“You shall do what is fair and good in the eyes of Hashem ….” (Devarim 6:18)
Rashi states that this refers to compromising, i.e. acting beyond the strict requirements of the law.
The Ramban adds here that “doing what is fair and good” is an important principle, as it is impossible for the Torah to enumerate all the possible interactions that one can have with another individual. After specifying a number of them, therefore – such as not to gossip, not to seek vengeance, not to curse the deaf – the Torah states that in general one should do what is upright and good, including reaching a compromise.
The Talmud in Bava Metzia (30b) states that Yerushalayim was destroyed because cases were adjudicated on the basis of Torah law, and they did not go beyond the letter of the law. Surely there were harsher aveiros that were transgressed that resulted in the destruction of the Bais HaMikdash?
The Ish L’Rei’eihu cites R’ Zalman of Volozhin who says that, indeed, there were many other aveiros for which the Jewish People could have been punished. However, if they would have not been so uncompromising in their rulings with each other, Hashem would likewise, middah kneged middah (measure for measure), been more accommodating with them.
The Bobover Rebbe, R’ Shlomo Halberstam cites the pasuk (Devarim 16:20), “Righteousness, righteousness shall you pursue, so that you will live and possess the good Land that Hashem gives you,” indicating, in fact, an allusion to the thesis of R’ Zalman of Volozhin.
He notes that we infer from the Talmud that in order for a person to meet the obligation of pursuing righteousness, and achieve a compromise between two litigants, it is possible that the settlement will exceed one’s expectations – perhaps even double what he had anticipated. Nevertheless, accepting the arrangement will result in meriting to possess the Land because it will not be destroyed.
The Talmud (Sanhedrin 6b) teaches that it is a mitzvah to mediate a dispute, as it says (Zechariah 8:16), “Execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates.” The Talmud defines judgment that has peace within it as mediation, or compromise. The Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat (12:2) expounds on this further.
The question is raised how a compromise can be reached in matters of money. For instance, Reuven is demanding that Shimon return the money that he borrowed. Obviously, Shimon would have to repay the full amount. Would the court rule that in the interest of compromise Reuven should settle for a lesser amount?
In his Sefer Chut HaShani, HaGaon R’ Nissim Karelitz explains that mediation is required when Jewish law is not explicit in the Shulchan Aruch. In such a case, it must be determined whether the matter at hand is comparable to a scenario presented in Shulchan Aruch that obligates the defendant, or is it comparable to another ruling in Shulchan Aruch which releases the defendant from any obligation, or is there a dispute among the Torah scholars. Since both parties will present valid arguments supporting their defense, the judge is permitted to offer a compromise, otherwise his ruling will not result in peace for anyone.
As R’ Avraham Antebi (1765-1858) was walking in the street one day, accompanied by his son, Yitzchak, they encountered a Yid who was crying bitterly.
R’ Antebi asked the Yid what the problem was, and he explained that finding himself in extremely dire straits, he had found it imperative to take a large loan from a certain wealthy individual.
“The loan recently came due, and I had no money at all with which to repay the merchant. I was summoned to a din Torah, and the ruling was against me. What shall I do? Where will I get the money to pay my creditor?” cried the pauper.
R’ Avraham was overcome with compassion for the distraught individual. Wasting no time, he walked over to the home of the rich man, along with his son, and knocked on the door. When the woman of the house opened the door, she could not believe her eyes. She called out to her husband, “We have very important guests!” and she quickly ran into the kitchen to set up the table for the chachamim.
The baal habayis could not understand why he merited a visit from R’ Avraham and his son. He waited for the Rav to eat from the delicacies that had been prepared, but R’ Avraham just sat and didn’t do anything.
“Please take a kibbeh, k’vod harav,” urged the merchant. “It is my greatest honor to have you in my home. This visit is worth a thousand gold coins.”
The Rav had been waiting to hear exactly these words. “Please don’t exaggerate,” he waved with his hand. “I know the exaggerations of merchants.”
But the wealthy man was adamant. “It’s not exaggeration. My heart and my mouth are one.”
The Rav said, “Please tell me, is my visit worth $300 to you?”
“Certainly,” said the wealthy man.
The Rav turned to the man and said, “If you mean this wholeheartedly, do me a favor and lifnim mishuras hadin (beyond the strict requirements of the law), please give to me the loan document signed by the poor man who owes you $300. You know how impoverished he is.”
The rich man greatly appreciated the Rav’s acuity and willingly surrendered the document. Then he turned to the Rav and said, “Please try some of the delicacies,” which the Rav readily did. He also was happy to share some divrei Torah with the merchant, and gently directed the merchant how to conduct himself more habitually beyond the strict requirements of the law.
The Rav then headed to the lodgings of the pauper to hand over the ripped-up loan document, letting him know that the wealthy man had forgiven the loan.
