click here to jump to start of article
  • Torah Reading: Naso
Join Our Newsletter

Get latest articles and videos with Jewish inspiration and insights​

The Jewish Ethicist: Compromised Compromise

The Jewish Ethicist: Compromised Compromise

When is a compromise unfair?


Q. When I recently ordered some documents from a service, they accidentally provided too many, resulting in an inflated charge. When they saw how upset I was, they told me I could have the documents for no charge! Should I offer to pay anyway?

A. As we have frequently mentioned, compromise is an important value in Jewish judgment. But if we carefully examine the source for this idea, we will see that all compromises are not created equal.

The Talmud teaches: "Rebbe Yehoshua ben Korcha says, Compromise is a mitzvah, as it is written (Zecharia 8:16), 'Judge truth and judgment of peace in your gates.' Seemingly when there is judgment there is no peace [no pacification], and when there is peace, there is no judgment. But what is the judgment that encompasses peace as well? This is compromise."

The Shulchan Aruch (authoritative Code of Jewish law) also states that a judge should generally suggest a compromise to the litigants before sitting in judgment.

Surprisingly, there is a sharply dissenting opinion in the Talmud: "Rebbe Eliezer the son of Rebbe Yossi HaGlili says, It's forbidden to compromise, and any judge who arranges a compromise commits a sin!" What is the basis for this opinion?

One explanation is that when a court is too open to compromise, unscrupulous individuals can exploit them. Even a person who has no real case won't fulfill his obligations; instead, he will drag his case to court in the hope that the other side will be browbeaten into an unfair compromise. This is obviously improper. After all, even the halachically accepted opinion which supports compromise only favors a compromise which encompasses both peace and judgment , not one which is made solely to avoid conflict.

Taking this possibility into account, the Shulchan Aruch explicitly states that a person is forbidden to draw out litigation in order to pressure the other side into an unfair compromise. And a litigant who acts this way is required to return the money.

We may summarize as follows: a good compromise is one where the other side concedes that I have a valid point, and they are therefore willing to agree on a settlement. An unfair compromise is one where the other side yields only because of some kind of threat -- the threat of legal action, of lost business, or of aggravation from an angry customer.

From the way you tell the story, it sounds like you were the beneficiary of an unfair compromise. In all likelihood, the supplier waived the entire payment only to avoid enraging a steady customer, not because they viewed this a truly equitable solution. I think you should offer to pay an amount that fairly reflects the benefit you received.

SOURCES: Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 6b, Bava Batra 30b; Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat chapter 12.

Send your queries about ethics in the workplace to

The Jewish Ethicist presents some general principles of Jewish law. For specific questions and direct application, please consult a qualified Rabbi.

The Jewish Ethicist is a joint project of and the Center for Business Ethics, Jerusalem College of Technology. To find out more about business ethics and Jewish values for the workplace, visit the JCT Center for Business Ethics website at

JCT Center For Business Ethics

Copyright © JCT Center for Business Ethics.

July 13, 2002

Give Tzedakah! Help create inspiring
articles, videos and blogs featuring timeless Jewish wisdom.
The opinions expressed in the comment section are the personal views of the commenters. Comments are moderated, so please keep it civil.

Visitor Comments: 2

(2) Cindi Montero, July 16, 2002 12:00 AM

Will Compromise Help Someone Learn From Thier Mistakes?

I can see where someone could get upset when things go wrong in a transaction, even when it’s getting more than your originally asked for, which could cause problems if you only planned for a certain amount of money for that transaction. I have had a similar experience with a local pizza delivery company. Unfortunately, mistakes were made several times when we had placed orders, causing me to speak with the manager about some of the problems. The last time, I was shorted one of the items I ordered. By the time it finally arrived, it was 50 minutes after the original order arrived. The manager, whom I had spoken with 5 times during that 50 minutes, finally said he would send another pizza with it as well. I agreed, as our original pizza was now too cold to enjoy, and because this seemed to be a recurring problem with this company (I live in a foreign country where "fast food" choices are limited). Perhaps the loss of revenue help them learn from their mistakes and prevent future problems, for us as well as others. I can only hope so as this can be very frustrating.

(1) mark breslow, July 15, 2002 12:00 AM

wrong advice

it would appear from the case, that the person did not order the documents. when the provider gave more than asked, it is their mistake and when they offer them free of charge, the company is getting a tangible benefit of a satisfied customer who will spread their name farandwide, rather tahn a company thatis bemoaning the cost of some documents that have already been produced.

Submit Your Comment:

  • Display my name?

  • Your email address is kept private. Our editor needs it in case we have a question about your comment.

  • * required field 2000
Submit Comment