In Bad Faith 2- Real Book Review - Cinderella Kicks the Sukka

 

Author’s note – This post is one part of an in-depth review of Dassi Erlich’s book In Bad Faith. If you are not up to date, it is helpful to see the following earlier posts:

Malka Leifer Debacle (Overview of this entire episode)
Irreversible Damage
The [Dis]Honest Truth
In Bad Faith – A Book[cover] Review

 

 

Intro - Kicking the Sukka

In a recent post, I quoted the prophetic opening Gemara in Masechet Avoda Zara. Let’s review it:

 

In the future to come the Holy One shall bring a Torah scroll and set it in His lap and proclaim, “For each one who occupied himself with it, he may come and receive his reward.” Immediately all the nations of the world will gather and come in pandemonium…

 

The Gemara continues that first enters the kingdom of Rome. They proceed to tell Him all the great things they did to enable the Jews to learn Torah such as building public markets. The Holy One says to them, “Fools of the world! All that you did, you did for your own purposes. You built marketplaces to situate harlots, etc.”

After Rome, the kingdom of Persia enters after them. Like Rome they proceed to tell HKBH all the great things they did to enable the Jews to learn Torah such as building bridges. The Holy One says to them, “Fools of the world! All that you did, you did for your own purposes. You built bridges to collect from them tolls, etc.”

I concluded that post with a comment:

Don’t kick the sukkah on the way out.

What does this mean?

For this, we must see the conclusion of that piece of Gemara.

The Gemara concludes that the wayward nations who are called "fools of the world" will beg G-d to give them the opportunity to fulfill the Torah anew. G-d will respond: "Idiots of the world! Those who prepared on Friday will have what to eat on Shabbos. Those who do not prepare on Friday, of what shall they eat?” Despite this, He will graciously give them another chance. “I have a very easy mitzvah for you to perform and it is called Sukka. Go and do it."

 

Immediately everybody will take and go to his roof and build a sukka. Whereupon HKBH will intensify the sun as in the height of summer and each one will kick down his sukka and leave…and G-d will laugh at the nations.

 

Before that closing line, the Gemara asks: Why is this to be held against them? The Halacha is that if one is in distress (מצטער) he may leave the sukka?!

 

The Gemara responds: It is permissible to exit the sukka - but do they have to kick it on the way out?

 

At long last, I completely read through Dassi Erlich’s vitriolic book. Once we understand the Gemara in Masechet Avoda Zara, we can also understand the real Dassi Erlich and in what way her book was written In Bad Faith.

I obtained the Kindle edition and read it during very private moments. I am not sure whether the pagination of the Kindle edition is identical to the printed version. To be safe, if I refer to any specific pages in the book, I am referring to the Kindle edition page. It may not be the same page number in hardcopy.

The reader can easily divide the book into two distinct parts:

Part 1 – The Passive Part – This is the first two thirds of the book up until about page 226. This part is primarily focused on all the things that happened to Dassi Erlich up to and including when her older sister passed away in 2014.

Part 2 – The Active Part – This is the last third of the book from page 227 to the end. This part is primarily focused on Dassi's actions against Malka Leifer and the Adass community. (Yes, she depicted disclosing her ordeal earlier in Chapter 10 and related her police report in 2011 in Chapter 15 so there is a little bit of overlap, but not much.)

As such, we can say that Part 1 describes why she was מצטער in the “Sukka” and left it.

Part 2 describes how she made sure to kick it on the way out.

To properly analyze her book, it needs to be viewed from three perspectives:

The secular irreligious viewpoint – How does it look to the world at large? (Secular, irreligious readers can do this better than I, but I will take a stab at it.)

The Jewish religious viewpoint – How religious Jews are supposed to see it? (This is what I am here for and the main purpose of this blog post.)

The pragmatic viewpoint – What is the book expected to accomplish, and does it indeed accomplish it? (This should be self-evident, but I will testify.)

Let us look at this step by step.

