Parshat Devarim5 min read

Moses Made the People Name Judges but Kept the Final Say

Nobody in the camp needed telling who could hold a case without selling the verdict. Moses asked the people for names, then promised nothing about using them.

Curated by Arthur · Told by Maggid ·
Table of Contents
  1. After the Blessings Came the Hard List
  2. Before Them and Not Before Strangers
  3. Why the People Had to Speak First
  4. Deliberation as a Form of Holiness
  5. The Nation That Would Outlive Its Founder
  6. A Court That Smelled of the Camp
Moses Made the People Name Judges but Kept the Final Say Click for full size

After the Blessings Came the Hard List

Moses finished blessing and turned to the machinery of justice. He did not pull names from a private notebook. He told the people to find the men. They knew who was pious in the tent next door. They knew who could hold a case without selling the verdict. They knew the tribes from the inside in a way one aging leader never could alone.

The assignment was not surrender. Moses said aloud that if a candidate presented himself, he alone could not decide the man's tribe and origin with certainty. The people must propose. Then he locked the gate: do not think he must abide by their choice. Appointment remained his. Community knowledge fed the list. Final authority did not leave his hand.

Rubber stamps were for weaker regimes.

Before Them and Not Before Strangers

Later midrash presses another hard edge onto judgment. "These are the ordinances which thou shalt set before them" is read as a ban. Before them, not before non-Jews. Before them, not before the ignorant. Even if a foreign court rules by the same outcomes, an Israelite may not drag a neighbor there. The forum itself is part of the law.

Bar Kappara ties the altar's slow steps to the judge's slow tongue. Priests were warned not to take large strides that would uncover nakedness on the way up. Judges are warned not to sprint to a verdict. Happy is the judge who delays judgment long enough to seek justice and relieve the oppressed. Speed is a kind of indecent exposure of the court.

Standing before the court is standing before the Lord. The litigants must feel that weight in their legs.

Why the People Had to Speak First

Moses' method and the midrash's forum-ban share a single nerve. Justice that ignores the community's eyes will appoint strangers in spirit even if the names sound local. Justice that runs to foreign benches will hollow out the people from the inside. The leader who knows he cannot see every tent still refuses to let the tent choose a king of the courtroom without his veto.

The people proposed. Moses retained the knife that cut the final list. Between those two motions lay a nation that would soon live without him and would need courts that still smelled of Sinai rather than of the nearest empire's gate.

Ignorance of character is a danger. Abdication of appointment is another.

Deliberation as a Form of Holiness

The midrash's altar analogy is not decoration. Stones that prolong life must not meet iron that shortens it. Judges who hold life and property in their mouths must not treat haste as efficiency. "Seek justice, relieve the oppressed" is read as a blessing on the one who delays until the truth has room to stand.

Moses already practiced a version of that delay. He would not invent a judiciary from lonely guesswork. He demanded names from those who had watched the candidates live. Then he refused to pretend those names were final. Deliberation ran both ways: the people deliberated on character, the prophet deliberated on appointment.

A court born of haste is already half broken.

The Nation That Would Outlive Its Founder

Moses was building something that had to survive his death. A list of judges chosen only by his private favor would collapse when the favorer was buried. A list chosen only by popular noise would sell itself to the loudest clan. His double motion, proposal from below and seal from above, was an architecture for after him.

The ban on foreign courts completed the wall. Israel was not to outsource its quarrels to nations that did not stand at Sinai. Even matching outcomes would not cleanse the wrong forum. "Before them" meant before a people trained in the ordinances, not before a clever stranger with a gavel.

When the camp moved, the courts had to move with it, deliberate, local, and still answerable to the man who would not rubber-stamp a name he did not trust.

A Court That Smelled of the Camp

Moses knew the danger of a judiciary invented from the top of the mountain alone. A prophet can receive law and still misread which tent holds a thief who smiles in public. The people had watched lives. They had seen who returned a lost object and who priced a bribe in the dark. Their nominations were evidence. His veto was the seal that kept the evidence from becoming a popularity contest.

