Conflicts between Neighbors in the Jewish Court: The Balance between Justice and Harmony

Even though Jewish scholars have often given clear guidelines for behavior in certain situations, they have sometimes disagreed among themselves as to how much legal interference is called for in matters of social behavior. In this article, I wish to show the tension between the legislative attitude and the approach with less emphasis on legislation. The set of laws dealing with “avoiding aggravations” will be used as an example. The novelty of this set of laws is that they forbid certain actions that may in the future cause harm to another person, his property, or quality of life. The adherents of the legislative approach believe that the more specific social laws of this nature are, the better each individual knows what is expected of him and what he can expect of his neighbors. According to this view, such rules lead to an ideal society in which conflicts are rare. The other perspective, however, believes in instituting fewer legal prescriptions; actions which do not give rise to major casualties are left to the voluntary compliance of both sides, thus creating an atmosphere of harmony. The article follows these two viewpoints through later generations of post-talmudic literature and community laws (takkanot).