 

The Secular Viewpoint

On the Amazon book page, to date, her book received 78% five-star ratings out of 200 votes. Moreover, only 3% rated it less than 3 stars. Additionally, Dassi’s Facebook page portrays a slew of interviews and book signings with very enthusiastic audiences and a lot of fanfare. In secular terms, her book is clearly a big success.

To save myself typing, I will copy/paste some very positive (five-star) reviews that are listed in Amazon. Here’s one from the US:

Profoundly moving. Compellingly written. An incredibly important work for pioneering and lifting those wrongly pushed down, and enlightening and inspiring others to do their bit. Big reminder of being brave enough to question, for the good of oneself and generations of others

And here’s one from Australia:

One incredible circumstance this lady has been through. (I think she meant to write “What incredible circumstances”- YH) It was powerful, disturbing and important to read. Thank you for making it a very easy hard read. I’m very very grateful.

From the viewpoint of a secular reader, I agree with these reviews. I would very likely also give it five stars. The book is very well written and well organized. It grips the reader and does not overburden them. It is very human and “touches our souls”. And it certainly has the reader cheering for the protagonist – and leering at the antagonists.

Dassi is a modern-day Cinderella and Oliver Twist. She is the wretched, abused quasi-orphan who has risen up from the cinders and triumphed over adversary. Not only that, but she also triumphed in her long hard battle for justice.

Justice! What better virtue can there be than this?

She has turned herself into a heroine princess (without Prince Charming) and a champion of justice for the abused and down-trodden. No, she did not lose a glass slipper, but she broke the glass sukkah ceiling. Perhaps, she will soon meet her true Prince Charming and live happily ever after.

Kol Hakavod!

I already wrote that secular readers can praise the book better than I can. And they have. My place is to discuss the religious viewpoint. It’s a bit different. Here it comes.

 

The Jewish Religious Viewpoint

From the religious viewpoint, Dassi’s Cinderella story is nothing but a fairy tale.

I already elaborated on the flaws of this book when I gave my protracted review of the book cover before I even read it. Please see that review HERE.

That review was premised on a preliminary post titled The [Dis]Honest Truth. Please see it HERE. The crux of the [Dis]Honest Truth is that we all know that even if the basic structure of a story is totally factual, if the façade is false or misleading, then the whole story is as well.

From the book cover, we are expected to see a story of evil and deception and sinister cults with dark shameful secrets that Dassi is going to reveal to the world.

She does nothing of the kind.

As I read through the book looking for the perverse evil, I didn’t see any of it at all in Part 1. I only saw it in Part 2 in the actions taken by Dassi Erlich. In Part 1 – all 226 pages – all I saw was what the book is really about.

Mental illness.

This book is merely a tale of mental illness and the extensive damage that it can generate.

Throughout the book, there are three primary characters and several secondary ones. The three primary characters are: Dassi Erlich herself, Dassi’s unnamed mother, and Mrs. Leifer.

The secondary characters are Dassi’s ex-husband, her sister, Dalia, who passed away, and, thirdly, the Adass school as an entity.

The common denominator between the three primary characters is that all of them are suffering from some degree of mental illness. The secondary characters, all of whom impacted Dassi’s early life, are not.

The first five chapters, which make up about 20% of the book, are all about her abusive childhood at home. These chapters, and her entire childhood, were dominated by one person – her mother. Her mother certainly personifies the wicked stepmother in Cinderella.

Interestingly, her mother’s name is not mentioned at all throughout the book. On the one hand, there is certainly no need for it and, to a minor extent, it may somewhat mitigate the severity of Dassi’s loshon hara. But, on the other hand, we understand that a person without a name is not really a human. They are a “thing”, an “it”. And, sure enough, In the very first chapter of the book, Dassi introduces her as “The monster”. At least, that is the title of the chapter. The chapter displays the bold title “The monster” and the immediate opening two words of the chapter are, “My mother…”

We read about her mother for the next five chapters and what Dassi writes is horrifying. I bet it could rival “Mommy Dearest”. (I haven’t read Mommy Dearest so I’m just guessing, but from what I was told about it, it sounds very similar.)