The midrash's ban on foreign courts closes the other escape hatch. Matching outcomes in a heathen forum do not cleanse the forum. "Before them" is a geography of holiness as much as a rule of procedure. Litigants must stand as if before the Lord. Judges must walk slowly, as priests must not stride indecently toward the altar. Haste uncovers what patience keeps covered.

Together the two teachings build a nation that can judge itself after Moses is gone. Proposal from the tents. Appointment from the prophet. Deliberation in the hearing. No outsourcing of quarrels to empires that never stood under the mountain.


← All myths

From the tradition

Sources

2 sources

The texts behind this telling. Some cards carry a translation of the source; others are our own retelling of it, and each card says which. Every card links out to the original.

Legends of the Jews 2:6Legends of the Jews

Retold in our words. Read the original at the link below.The Legends of the Jews by Louis Ginzberg (1909) · Public Domain

It wasn't as simple as picking names out of a hat, that's for sure!

After delivering his blessings, Moses tasked the people with finding suitable individuals to serve as judges and leaders. He essentially said, "Okay, you know these people better than I do. Find me the best!"

There was a catch, of course.

Moses made it clear that he wasn't just rubber-stamping their choices. He wisely said: "If a man were to present himself to me as a candidate for this position of honor, I alone should not be able to decide to what tribe he belonged, and whence he came; but you know them, and hence it is advisable for you to propose them. Do not think, however, that I feel I must abide by your choice, for it depends solely upon me, whether or not I shall appoint them." This passage comes to us from Ginzberg's Legends of the Jews.

Essentially, he recognized the people's intimate knowledge of their community. They knew who was truly pious, who was capable, and who possessed the qualities needed to lead effectively. But Moses also understood the buck stopped with him. The final decision rested on his shoulders.

A balance between trusting the wisdom of the community and exercising one's own judgment.

What does this say about leadership today? It's a question worth pondering.

Full source
Midrash Tanchuma, Mishpatim 6Midrash Tanchuma

Retold in our words. Read the original at the link below.Townsend 1989 translation of Midrash Tanhuma, S. Buber Recension · CC-BY

A question: An Israelite involved in a litigation with his neighbor, is prohibited from going to a heathen judge for judgment, since it is said: now these are the ordinances which thou shalt set before them (Exod. 21:1). It is taught by R. Simeon the son of Azzai: Even if you should discover a non-Jewish court where the law is identical with the law in an Israelite court, you are prohibited from bringing the case before them, since it is said: Which thou shalt set before them. Before them, and not before non-Jews, before them, and not before ignorant men.

Bar Kappara said in a lecture: Whence do we derive the rabbinic dictum: “Be deliberate in judgment”? We do so from the words: Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto Mine altar, that thy nakedness be not uncovered (Exod. 20:23). Which are followed by the words: Now these are the ordinances.

It is taught: Thy nakedness be not uncovered (ibid.). Is, then, the nakedness of the priests uncovered? Does it not say: And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover the flesh of their nakedness? Therefore this verse implies that even as the Holy One, blessed be He, warned the priests not to take big strides to hasten into the Temple (and thus, even with pants on, “reveal” their nakedness to the floor), so He warned the judges that they should not be quick to render judgment, as is said: Seek justice, relieve the oppressed (ashru hametz) (Isa. 1:17). (That is,) ashre (“happy”) is the judge hehamitz (“who delays”) his judgment (does not hasten).

Our rabbis teach that the verse Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the Lord (Deut. 19:17). The law indicates that the litigants must stand while they are being judged, for they should consider themselves as though standing before the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is said: Stand before the Lord.

Our rabbis teach us that the verse In righteousness shall thou judge thy neighbor (Lev. 19:15) implies that you should strive to judge your neighbor, who is your companion in Torah and in the performance of the commandments, justly.

