What were those roots of destruction? In his Eichah, Moshe Rebbeinu specifies three problematic qualities. B’nei Yisroel were difficult, burdensome, and quarrelsome. Rashi explains that the first characteristic, being difficult, refers to Yisroel’s penchant for pursuing and prolonging law suits. In fact, it was the sheer number of dinei Torah (law suits) that Moshe Rebbeinu had to adjudicate which prompted Yisro, his father-in-law, to suggest that Moshe establish a tiered court system. In the pasukim that follow his Eichah lament, Moshe Rebbeinu describes how he established that system.

Is going to court so bad that it deserves to be listed as one of the three roots of the destruction of Yerushalayim? The answer to that question is an emphatic ‘Yes, it is.’ To the extent that going to court indicates an inability to see beyond the letter of the law, to shun compromise, to crave victory, and to promote dissension, it does indeed deserve that dubious distinction. A society which suffers from an abundance of litigation, stemming from a general rejection of the benefits of compromise, is a society that harbors the evil character trait of sinas chinam, groundless hatred. And as we all know, Chazal famously blame sinas chinam for destroying and preventing the rebuilding of the Bais HaMikdash.

The destructive power of a contentious desire for strict justice can further be seen in a gemarah in Bava Metziah 30b. Rebbe Yochanan said, “Yerushalayim would not have been destroyed if it had not been that they demanded the enforcement of strict justice and did not have it in their hearts to go beyond the letter of the law.” One can hear loud and clear the echo of Moshe Rebbeinu’s Eichah in these words of Rebbe Yochanan.

Of course, bringing a law suit to court is sometimes necessary. There may be times when a demand for strict justice is the correct approach. Furthermore, often the best way to hammer out a compromise solution to a dispute is to bring the case before the court. According to the S”ma’s (s.k. 6) reading of the Shulchan Aruch in Choshen Mishpat 12:2, it is a mitzvah for the judges to offer and openly promote the avenue of p’shara, compromise, as a means of solving a monetary dispute. Often, with the help of Beis Din serving as an impartial mediator, each party to a dispute can better understand and recognize the validity of the other party’s position. Thus, going to Beis Din commonly leads to a more equitable and more peaceful compromise solution than would otherwise be made without the help of the Beis Din. The point, then, is not to avoid the assistance of Beis Din when that assistance is truly and sincerely needed. Rather, the point is that one must learn the value of compromise and see the greatness of spirit that is found beyond the letter of the law.

Man’s nature is such that these sensitivities do not come automatically. When Yisro suggested to Moshe the idea of establishing a court system, he also stressed the importance of teaching the people the value of going beyond the law. Yisro tells Moshe, “And you will caution them regarding the decrees, and the teachings, and you will make known to them the path in which they shall go and the deeds that they shall do.” (Shemos 18, 20) The gemarah in Bava Kama 99a explains that the words ‘the path in which they shall go’ refer to living in accordance with the letter of the law, and the words ‘the deeds that they shall do’ refer to going beyond what the letter of the law requires.