When Compromise Faces Principle

Compromise: a concession to something derogatory or prejudicial. [Britannica]

Most dictionaries define compromise as a meeting of interests between two parties. One demands $1,000; the other won’t give more than $100. Eventually, they settle on $500 and presumably they all walk away happy.

But then there are compromises of principle. One is under pressure to do something bad and ends up succumbing although not totally. And that compromise is perhaps even more damaging because it blurs if not denies the line between good and evil.

In this week’s Torah portion, Vayeishev, some of the protagonists back down from principle with disastrous results.

Take Jacob: The patriarch insists on openly making Joseph the favorite. He is amused by Joseph’s strident behavior and provocative dreams. The brothers watch in envy and hate as Jacob gives Rachel’s son a multi-colored coat. Soon, they have murder on their mind.

Reuven and Judah decide to abandon principle and fail to save Joseph. They stop the other brothers from killing the 17-year-old. But Reuven tells the brothers to throw Joseph in a pit full of snakes. Later, Judah proposes selling him into slavery. To top it off, they engineer a coverup to convince Jacob that his favorite was killed by a wild animal.

The Torah and sages don’t support a compromise of principles. They point to a judge who abandons justice for compromise just so he could avoid issuing a decision.

Rabbi Eliezer the son of Rabbi Yossi HaGalili says, “It is forbidden [for a judge] to compromise. And any judge who arbitrates a compromise is a sinner. And anyone who praises [a judge] who arbitrates a compromise is a blasphemer. On this, it is written, ‘One who praises a compromiser has blasphemed G-d.’ Rather, let justice pierce the mountain.” [Talmud Sanhedrin 6b]

Moses advocated justice while his brother promoted compromise. Aaron allowed the Jews to build a golden calf in the desert to avoid being killed by the mob. His argument was that his death would prevent any chance of repentance. “Better they make a calf and possibly there will be a remedy through repentance,” he said.

The biggest danger of compromise is that you concede on everything as long as you can tell yourself you avoided a worse deal. You shun principle, avoid red lines and are unwilling to fight for anything other than your personal interests.

And then there are those who refuse compromise on principle regardless of the cost.

In 1924, the new Soviet Union was consolidating its power and ratified its constitution. Josef Stalin succeeded the late Vladimir Lenin. Stalin’s target was the Jews. He was determined to destroy Judaism and force its three million adherents to abandon G-d and Torah.

Rabbi Yosef Yitzhak Schneerson was ready to confront the despot. The 44-year-old, the sixth rebbe of the Lubavitch hasidic movement, summoned nine of his disciples. He urged them to fight “till the last drop of blood” to save Jews and Judaism. The mission would be dangerous and could lead to long imprisonment or even death. They were assigned to establish Jewish schools, synagogues, ritual baths, publish books, conduct circumcisions, activities that would allow Jews to observe their faith — even if in secret.

The odds faced by this group were overwhelming. The Soviet secret police made stamping out Jewish observance a priority, helped by thousands of renegade Jews with jobs in the regime. Every Jew who entered an underground synagogue or school could be an informer.

Over the next 15 years, Rabbi Schneerson’s network established 600 Jewish schools throughout the Soviet Union. The authorities would find a school, arrest the teacher and disperse the students. Soon, another school would take its place.

Their fight against Goliath made the young men stronger and bolder. Simon Yakabashvili was sent to Georgia to maintain the Jewish faith in face of the feared secret police, formally the People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs, known by its acronym NKVD. When the NKVD destroyed dozens of ritual baths, Yakabashvili forged a letter from the service that ordered the restoration of two such facilities within 24 hours. The local office obeyed and did not discover the forgery for months.

Then, there is another view of compromise, adopted by politicians who spend a career denying principle in the name of career. One politician who transformed compromise into a sacred doctrine was Binyamin Netanyahu. Throughout his career, he would espouse ideals and then betray them.

In June 2001, Netanyahu, no longer Israeli prime minister, faced Jewish critics in the Binyamin community of Ofra. Why, one asked, did Netanyahu agree in 1997 to give up 80 percent of Hebron, the city of patriarchs, after insisting he would never do so?

Netanyahu agreed that his decision was painful but claimed that he had saved Israel from greater demands by the United States and the Palestinian Authority. To be on the safe side, he quoted his father, Ben Zion, known as a rightwing hardliner.

“This is the alternative that is on the agenda,” the senior Netanyahu was quoted as saying. “You gave two percent and with that you stopped this withdrawal, instead of 100 percent. The trick is not to break. The trick is to be there and pay a small price.” [Code Netanyahu. Mazel Mualem. Page 209. Kinneret Zmora-Bitan. 2022]

The compromises by Jacob and his sons proved catastrophic. Joseph went missing for 23 years, which tore the family apart. Jacob went into seclusion. Reuben and Yehuda lost their authority with the other brothers who would have listened to any admonishment not to harm Joseph.

But to avoid compromise, you must stay honest. You must be devoted to G-d at any cost. The disciples of Rabbi Schneerson did not fare well. Most were arrested and sent to the Gulag. Others were tortured and killed.

But their sacrifice was not in vain. Judaism survived 70 years of communist rule. The vast Russian Jewish community in Israel today is proof of that. They are free to celebrate the wreckage of a communist empire with 30,000 nuclear weapons that should have lasted forever.

In the end, principle always overcomes compromise.