R. Ulla the son of R. Elai was involved in a lawsuit before R. Nahman. R. Joseph sent a message to him: “Our friend, our colleague, Ulla, is our equal in Torah and in the performance of good deeds.” Nahman asked himself: “Why did he send this message to me? Does he want me to favor him? Perhaps he wants his case judged first, or maybe he wishes to influence the decision.”

R. Ulla said: The disagreement was with regard to the litigants themselves, but all agree that witnesses must testify while standing, for it is written: And the two men shall stand. Just as to sit (is contrary to the law), the testimony of witnesses is invalidated if they are seated. However, a scholar may testify while seated.

Rabba the son of Bar Hanah said: If a rabbinical scholar possesses evidence in law, he must bring it to the attention of the presiding judge. But if the judge is his inferior (in knowledge), he need not bring it to him.

R. Shisha the son of R. Idi said: We have learned that if a man finds a sack or a basket which he is not accustomed to carrying, he need not carry it to the court. This is so only in regard to property, but in the case in which a forbidden act has been committed, (he must give evidence) for There is no wisdom, no understanding, no counsel against the Lord (Prov. 21:30).

Whenever the name of the Holy One is profaned, the honor of the scholar is not considered. R. Yemar possessed some testimony in behalf of Mar Zutra and appeared before Amemar. He told him to be seated. R. Ashi said to Amemar: Did not Ulla say in regard to litigants (that it is permissible to be seated), but that witnesses must testify while standing? He answered: They are both positive commandments. However, the positive commandment enjoining respect for the Torah (i.e., the scholar) is more important.

R. Samuel the son of Nahmani said: R. Jonathan declared: Every judge who renders a just verdict causes the Shekhinah (the Divine Presence) to hover over Israel, as it is said: God standeth in the congregation of God. But every judge who renders an unjust verdict causes the Shekhinah to depart, as it is said: For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord (Ps. 12:6). R. Samuel the son of Nahmani said: From every judge who takes money from one and gives it to another unjustly, the Holy One, blessed be He, takes the soul away, as it is said: Rob not the weak, because he is weak, neither crush the poor in the gate; for the Lord will plead their cause (Prov. 22:22).

R. Samuel the son of Nahmani said that R. Jonathan also stated: A judge should always see himself as though a sword rested between his thighs and the netherworld was open beneath him, as it is said: Every man hath his sword upon his thigh, because of dread in the night (Song 3:8). Dread in the night refers to the dread of the netherworld, which is as dark as the night. R. Josiah taught that there are those who say in the name of R. Nahman: Why is it written: O house of David, thus saith the Lord: Execute justice in the morning (Jer. 21:12)? Is justice rendered only in the morning and not during the day? This means that the verdict must be as clear to you as the morning light when you announce it, but if it is not, you must not announce it.

R. Hiyya the son of Abba concluded from the verse Say unto wisdom: “Thou art my sister” (Prov. 7:4) that if the verdict is as clear to you as the fact that your sister is forbidden to you, announce it; but if it is not, do not announce it. R. Joshua the son of Levi said: If ten men sit in judgment, responsibility for the verdict rests upon the neck of each of them. And judge righteously (Deut. 1:16). R. Joshua the son of Levi interprets this verse to mean: One must confirm the justice of the decision before announcing it.

Ye shall hear the small and the great alike (ibid., v. 17). R. Simeon the son of Lakish said: A lawsuit involving a perutah must be considered as important as one involving a hundred maneh. Why need this be stated? Is this not a matter of course? It is mentioned simply to remind you to consider a case only in its proper order. One verse says: And I charged your judgments (Deut. 1:16), while another verse says: And I command you (ibid., v. 18). R. Simlai stated: These verses are a warning to the community to act respectfully to the judges who preside over it, and a warning to the judges to bear patiently with the community. To what extent? R. Hanan said that R. Shabbetai stated: As the nursing father carrieth the suckling child (Num. 11:12). Who is a shrewd scoundrel? R. Hanina says: One who explains his case to the judge before the other litigant arrives.

