Which is preferable-judgment or mediation? TB Sanhedrin 6

Just a week ago we began massekhet Sanhedrin. Because of my busy schedule after I returned home from my trip to Israel, I haven’t been able to write my daily reflection on the respective daf. The first Mishna discusses how many judges are needed for monetary cases, capital cases, cases concerning a false prophet, as well as cases brought before the great Sanhedrin.

The Gemara begins discussing monetary cases and comes to the conclusion that these cases need a court of three judges to deliberate. TB Sanhedrin 6 debates whether judgment or mediation leading to compromise is preferable. As you can expect there is a wide range of opinions. “Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, says: It is prohibited to mediate a dispute; and anyone who mediates [habotze’a] a dispute is a sinner; and anyone who blesses the mediator is cursing God. And of this, it is stated: “And the covetous [botze’a] blesses himself, though he despises the Lord” (Psalms 10:3). Rather, the judge must assure that the true judgment will prevail at all costs and metaphorically pierce the mountain, as it is stated: “For the judgment is God’s” (Deuteronomy 1:17). And similarly, Moses would say: Let the judgment pierce the mountain…

(On the other hand) Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: It is a mitzva to mediate a dispute, as it is stated: “Execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates” (Zechariah 8:16). Is it not that in the place where there is strict judgment there is no true peace, and in a place where there is true peace, there is no strict judgment? Rather, which is the judgment that has peace within it? You must say: This is mediation, as both sides are satisfied with the result. And similarly, with regard to David, it says: “And David executed justice and charity to all his people” (II Samuel 8:15). And is it not that wherever there is strict justice, there is no charity, and wherever there is charity, there is no strict justice? Rather, which is the justice that has within it charity? You must say: This is mediation.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara then discusses when a court can change from deliberating the law to one that encourages a compromise. “Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: If two litigants come before you for a judgment, before you hear their respective statements and claims; or after you hear their statements but you do not yet know where the judgment is leaning, meaning that it is not yet clear to the judge which party is in the right, you are permitted to say to them: Go out and mediate. But after you hear their statements and you know where the judgment is leaning, you are not permitted to say to them: Go out and mediate, as it is stated: “The beginning of strife is as when one releases water; therefore leave off contention before the quarrel breaks out” (Proverbs 17:14). Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya interprets the verse to mean: Before the resolution of the contention is revealed, you can cast it off. Once the resolution of the contention is revealed, you cannot cast it off.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara comes to the conclusion that judges should encourage compromise over litigating in a courtroom. “Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, who said it is a mitzva to mediate a dispute. The Gemara asks: Is that so? And was it not that Rav Huna was a student of Rav, and when litigants would come before Rav Huna he would say to them: Do you want a strict judgment, or do you want a compromise? Evidently, Rav’s student Rav Huna did not hold that it is a mitzva to specifically arrange a compromise. The Gemara clarifies: What does Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa mean that he says it is a mitzva? He means that it is a mitzva to say to them: Do you want a strict judgment, or do you want a compromise? The Gemara objects: Since this opinion is the same as that of the first tanna (of the previous Baraita from the Tosefta Sanhedrin 1:4-gg), who also allows compromise, it is redundant to teach it. The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them with regard to the question of whether it is a mitzva to arrange a compromise. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa holds that it is a mitzva to offer them the option of compromise, and the first tanna holds that it is merely permitted.” (Daf 7a, Sefaria.org translation)