Our Gemara on amud aleph discusses various safeguards that are put in place to advocate for the defendant in a capital case during the deliberation phase of the trial. Once one of the judges offers arguments in the defendant’s defense, the judge can no longer advocate for conviction. However, the reverse is possible: a judge who argued for conviction may also offer arguments for exoneration. Rav, however, offers a key distinction, which sheds light on the process of discussion and groupthink:

Rav says: “They taught this halacha only with regard to the time of the deliberations of the court, but at the time of the verdict, one who initially teaches a reason to acquit may return and teach a reason to deem him liable.”

So, during deliberations, we want every judge who was inclined toward the defense to stay focused and continue to search for more reasons to acquit. Yet, once the deliberations are complete, this judge may still vote for conviction or even offer a final argument for conviction (depending on how you interpret “return”; see Rashi and compare with Rambam, Sanhedrin 10:2).

Regardless, we see that different thought processes are promoted at different times. Rashi explains: “We require that he stay focused on his original argument, to investigate and analyze more proofs. Perhaps he will find something to support his original inclination.” It seems to me that part of the psychology in Rashi’s explanation is that if a judge had an initial impression or inclination toward acquittal, we want to reinforce that intuition and encourage him to continue seeking arguments in that direction. Essentially, we are trying to support the analytical process to prove and back up what was originally an intuitive point. Even if he finds a logical argument against it, we want to go back and respect his original stance, suspecting that there may be more to it that he has not yet figured out. We pursue these avenues only to defend someone’s innocence. On the other hand, we are, of course, advocating for a more restrained review on the side of conviction.

All of this brings to mind the science of brainstorming. What is the definition of brainstorming? It differs from linear, analytical problem-solving. Rather, it is a group process in which creative ideas are encouraged to be thrown out for discussion without too much inhibition. The logic behind this process is that it will hopefully allow for more creativity and intuitive leaps, before prematurely dismissing ideas. This mirrors what Rashi seems to be describing here. If a judge initially thought the defendant was innocent, even if his logic was later disproved, we want to encourage him to continue exploring why he thought that originally. This suggests an understanding that there could be an intuitive, initial creative leap. Brainstorming is a way to tap into that intuitive ability. Of course, once the brainstorming process is complete, a different phase of greater logical analysis is required, just as in our Gemara. Once the judgment phase is reached, arguments are reviewed strictly through the lens of final logic, allowing each person to cast their vote based on their conclusions, independent of earlier musings and deliberations.

According to research, what are some of the rules and conditions for brainstorming?

One foundational rule of brainstorming is to withhold criticism or evaluation of ideas during the idea-generation phase. As noted by Osborn (1953) in his book Applied Imagination, “Criticism of ideas must be put off until the idea-generation stage is over, as it inhibits creativity.” Other important rules include:

• Encourage Wild Ideas: To foster a creative environment, participants should be encouraged to think outside the box and propose unconventional ideas. Brown (2009), in Change by Design, emphasizes that “encouraging radical ideas can lead to breakthroughs that are not possible through conventional thinking.”
  
  
• Build on the Ideas of Others: Collaborative synergy is key. According to Paulus and Nijstad (2003) in Group Creativity, “Building on each other's ideas can lead to more innovative and comprehensive solutions than those generated by individuals working alone.”
  
  
• Quantity Over Quality: Initially, the focus should be on generating a large number of ideas. This is based on the premise that “the more ideas generated, the greater the likelihood of producing a useful and innovative solution” (Osborn, 1953).
  
  
• Stay Focused on the Topic: While creativity is encouraged, it is also important to maintain a focus on the problem at hand. Research by Sutton and Hargadon (1996) in Brainstorming Groups in Context suggests that “successful brainstorming sessions balance creative freedom with a clear understanding of the objectives.”
  
  
• Ensure a Diverse Group: Diversity in participants' backgrounds, expertise, and perspectives can lead to a broader range of ideas. In The Diversity Bonus (2017), Page argues that “cognitive diversity enhances problem-solving and innovation, as diverse groups bring varied viewpoints and knowledge to the table.”
  
  
• Facilitate a Comfortable Environment: The physical and psychological environment plays a significant role. As highlighted by Amabile (1996) in Creativity in Context, “An environment that is supportive, free from excessive criticism, and physically conducive to collaboration enhances creative output.”

We see from the various laws governing deliberations and judges many similar ideas related to brainstorming. For example, we aim to ensure that junior judges are not intimidated, as we saw on daf 32a, and we want to promote defenders in staying focused and creative on their initial hunches and arguments.

Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation

Do you like what you see? Please subscribe and also forward any articles you enjoy to your friends, (enemies too, why not?)