As I was reading through it, I was shocked by how exceedingly abusive the mother is shown to be. It is clear to me that no stable person can act this way. Thus, only two avenues are possible: (1) the description of her mother isn’t factual and Dassi is telling us momma bubba maases or (2) the mother is very unstable and every word is true.

Indeed, I have no reason to doubt that Dassi is telling the truth (I have also gotten some verification from other people), so this tells me that her mother is suffering from some very severe totally undiagnosed mental disorders. As a DIY psychologist, I see clear signs of narcissism (NPD) and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) along with paranoia and what used to be called schizophrenia. This is a lethal cocktail that is bunched together under the umbrella term “borderline personality disorder” (BPD).

Yet, in the first five chapters, Dassi makes no acknowledgement of this and just refers to her mother as “The monster”. Now, an intelligent reader who is knowledgeable about mental disorders (like any DIY psychologist) will recognize all the way through that this is a case of severe mental illness, and can have some sympathy, or at least understanding, for the anonymous mother. But a simple-minded reader is just going to see the wicked step-mother in Cinderella (who also happens to be anonymous). Dassi gives no reason for a reader to think otherwise.

In chapter 6, Dassi tells us that, as a teenager, her older sister showed her a book about dealing with a loved one with BPD which opened her eyes to the world of mental illness. But, I find the emotion she expressed about it to be very disturbing. In page 72 she writes:

It was the first time we had entertained the notion that perhaps our mother had a problem; perhaps the abuse wasn’t our fault.

Although she is 100% correct to realize that the abuse wasn’t their fault, and indeed it wasn’t, it looks like she stopped short of another realization. With the degree of mental illness that her mother had, which seems as extreme as it could be, and that she did not know she had it, maybe it isn’t her mother’s fault, either!

Of course, as a child Dassi can’t see it and, in her narrative, her childhood feelings are accurately portrayed. However, she is not supposed to be a child anymore. Now she is a grownup and understands mental illness. She is suffering from it herself. Now she is old enough to know that her mother is possessed by a swarm of demons just like she is.

So, why does she have to portray her mother as a monster? What is the toelles for this lashon hara?

What’s more, we all know that this kind of mental illness is not congenital. People aren't bornthis way. Something has had to trigger it. It does not seem possible that her mother had a warm loving upbringing herself. Something must have happened in her childhood. There is much room to suspect that even her mother is a victim of abuse. I surmise that if Dassi would delve into it, she may be able to find it – if she hasn’t done so already.

While we’re at it, we may as well check out the wicked stepmother in Cinderella.

So, even after the acknowledgement of her mother’s mental illness that was revealed in chapter 6, Dassi has no apologetics for her mother. Only for herself and her sisters. She leaves the reader with the impression that her mother unequivocally belongs in 7734. This is just one of Dassi’s sins in what I called Part 1 of the book. 

The second sin, and the bigger one, is the one I discussed in my earlier review. It is the demonizing of the Adass Community and Orthodox Judaism. I explained in my first review how it is clear that this is Dassi’s true goal with her book.

I am exceptionally bothered by Chapter 2. As she does with the title of entire book, she does again with the title of Chapter 2 – Growing up Adass. Although she devotes the first 2½ pages of the chapter describing the history of the Adass Community, the next 15 pages after that have absolutely nothing to do with the Adass community! It is all about the incessant, harrowing abuse she suffered at home at the hands of her mother (the monster). The abuse she described was not related to the Adass community, nor was there any abuse inflicted by any community member outside her home (we haven’t reached high school yet). There was absolutely nothing abusive about the Adass community. The Adass community is in no way responsible for the abuse that she suffered at home.

