Of course this isn't a law just regarding Sanhedrin, but is a lesson of how to look at another individual, to always find the good spark within. Those of a Breslov persuasion would of course take this as a lesson at looking at one's self as well. A individual must never lose sight of the inner spark of goodness that remains untainted within them as Rebbe Nachman elaborates in the famous Torah of רפב, אזמרה.
Tuesday, September 3, 2019
The Inner Spark
The halacha is that if the Sanhedrin have a unanimous
decision that someone is deserving of the death penalty then the defendant is
off the hook (Sanhedrin 17a.) The
meforshim struggle to understand this peculiar law. The Rebbe (Likutay Sichos volume 29 sicha 3
on this parsha) explains that the point of the punishments of Sanhedrin are to
atone for the person. That means if the
person is worthy of attonement that there is a spark of goodness left to
him. If Sanhedrin can’t see that spark
of goodness it means that they obviously aren’t seeing the case properly and
therefore are unfit to preside over this case.
Of course this isn't a law just regarding Sanhedrin, but is a lesson of how to look at another individual, to always find the good spark within. Those of a Breslov persuasion would of course take this as a lesson at looking at one's self as well. A individual must never lose sight of the inner spark of goodness that remains untainted within them as Rebbe Nachman elaborates in the famous Torah of רפב, אזמרה.
Of course this isn't a law just regarding Sanhedrin, but is a lesson of how to look at another individual, to always find the good spark within. Those of a Breslov persuasion would of course take this as a lesson at looking at one's self as well. A individual must never lose sight of the inner spark of goodness that remains untainted within them as Rebbe Nachman elaborates in the famous Torah of רפב, אזמרה.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't understand this approach, although I have heard it many times in the context of making judgements. Is a member of a sanhedrin supposed to pasken lekula just because he see's a nekuda tova in the defendant? Furthermore the gemara in makkos second perek says that the kohen gadol who is alive at the time of gmar din is the one who's death sets the רוצח free. The gemara asks what the kohen did wrong and answers that he should have davened for the רוצח. The Achronim in the back of the gemara ask how he should have davened, how could he daven for an עוות הדין. They answer that he should have davened for all of the beis din to pasken correctly and thereby let him off the hook. They point to this gemara as the unknown source of the rambam who applies this din of unanimous decisions to cases of גלות as well. It would seem from these achronim and the rambam is that the unanimous decision is not a corruption of the din but an unusual occurrence in which there is a great clarity of din. But what still remains unclear is why clarity of din should be a petur. Perhaps in general (aside for the case when it is caused by the kohen gadol's tefillos) clarity of din is impossible because of the nekuda tova which corrupts the dayanim's ability to see the din with true clarity. However when there is no nekuda tova (if this is possible, still מסופק) then the defendant doesn't deserve kapara. This is sort of the Lubavitcher Rebbe's pshat just in reverse. וצ"ע.
ReplyDeleteIts not that a person sees a nekudah tovah and therefore is makel, the point is that in every case there must be a way of looking at seeing the case where the conclusion is that the person didn't willingly violate a sin. A Beis Din that no member can see the case that way isn't a beis din.
ReplyDelete