For most people, the results of the recent American presidential election triggered a sense of euphoria for some, or mourning for others. But those of us who study the Talmud found useful guidance for the future even if it may be too late to use it to optimum effect retroactive to Election Day. The page of the Talmud studied around the world on Election Day (Baba Basra 133) seems at first to be most notable for its contrast with the electoral process in the United States this year, which encompassed arguably the most contentious electoral campaign in U.S. history, while this page in the Talmud discusses compromise.
Compromise in general and in Jewish tradition is generally looked on in two ways, as a good characteristic, in line with the Rambam’s shvil ha’zahav, the golden mean, moderation, without interfering with our mandate to observe our laws in an uncompromising way, which is also considered a good thing. By contrast, however, in some contexts, such as the one in the Talmud on daf 133, compromise can be and is referred to as a bad thing when applied for the wrong reasons, as arguably happens with certain politicians who compromise their values at election time whether or not they maintain their values after the election.
Specifically, the daf discusses inheritance rights, and we are not talking about what kind of economy a presidential candidate “inherited,” but simply a question of inheritance of a private estate. Rav Ilish wasn’t sure of which heir would be entitled to a share so he overcautiously took the position that the heirs of one primary beneficiary who died before he could collect had to share the estate with the person named as the beneficiary “after” the first one. Rava, who was a teacher of Rav Ilish, overruled this position, picking a winner, but not only did he rule against this position, but he did so in an unusually disparaging and colorful way, commenting that “daynay d’chatatzta” (literally, judges of compromise (ie, a cognitive “cop-out,” rather than a well-thought-out and consistent decision)) ruled as Rav Ilish had postulated. In politics, too, we have to know the issues and pick a point of view that we believe is right and stick with it. Purporting to support both sides, as Rav Ilish did, in a different context, won’t always satisfy either side, and will simply be wrong.
The sophisticated insult by Rava regarding Rav Ilish might have been lost on most people who undoubtedly never heard this term before, and even if they had heard the term, they would have been justifiably confused by it! Literally, Rava was disparaging judges of compromise, which in this context means judges who were not b’ke’in b’din, who were not knowledgeable in the law (per Rashbam), who were unsure of themselves and took the easy way out and tried to make everyone happy by awarding something for everyone (sound familiar?) and by not ruling in favor of one litigant or another – as opposed to what Rava did, where the second named beneficiary, who Rava believed deserved nothing, was indeed awarded nothing. In politics, too, taking the easy way out without mastering the facts and without adhering to one set of positions (sound familiar, again?) may ultimately not be the best way to go.
In general, there is a consensus among the rabbis of all generations and affiliations that a pshara (the classic word for compromise, when applied in a positive context) is the preferred way of solving a dispute. (An early source is the Torah itself, as interpreted by Rashi (Dvarim 6:18). The Torah provides guidance to do what is “fair and good” in G-d’s eyes. Rashi interprets this as pshara lifneem meshurat hadin (compromise beyond the letter of the law).
We pray for the future decision makers in our government to follow the approach of Rava, studying and analyzing all issues objectively and thoroughly, so they will act decisively and authoritatively (but not as authoritarians), and not like the ill-advised and ill-prepared Rav Ilish, who failed to study the issues and alternatives adequately and therefore tried to be all things to all people, at the expense of the rule of law.