Don’t get me wrong. Religious zeal, in any religion, can be weaponized to be a catalyst for abuse. Religion involves rules and discipline and fire and brimstone. As such, people with OCD and NPD and paranoia (fear of purgatory) and a need to control others will find in the tenets of their religion the perfect pretenses for extreme controlling behavior. It goes with the territory, but it is not the fault of the religion - at least, not our religion. The religion is not meant to be practiced in conjunction with borderline personality disorder.

Indeed, in the next chapter, she describes a trip to her cousins in New York who were just as Ultra-orthodox as she was. They didn’t even speak English. Yet, she said she had free access to a pantry full of food as did the whole family.

Likewise, in the following chapter Dassi tells us about her friendship with another Adass family, the Fromers. On page 47, after she tells us how Mrs. Fromer surprised her with a bat-mitzvah chocolate cake (covered with sprinkles) she writes:

I loved the Fromer house,…I played with five little kids, no one ever screamed, and their mother trusted me and told me I was wonderful. I would continue visiting the Fromers every week…my time there helped me realize the meaning of a family. Family didn’t have to mean abuse…

Her Hasidic cousins weren’t abused. The Fromers weren’t abused. But, they were just as religious. How could this be?

 

The answer is that the Jewish religion, Orthodox or ultra-Orthodox, is not abusive. Mental illness is abusive. Mental illness can make religious life abusive. It can make the Sukkah very, very uncomfortable. But the problem is not the Sukka. It is the very hot sun.

But yet, with the derisive title of her 17-page second chapter, Growing up Adass, Dassi is fraudulently and deviously planting in to the minds of her gullible readers that the Adass community is the source and core of her abusive childhood. This cannot be true. The Fromers also grew up “Adass”. But they’re not like Dassi.

Let’s move on to the next emotionally disturbed character – Mrs. Malka Leifer.

Dassi introduces us to Mrs. Leifer in chapter 6, but Mrs. Leifer does not become a “Monster” until the next chapter. All the alleged abuse that she claims to have suffered is bottled up in this 8-page chapter. I don’t want to undermine it and I don’t want to challenge it. I will assume that at least some of it happened, and it certainly should not have.

But one thing is clear. Dassi tells us that Mrs. Leifer justified her abusive behavior in the name of [misguided] motherly love and perhaps that it is good training for marriage. Nevertheless, nowhere in this chapter did Dassi claim that any of the abuse was performed in the name of religion or sanctioned by it. Dassi was well-schooled in the religion, as she frequently indicates throughout the book. She claims that she “instinctively” knew that this behavior was wrong. She definitely knew that it was not part of religious observance.

Although I will agree that there was a strong abuse of authority and betrayal of trust on the part of Mrs. Leifer, it is hard to say that this is extensive abuse. Nobody was injured and nobody was forced. After soaking in the five long chapters of domestic abuse from her mother that began at birth, Mrs. Leifer’s activities pale in comparison.

I want to point out that the legal charges against Mrs. Leifer included rape and digital penetration. According to Dassi’s reports, Mrs. Leifer stimulated her intimate area. Nevertheless, her description of her wedding night (page 111) indicates that this did not affect her virginity. As such, how much of a penetration could there have been?

Even though Mrs. Leifer is clearly a functional and sociable person, unlike Dassi’s mother, there seems to be evidence of her own set of emotional issues. The way Dassi describes Mrs. Leifer as a dominating person, indicates a need for power and control. There are signs of low self-esteem, narcissism, and some amount of paranoia as well.

She is not as extreme or as horrible as Dassi’s mother, but they do seem to share some of the same issues. They just played out differently. In the way that Dassi’s mother was very extreme in a malicious direction, Mrs. Leifer was very extreme in a benevolent direction. She was too warm and loving.   

And, just as I maintain by Dassi’s mother, this kind of behavior is not congenital. It has to be triggered by some type of personal trauma. I have written many times in several posts that I suspect that Mrs. Leifer also suffered some level of abuse in her youth, and that we armchair judges ought to take this into consideration. Nobody wants to hear of it.