And place such over them to be officers of thousands and officers of hundreds, officers of fifties and officers of tens (Exod. 18:21). The officers of thousands were six hundred in number, the officers of hundreds were six thousand, the officers of fifties were twelve thousand, and the officers of tens were sixty thousand. Thus we find that the total number of men who acted as judges in Israel were seventy-eight thousand six hundred in all. It is taught that R. Eliezer the son of Jacob said: I heard that the court has applied punishments and fines that were not derived from the Torah. This was not done to transgress the Torah but to fashion a fence around the Torah.

It happened once that at a time of crisis a man rode a horse on the Sabbath during the period of Greek rule. They dragged him to the court, and he was sentenced to stoning. This verdict was executed not because it was the correct penalty, but because the situation demanded it. At another time it happened that a man had sex with his wife beneath a fig tree (i.e., in public). They brought him to the court and ordered him flogged. This was not because it was the appropriate penalty, but because conditions at the time demanded it.

R. Simeon the son of Menasya said: When two men come before you with a case at law, you may tell them to depart and settle the matter between themselves before you have listened to their case or even after you have heard it. That is, if you have not yet reached a decision as to which one will receive the favorable verdict. However, if you have already heard the case and arrived at the decision to be rendered, you are not permitted to tell them to settle the matter between themselves, as it is said: The beginning of strife is as when one letteth out water; therefore leave off contention, before the quarrel break out (Prov. 17:14). This indicates that before the circumstances are made known to you, you are permitted to drop it (the case), but after the matter at issue is disclosed, you are not permitted to drop it.

R. Judah the son of Lakish declared: If two men come before a judge to decide a case and one of them is easygoing, while the other is a harsh person, you are permitted to say to them: “I cannot become involved between you.” That is so if you have not yet heard their plea or even after you have heard their plea, but have not yet decided who is in the right. For if the harsh one should be found guilty, he might harm the judge. But if you have heard their plea and know which side the law favors, you are not permitted to say “I cannot become involved between you,” as it is said: Ye shall not be afraid of the face of any man (Deut. 1:17).

R. Joshua the son of Karha said: Whence do we know that if a disciple, sitting before his master, observes something that points out the innocence of the poor man and the guilt of the rich man, he must not keep silent? It is said: Ye shall not be afraid of the face of any man (ibid.). This means that one should not refrain from speaking out because of any man. Witnesses must know against whom they are testifying and before Whom they are testifying and Who in the future will call them to account. As is it is said: Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the Lord (ibid. 19:7). Judges must also realize, as they judge, before Whom they are judging and Who in the future will call them to account, as it is said: God standeth in the congregation of God; in the midst of the judges He judgeth (Ps. 82:1). Thus Jehoshaphat said to the judges: Consider what ye do; for ye judge not for man, but for the Lord (II Chron. 19:6). A man might say: What interest do I have in this argument? Therefore Scripture says: And He is with you in giving judgment (ibid.). Hence a judge must decide a case only in accordance with what he has witnessed (i.e., determined from the evidence) with his own eyes.

Rabba said to Rav Pappa and to R. Huna the son of R. Joshua: If one of my legal decisions comes to your attention and you find it to be inaccurate, do not tear it up before you have consulted me. If I have a valid explanation for it, I will tell you what it is, but if not I will reverse my decision. After my death do not abrogate my decision, for if I were present I might have had an explanation for it. Do not deduce any law from my decision, for a judge must be guided only by what his own eyes witness (i.e. the evidence that comes before him).

R. Joshua the son of Karha said: It is commendable to arbitrate a matter, since it is written: Execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates (Zech. 8:16). Certainly, whenever there is absolute justice peace cannot prevail, and where there is peace there cannot be absolute justice. Through what kind of justice does peace prevail? It is in the justice achieved through arbitration. Scripture states concerning this matter: If there should arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment (Deut. 17:8) (arbitrate).

Full source