There is an Israeli saying: “The two dead drivers were both right.”

Our Gemara on Amud Beis discusses situations where it is morally acceptable for Beis Din to seek compromise, even when strict law might dictate different rights.

When the verse states, “Justice, justice, shall you follow,” one mention of “justice” refers to judgment, and the other refers to compromise. How is this understood? Consider a scenario where two boats are traveling on a river and encounter each other. If both try to pass at the same time, they will sink because the river is not wide enough. However, if they pass one after the other, both can make it. Similarly, when two camels ascend the steep path of Beit Ḥoron, and they encounter each other, if both try to ascend simultaneously, both will fall. But if they ascend one after the other, both will reach the top.

How does one decide who should go first? If one boat is laden and the other is not, the needs of the laden boat should override the needs of the lighter one. If one boat is closer to its destination, its needs should take precedence. If both boats are equally close or equally far from their destinations, a compromise should be struck, and the owner of the first boat compensates the owner of the second for the delay and any losses incurred.

The key to the need for compromise here is that technically, both boats have the right to go first. However, as in the famous Prisoner’s Dilemma, if both boats persist in their rights, they will both suffer. The lesson here is that being “right” does not necessarily make one wise. This is an important lesson in relationships, especially when power struggles escalate.

Another lesson from this compromise scenario pertains to the nature of the compromise itself. If someone cannot decide whether to wear dress shoes or sneakers, a reasonable compromise would not be to wear a sneaker on one foot and an Oxford on the other. Compromises are not always about an equal split; they should take into account the practical and emotional impacts of each party’s loss and gain. The judges in the Gemara evaluate the distance and load of each group before suggesting a fair compromise, and if one has a greater loss, they will rule accordingly..

Similarly, in relationships, when disagreements arise, it’s essential to understand what each party stands to gain or lose before proposing a solution or compromise. Sometimes, the loss for one party is far greater than for the other, or the gain might be more significant for one side. There are also objective losses, like money and time, and subjective losses, such as anxiety or frustration. Before offering a compromise, here are some important questions to ask:

1. How bad would it be for you if you were unable to have or do this? (It’s often helpful to use a scale of 1-5. While these numbers are subjective, people generally make fair self-assessments.)
2. How much gain or benefit would this provide you?
3. What does having or doing this mean to you, or to our family?

The final question is often neglected and addresses the emotional and subjective experiences involved. For example, when a couple disagrees about whether they can afford a vacation or where to go, one might dismiss the emotional significance of the vacation. But these emotions are not irrational; they are simply non-rational—rooted in emotional impact rather than logic or finances. Therefore, in any disagreement, it is crucial to acknowledge the emotional significance of the issue. While emotions should not necessarily outweigh logic or finances, they must be considered as part of the larger context in order to find a healthy compromise.

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?)