Of course, the third character to suffer from severe mental health issues and childhood trauma is Dassi herself. She is certainly suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), as she reports outright on page 222. This comes with all the trimmings. She prefaces the book with an episode of a near suicide attempt and she devotes a chapter to her ordeal with self-harm and sporadic withdrawal from society. I also see some signs of narcissistic behavior and manipulation.

As such, the first 200 pages or so of Dassi’s book is nothing more than an account of the damaging consequences of mental illness. It’s not an indictment on religion. Yet, Dassi is compelled to make it out to be so.

Why is this?

It’s because she cannot dwell in the Sukkah. She needs to kick it on the way out.

After the first 226 pages, the remainder of her book is a very detailed account about what she calls her valiant struggle for “justice”. Her compulsion to ensure that Mrs. Leifer is torn from her home and family and shlepped all the way back to Australia to face “justice” – i.e., punishment and retribution.

How bold and brave and selfless. The call of justice!

However, my function here now is to review the book from a Jewish religious perspective. And there is one major problem.

In Judaism, this is not the definition of justice.

Judaism does not define justice as retribution and revenge. It defines it as fairly adjudicated compensation.

Many, many people like to accurately misquote the Biblical edict (Vayikra 24:20): 

A fracture in place of a fracture, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, as one gives to his fellow so shall be given back to him.

The reason I said it is accurate is because this is exactly what it says.

The reason it is a misquote is because most people who quote this verse are presenting in its literal context. If Abe breaks Ike’s arm, go and break Abe’s arm. If Ike knocks out Jack’s tooth, go and knock out Ike’s tooth.

Astonishingly, Chazal tell us this is not what it means. (Except for malicious homicide). Rashi tells us so. He writes:

So shall be given back to him – Our Rabbis explained that this does not mean to literally wound the perpetrator, but rather a monetary payment. They appraise the injured as if he is a servant with a market value. [The compensation for the physical wound is commensurate to the loss of market value. There may be additional compensation for other losses as well.]

Clearly, Dassi and her ilk do not respect the Rabbis.

Hence, every place in the Torah where it mentions the term justice – צדק, it means fairness in judicial procedure and fairness in compensation.

שמוע בין אחיכם ושפטתם צדק

צדק, צדק תרדוף

בצדק תשפוט עמיתך

מאזני צדק, אבני צדק, וכו'

The implications of these terms include the concept of presumption of innocence – ונקי וצדיק אל תהרג, and the obligation to be dan l’kaf zechus – בצדק תשפט עמיתך, see Rashi. Also, that a judge cannot be harsh to one litigant and benevolent to the other (Sifra).

It is never used with regard to punishment or retribution.

Yet, clearly, Dassi Erlich in her entire Part 2 (page 227 to the end), is not out for compensation. Indeed, she sued both the school and Leifer in court for compensation, but she does not consider this justice. She still needs to see Mrs. Leifer extradited to Australia, tried by a non-Jewish court, and imprisoned before she can claim any “justice”. She uses the word over 50 times (not including Justice Jack Rush or Ministry of Justice) in her book even after the Jack Rush court case.

She is not looking for compensation. She is looking for blood. We Jews do not call this justice. We call it revenge. Something that is forbidden in our Torah.

It is also a tale of religious intolerance. Needless to say, there is virtually nothing at all in the Part 2 of the book that has to do with the Adass School or community or the Jewish faith, save for her persecution prosecution of them. She makes it clear that she wants nothing more to do with the Sukka, and she needs to make sure to give it a good kick.

She devotes a lot of text to pompously malign the Adass community in the last chapter, not only for sins they did not commit, but with a total indifference to the fact that we define “justice” differently and play by different rules. 

It does not seem like she respects some of the aspects of justice that I noted, specifically presumption of innocence or to be dan l'kaf zechus. She may know for certain what happened but she has absolutely no regard for the fact that everyone else, including everyone at the Adass, do not. I may elaborate on this in an upcoming post.

We can now move on to the third perspective which I called the Pragmatic Viewpoint. What is the value of this book? What does it accomplish? Is it good for the Jews or bad for the Jews?

