Justice thrives on multiple viewpoints

I am a big of a fan of Menachem Begin. One of the things I most admire about him is his tenacity in serving as opposition in Israeli politics for close to 30 years before becoming Prime Minister in 1977.

Opposition is good. Sometimes it helps us fine-tune our thoughts and beliefs. Sometimes it exposes us to new ideas and forces us to at least consider the validity of a different point of view. Sometimes it gets us to reconsider and even change our own views. In the best case, even when we have ideological and philosophical differences, the best of humanity can emerge when people who think and believe differently keep their disagreements on policy in one arena and stay very good friends in “real life.”

I have friends who live their Judaism differently than I do, friends who think very differently politically, and friends with whom I share very little in common. I’m not sure how to explain it beyond, “I just like the guy.”

In Parashat Yitro, Moshe’s father-in-law shows up, not having been with the Israelites through slavery, plagues, Exodus and salvation at the sea. After formalities, Yitro watches his son-in-law judge the people. All day long, people stand in line waiting for their turn with Moshe. Yitro is critical (what father-in-law would not be?) because he is sure he has a better system.

And what is his system? “You must be G-d’s representative for the people, and bring [their] concerns to G-d. Clarify the decrees and laws for [the people]. Show them the path they must take, and the things they must do. But you must [also] seek out from among all the people capable, G-d-fearing men — men of truth, who hate injustice. You must then appoint them over [the people] as leaders of thousands, leaders of hundreds, leaders of fifties, and leaders of tens. Let them administer justice for the people on a regular basis. Of course, they will have to bring every major case to you, but they can judge the minor cases by themselves. They will then share the burden, making things easier for you. If you agree to this, and G-d concurs, you will be able to survive. This entire nation will then also be able to attain its goal of peace” (18:19-23).

The nation needs multiple judges. Different viewpoints need to be considered and brought in. Life is filled with subtlety and nuance. You can’t possibly do it alone. Your life experience is not necessarily their life experience. You can teach law! But you need other people, who are G-d-fearing and who seek truth.

While the personality-traits of these judges focused on their hatred of injustice and love of truth, we know nothing of their politics or their views on any aspect of life.

There is a fascinating rule of the Sanhedrin: Rav Kahana says, “A Sanhedrin who unanimously see the defendant as guilty? He is exempt” (Talmud Sanhedrin 17a). While majority rules, when consensus is all on one side and there is no opposition, no one to advocate for the other side and for the defendant to have a fair hearing, then the case is thrown out. If everyone is biased against the defendant, it’s not a court case — it’s an execution. 

In high school, we were assigned to watch the film “Twelve Angry Men.” It is a play that was turned into a movie. The story opens on a young man on trial for murder. The jurors are warned to be impartial, to consider all the evidence, and to remember that “one man is dead. The life of another is at stake. If there is a reasonable doubt in your minds as to the guilt of the accused … then you must declare him not guilty. If, however, there is no reasonable doubt, then he must be found guilty.”

They are not a Sanhedrin. As a jury, they must come to a unanimous decision. 

So twelve men file into the jury room. Each juror has his own reasons to want to get it over with and leave. Before discussing the case, they have a preliminary vote in which everyone but one juror (number eight) votes “Guilty.”

The play touches on a number of issues of racism and bigotry, mistrust of the other, of the foreigner, and the way each member of the jury slowly changes to “not guilty” as they examine the evidence is an incredible journey.

This is how Juror Number Eight begins the drama:

TEN: (to EIGHT). Well, do you believe his story?

EIGHT: I don’t know whether I believe it or not. Maybe I don’t.

SEVEN: So what’d you vote not guilty for?

EIGHT: There were eleven votes for guilty. It’s not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first.

SEVEN: Who says it’s easy for me?

EIGHT: No one.

SEVEN: What, just because I voted fast? I think the guy’s guilty. You couldn’t change my mind if you talked for a hundred years.

EIGHT: I don’t want to change your mind. I just want to talk for a while. Look, this boy’s been kicked around all his life. You know, living in a slum, his mother dead since he was nine. That’s not a very good head start. He’s a tough, angry kid. You know why slum kids get that way? Because we knock ’em on the head once a day, every day. I think maybe we owe him a few words. That’s all.

Maybe Yitro was trying to ease a tremendous burden off his son-in-law. But maybe he was also trying to say, “Having many voices is also good! Have dialogue. Have dissent. Hash it out. Keep it civil -— but each side needs to be heard. There’s a reason why you need to have an opposition!”

“Moses took his father-in-law’s advice, and did all that he said” (18:24).

He brought in the judges, he had multiple viewpoints presented, and the dialogues begun. Different sides and different views had their day in court. In short, it was an honorable symphony of disagreement. 

It’s a good lesson to put in practice — to consider another point of view, to see the other view as valid even when there is disagreement, and to remember that our love of our fellow Jew should always triumph over our disagreement. 

Menachem Begin was in the minority for 29 years, and then he became Prime Minister. Winds change. Today’s majority might one day become the minority.

And when that happens, we will still need to live together in peace.