requirements of the justice system?
(Witnesses mustbe true to their testimony, as we have discussed. We see
here a special concern about the testimony of those who are wicked or
unrighteous. People should be responsible for,and be judged on the basis

6. of, their own actions. The testimony required to convict for capital
punishment must be especially convincing and abundant.
Some say a court may not hear the claim of one litigant while not in the
presence of an adversary. Others, including Maimonides, have drawn from
these words the idea that we must show care with witnesses such as
relatives who have a stake in, or relationship with, a litigant. Further,
Maimonides believes a witness is forbiddenfrom acting as an advocate in a
case in which he gives evidence.
There are many complexities to these provisions, which we won’t consider
today. Indeed there are questions that could take us down interesting
paths. But let’s focus primarily on the main principles we take from this and
the extension. What do you draw as essential from these ideas?
(Discussionaround all the ways in which we must go the extra mile to
assure justice.))

7. XXII-XXIII.Read Deuteronomy 17:11.These ancient words have been read
with different meanings throughout time. It appears originally to have meant
that the decisions of the judges of the Sanhedrin were binding. Later it was
read to mean that rabbinic decisions regarding the mitzvot, etc. were
binding. There are different opinions among the sages on the exact
meaning in that context. We won’t go into those disputes today. What
meaning might we give these mitzvot contained in this verse today?
(We are bound by the decisions of the courts. If we could on our own
presumptuouslyturn aside judges’ decisions and those of the courts and
get away with it, we would indeed live in a land in which justice does not
prevail. Those disposedto live outside the law would do so. And those
committed to the law would have no assurance they could receive justice.
There’s a sense, too, that the court in one era should give deference to
previous courts’ rulings and only overturn them under unusual
circumstances (perhaps when the current court is distinctly wiser or has
significantly broadersupport, but perhaps never in cases in which earlier
courts were dealing with clear Biblical prohibitions). Perhaps another day
we could look at the commentary of the sages on these matters for lessons
that might be relevant to our modern-day discussionof the Supreme
Court’s use of past sources as a basis for its decisions.)

8. XXIV.Read Exodus 23:2. What do you take this to mean? Once you
answer, I’ll tell you what Maimonides thinks. It goes against the grain.
(A. We’re to look for the just result, not the most popular.
Indeed judges are to show independence from others to seek the true and
the right, which is God’s expectation. A judge must be careful not even to
be overly swayed by other judges. He/she was selected as a judge to bring
his/her own conscience, mind, judgment to bear, not to turn to that of
another. There is a debate, though, as to certain cases, typically non-
capital cases, in which, in certain circumstances, a judge should pay
attention to another who is far wiser.
We should particularly be careful about following the herd, getting swept up
in a mood that is enticing but not right.

9. In some cases where the consequencesare severe, we should expect a
super majority to act, to be sure we don’t unjustly impose such
consequences (as in the death penalty).
B. Now look at the last words of the verse. What translation does your Bible
show? Some say “to bend to the many to pervert justice.” But the Hebrew
is read by Maimonides and others as “bend to the many or the majority.” I
think this might be a stretch. Maybe it was the position of the rabbis’ union!
Well - whatever - let’s give it some deference and ask that if it means that
the majority of a rabbinic court or, more generally in court (on most
matters), a majority of the decision-makers rule. If so, how do we square
this with what we just discussed?
(Isn’t it possible that this gets us to a profound and nuanced understanding
of justice that we aspire to follow today. Often, the majority does rule, or, if
needed, a super-majority. We must not get deadlocked in decision-making,
or else justice would be impossible to achieve. So, we conclude that
majority will is the right measure.

10. BUT we worry about the majority going in the wrong direction and the
possibilitythat each decisionmaker might contribute to a majority going in
the wrong direction. So, the first part of the verse is directed to guiding us
strongly and distinctly to avoid that. Isn’t this the exact right balance?)
C. Once again, I want to take this out of the court setting and ask: what
relevance and what meaning do these ideas have to the way we make
decisions and judgments in our own lives?
(Discussion)
XXV-XXVI.Read Deuteronomy 13:1.We could and will look at (at least)
two different meanings of these mitzvot. On first reflection, what do you
see?