If it isn’t obvious, I will have to leave all of you guessing until the next post on this topic.

Stay tuned for more…

Delicacies from Yechezkel’s Shabbos Table – A Travesty of Justice (Kedoshim 5784)

 

 

לא תעשו עול במשפט; לא תשא פני דל; ולא תהדר פני גדול; בצדק תשפט עמיתך: – ויקרא י"ט, ט"ו

 

Do not do a travesty of justice; do not favor a poor litigant; do not venerate a prominent litigant; with righteousness judge your comrade.

 

In this single pasuk, there are four cautionary commands. Who is on the receiving end of these commands?

Since all four are grouped in this pasuk, it is a fair assumption that all four cautions are being told to the same subject – one who sits in judgement. After all, a judge is in the best place to perform a travesty of justice and to play favorites and distort the law. Most readers would take this for granted.

Sure enough, Rashi certainly takes this route. He explains the first segment as a declaration that a judge who corrupts the judgement is called all kinds of unsavory names. He explains the other three segments along those lines and tells us why even a straightforward judge may rationalize bending the law.

But, do we notice something that makes the opening segment stand out from the ensuing ones? Hint – it is only evident in the original Hebrew.

Yes, that’s right. The first segment is addressed to multiple people in the plural, whereas the following segments are only mentioned in the singular.

Rashi doesn’t seem to be bothered by this. Indeed, we can all easily dismiss it by saying that since standard litigation involves a panel of three judges, this is to be expected. Of course, this then begs the question as to why are all the ensuing segments in this pasuk addressed to a single person?

The Ohr HaChaim Hakadosh is indeed very bothered by this discrepancy. He presents several approaches. Firstly, he wants to say that the first segment of the pasuk is not being addressed to the judges but rather to the baalei din – the litigants. The pasuk is cautioning the litigants not to twist their stories. That is, not to bend or spin their stories with deceptive terminology to present an inaccurate picture. Just tell it like it is.

Once we say this, we can say that the following three parts of the pasuk are not really commands at all but rather cause and effect results. The pasuk is telling the baalei din, “Do not falsify or misrepresent your claims. As a result of being accurate, none of the individual judges will unjustly favor a poor man or unjustly flatter a prominent man. Each judge will be able to judge your comrade (the other litigant) fairly.”

The Ohr HaChaim suggests some other explanations including one that says the subject of the opening segment is indeed the judge. The pasuk is telling a judge not to do a travesty of judgement to mean as follows. There are times when one can perceive that applying the precise letter of the law is not leading to a just outcome. Due to some quirk in circumstances, following the precise law may turn out to be a travesty of justice. In this case, the judge must use his perception to give a proper and just ruling even against the letter of the law.

Ohr HaChaim does not go on to explain the subsequent segments. Actually, they seem to contradict the first one. In the first segment, the pasuk is giving license to the judge to go against the letter of the law for the sake of justice. But in the next segments, we are telling the judge not to distort the case in favor of the poor or powerful in the face of the letter of the law.

I suppose he may understand that the first segment is giving a judge a license to be “creative”, but this license can easily be abused. Hence, in the following clauses, the pasuk is saying that, although for the sake of true justice one can circumvent the written law, nevertheless, subjective rationalizations based on any litigant’s personal circumstances are not acceptable for this license.

If this is what he means, I have two issues. One is simply that I see it as a big “dochek” (stretch) to say the pasuk is allowing bending the law at all and then calling it back. Hard to know where to draw the line. The other issue is that in no way does this explain why the opening segment is plural and the following ones are singular.

I would like to suggest my own approach that, indeed, the entire pasuk is addressing the judge[s] and not the litigants.

Many of us know that for monetary claims, there is a Talmudic procedure for arranging a Beis Din. This is in Sanhedrin 23a and Choshen Mishpat 13:1. This is what is called a Zabl”a Beis Din. Zabl”a (זבל"א), is an acronym for זה בורר לו אחד – this one chooses one [judge].

