Thought for the Day: "I Don't Know; I Just Don't Know" Is *Not* an Opinion for a Judge, It's an Abdication of Responsibility

If I were to be famous for anything, I would want it to be for not rendering an opinion without sufficient data. I have oft told told chavrusos that, while I don't believe that their proposal is actually a good explanation of the topic we are learning, I also don't have an alternative. When the Chafeitz Chaim says, "you have to say", I sit up and pay attention. When you (you know who you are) say, "you have to say", my typical response to whatever follows is, "your lack of imagination does not obligate me in anything." This does not, of course, make me a popular chavrusa.

I have that luxury because I am not a דיין/judge in a בית דין/halachic tribunal. Generally speaking we require three judges on a tribunal.

Note: Until just moments ago I thought that "tribunal" actually meant "three judges". You know, like how the word "triumvirate" means a group of three people who hold power, often political. But no, "tribunal" comes from the Latin meaning denoting the raised platform on which a judge (yes, even just one) sits. Live and learn.

Shmuel tells us that a halachic tribunal of one two judges, while it works, is called a בית דין חצוף/insolent court. By "it works", we mean that their decision is halachically binding. By חצוף/insolent, we mean, "dudes... really?! That is a lot to take on your shoulders."

Chazal (Sanhedrin 5b) tell us that Rav Nachman said this over in shiur and Rava asked a strong question. (To put this in modern terms, this would be like a young R' Fuerst, shlita, asking a strong question of R' Moshe, z"tzl. That gives you an inkling of the great minds at work and also the esteem which Rava held for Rav Nachman.) The challenge was this: If a case comes before a tribunal of three judges, and two judges rule in favor of the plaintiff, but the third judge says he doesn't know, then we replace the judge who doesn't know and retry the case. So, Rava concludes his challenge by saying that "I don't know" can't be worse than just not being there.

The gemara answers: Yes, it is worse, because they sat down as three to make the decision. Then the gemara goes on to a different challenge, which fails for a different reason, then goes on to a new topic.

What happened here? Here is how I understand it; your mileage may vary. Why do we want three in the first place? Just a simple majority? No, for if that was the case, then two experts and anyone from the street would be just as good. We want three because they will argue it out. They will all think it through, then there will be a discussion in which the job of each judge is to convince, be convinced, or agree to disagree. But each needs to take responsibility for his decision. That is how you find the truth. If a judge says he doesn't know, then there are two judges working to convince the other while the third just watches from the sideline. They assembled as three because they wanted the clarity that comes from defending your position from multiple attacks. Since that was the agreement, when one abdicates his responsibility, we don't have a decision. We need to find someone else who will step up to the plate.

That may be why a tribunal of two is called "insolent". As smart as anyone is, it is insolent to think two of you are as good as three of the rest of the world. Really?