11. (A. In the judicial setting, we certainly appreciate the principle that the law
shouldn’t be changed (added to or subtracted from) by the judge or any
other figure of authority during a pending trial. That sort of “shifting sands”
of the guiding rules governing the outcome of the contest would per se
create an unjust environment for a fair resolution. This would especially be
so if the change worked to the advantage of one party and was instituted
for his/her advantage.
B. But this language is mostly associated with the idea that the mitzvot
should not be added to or subtracted from. This gets very complicatedin
Judaism for many reasons, not the least of which is that it is generally
deemed to coverboth the Written Law and the Oral Law.
Also, there are obvious issues around what it means to add or subtract.
Does this cover interpretations that, in effect,add to or subtract, though
there may be no material or explicit addition or subtraction? This leads to a
great debate, one we won’t have today. Let’s just assume that the mitzvot
permit at least fairly liberal interpretation.
Now, here are my questions (with that assumptionin your minds).

12. 1. What’s the case for these mitzvot?
(First, if we believe this was God’s revelation, it represents God’s word - the
foundation of our way of life - available to people of all time. To the extent
that it is fixed and accessible, not subject to human change, people,
whether strong or weak, know and play by the same rules.
Second,if the mitzvot could be fundamentally changed over time, our Way
would be too unstable to support fair and just decision-making.The Text
would be ever-changing, weakening God’s revelation and making it ever
more faint over time. Followers of the Way would no longer share the same
system of living that connects us as a people to the revelation. This loss of
connection would create a loss of confidence in the strength and meaning
of the mitzvot and their tie to God.

13. Finally, if additions and subtractions were permitted, they’d most likely be
made by people in power. How confident would we be that such changes
would be for the good? And, in such an environment in which the Divine
Guideposts are constantly changing, we would lose a shared sense of
fairness and justice. Our Way would be diluted and ultimately lost.)
2. What’s the case against the mitzvot?
(The mitzvot have beeneither recorded by human beings or so edited and
changed over time, it’s naive to think they haven’t been radically added to
and subtracted from throughout our long history.
Times change, and so do our needs. We need to update these provisions,
if we keep them at all, to reflect our changing environment.
The powers-that-be have long had the authority to add and subtract in one
way or another. So, these rules exist and are regularly changed, perhaps
arbitrarily.)

14. 3. So, where do we end up? What positionmight we take away?
(If we believe these words were revealed by God and received and
perhaps recorded and even edited by humankind, there must be at least a
presumptionto preserve them and seekand try to live by their fundamental
precepts.
These truths may be difficult to comprehend, and their meaning may be
seen in a different light in different places and times. Yet, that does not
absolve us of the requirement of diligent effort to try objectivelyand wisely
to listen for God’s voice and try to get to meaning in the “soul” of the
mitzvot.
The dress with which our cognition, language, and mores cloak God’s
expectations is our human doing. The mitzvah is God’s teaching
underneath, awaiting our effortto penetrate and find the eternal truths and
the ways that guide us in our own time. We may in that work, honestly and
truly done, change our understanding, but only to the extent that we come
to a truer understanding of God’s expectations.
Finally, while we may not in our work of mindfulness be bound to any
specificunderstanding, I believe we should be committed to two tenets: a)
we benefit mightily by studying the long chain of wisdom that connects us

15. through the generations with the great sages, and b) we also benefit by
devoting considerable time, effort, and spirit to studying, discussing, and
understanding the mitzvot, as we are here, with fellowsojourners on God’s
path.
In so doing, we have the promise that God’s teachings are indeed
accessible, eternal, and inalterable. And because the divine instruction is
suffused with a God-granted system of justice that is available to all people,
yet unchangeable by even the most powerful of us, human justice for all is
possible and indeed expected.)
Conclusion