It means that for a monetary case, each litigant chooses one judge and then the two judges jointly select the third. The Gemara succinctly states the reason for this system:

אמרי במערבא משמיה דרבי זירא, מתוך שזה בורר לו דיין אחד וזה בורר לו דיין אחד ושניהן בוררין להן עוד אחד, יצא הדין לאמיתו:

 

Here is what they say in the West (Israel) in the name of Rabi Zera – Out of one litigant choosing one judge and the other choosing a second and the two judges choosing a third, the resulting judgement is reliably exact.

Rema in Shulchan Aruch elaborates in the name of the Tur:

Each selected judge will do his utmost to present winning points in favor of the one who selected him to the extent that the law allows. The third [neutral] dayan listens to the arguments of the two “biased” judges and is able to rule with precision.

In the ancient Talmudic system, each litigant can choose a judge which we expect to be somewhat biased in his favor and will know all of the Halachos that can win his own case. Of course, this is offset by the capabilities of the opposing chosen dayan. This is what makes this system fair.

In this system, each of the two biased judges functions like a toen Rabbani for the one who chose him. These judges are well versed in Halacha so they know what to argue and should leave no legitimate claim unspoken. The third judge, who was jointly chosen by the other two, will be the tie-breaker and can determine which Halachic arguments are more relevant to this case. The resulting ruling should be fair and just and neither litigant will be able to claim that the court was totally biased against him and the deciding judge did not hear all of his arguments.

Despite this expected bias from the first two judges, Rema stresses that they are limited to the boundaries of the Halacha. They are not empowered to present spurious Halachic arguments or to push for a false ruling when they know the Halacha is not on their side. This is what he means when he writes, “to the extent that the law allows”.

Accordingly, I want to suggest that this is the intent of the pasuk. The pasuk is referring to a Zabl”a Beis Din where one litigant may be a poor person and another may be a prominent person. Each one chose a dayan that favors him.

The pasuk is telling these dayanim not to go overboard. Even if they have a vested interest, they still must function like judges and not like lawyers. So, first it talks to all three dayanim at once and says to them that as a cohesive panel of judges, the three of you must be sure not to corrupt the judgement. Hence,

 לא תעשו עול במשפט

Then it speaks to each of the three judges individually.

If one was chosen by a needy man, he can make whatever Halachic arguments that are applicable, but he cannot invoke non-related circumstances such as the neediness of the baal din. Nor can he rule in his favor for that reason alone.

לא תשא פני דל

Then, the pasuk speaks to the second dayan and tells him the same thing. You can make whatever Halachic arguments that are applicable, but you cannot invoke non-related circumstances such as the prominence of the baal din. Nor can you rule in his favor for that reason alone.

ולא תהדר פני גדול

Lastly, it speaks to the tie-breaker dayan. The pasuk is telling him that just in case any of the other dayanim overstep their bounds and transgress on their restrictions, he is not to swayed and must rule based on nothing but the merits of the case.

בצדק תשפט עמיתך

Although the Zabl"a procedure is still available today, it is very rarely used. A Zabl"a court is not so practical to set up since it involves a lot of time and bickering between the two sides. It can only work when both sides agree to go to Beis Din and this doesn’t usually happen until after the nitva receives a summons from an established Beis Din. Secondly, a makeshift Beis Din is usually not equipped with a mazkir or safra d’dayana or any staff or equipment or even a place to hold court. Thirdly, Zabl”a dayanim generally charge good money for their time and effort and they become prohibitively expensive.  

Today we usually rely on established prearranged Batei Din which have a fixed panel and are selected by one side or the other. Rarely by consensus. This is just one of many shortcomings of today’s Batei Din which I plan to write about in the near future, IYH. Sadly, the institution of Beis Din is not what it used to be or what it needs to be.

השיבה שופטנו כבראשונה ויועצנו כבתחילה והסר ממנו יגון ואנחה