This week’s Torah commentary, written by Hebrew Seminary Rosh Yeshivah Rabbi Jonah Rank has been sponsored anonymously.
* * *
In 1953, whether a Democrat or a Republican appointed a justice to the United States Supreme Court made almost no difference when it came to judging the poor and the rich. Back then, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, Democratic-appointees and Republican-appointees hovered close to ruling in favor of the wealthier party approximately 45% of the time. In the year 2022, Republican-appointees ruled that resources should be handed over to the party that already held more wealth some 70% of the time, and Democratic-appointees agreed but only in 35% of cases. (See “Ruling for the Rich: The Supreme Court Over Time,” p. 5.)
If Jews feel squeamish about a system of law that favors the wealthy over the impoverished (or vice versa), then the Torah can claim at least some credit. Parashat Devarim (and several other sections of the Torah) urge God’s people to be impartial in a court of law. This week, in Deuteronomy 1:17, we read: “לֹֽא־תַכִּ֨ירוּ פָנִ֜ים בַּמִּשְׁפָּ֗ט כַּקָּטֹ֤ן כַּגָּדֹל֙ תִּשְׁמָע֔וּן” (“Do not recognize faces in judgement; listen to the small and the mighty alike”). This fundamental belief is so central that another formulation of this idea appears close to the middle of the middle-book of the Torah, in Leviticus 19:15:
לֹא־תַעֲשׂ֥וּ עָ֙וֶל֙ בַּמִּשְׁפָּ֔ט לֹא־תִשָּׂ֣א פְנֵי־דָ֔ל וְלֹ֥א תֶהְדַּ֖ר פְּנֵ֣י גָד֑וֹל בְּצֶ֖דֶק תִּשְׁפֹּ֥ט עֲמִיתֶֽךָ׃
Do not perform any distortion in judgement. Do not uplift the face of the poor or glorify the face of the mighty. Judge your peer righteously.
The Torah really hammers this message hard. Shortly after the Ten Commandments first appear, Exodus 23:3 commands: “ְדָ֕ל לֹ֥א תֶהְדַּ֖ר בְּרִיבֽוֹ” (“Do not glorify the impoverished in their fight.”). Despite this, the Torah does frequently name its concern with the plight of the poor, and the Torah sanctifies the great accumulation of resources that is required for building and upkeeping a tabernacle (namely, a portable prototype of a Temple). Nonetheless, once we enter the courtroom, a Jewish sensibility of justice demands that we ignore the economic worth of a plaintiff or a defendant when we listen for just the facts of a case.
Rav Acha, in a midrashic commentary on Deuteronomy from the second half of the 1st millennium C.E., claims that there were six steps one had to ascend when approaching the throne of the (supposedly) wise and judicious King Solomon. The royal herald of the monarch would proclaim one law from the Torah upon ascending each step. While the highest three steps prompted the officer to declaim laws pertaining to monotheism and sacrifices, the first three steps were accompanied by three laws naming the judge’s responsibility to rule fairly, stemming from Deuteronomy 16:19:
לֹא־תַטֶּ֣ה מִשְׁפָּ֔ט לֹ֥א תַכִּ֖יר פָּנִ֑ים וְלֹא־תִקַּ֣ח שֹׁ֔חַד
Do not misshape justice. Do not recognize faces. Do not take bribes.
‘Recognizing faces,’ apparently a problem that Deuteronomy imagined playing out in court, must have led to poor judgement. The same midrashic collection cites a solution to the inevitable problem the judge faced every time the plaintiff and the defendant did not look identical to one another (which was almost always). According to Rabbi Yehudah bar Rabbi Illay, a judge could require that both parties remain standing or sitting simultaneously. (This, of course, differs from the American norm of the prosecuting or defending attorney who stands to approach the bench.) Further, according to Rabbi Yehudah, if one party dressed fashionably and the other wore clothing suggesting a poorer economic standing (perhaps simpler or ragged wear), the judge could order the wealthier party to provide the poorer person with the same high fashion outfit. Through finding matching costumes, any visible wealth gap between the parties would fade away. (See Devarim Rabbah 5:6.)
Courts cannot single-handedly close the polarizing gap that divides a society’s wealthiest members from its poorest. Nonetheless, a Jewish design of judicial proceedings means that the economic standing of the accuser and the accused must become as irrelevant and unnoticeable as possible. Withholding such factors that could invite discrimination one way or another enables a case to be judged on the merits of the arguments alone. Moreover, a society that enshrines in its law the protection of those lacking critical resources will find a way to provide when people in need are brought to court. Our Torah reminds us that human dignity must be upheld and magnified in a court of law.
* * *