When all the judges begin by arguing for guilt, this indicates that the good within the accused is so deeply concealed that the punishment cannot bring him atonement. But when some of the judges argue in his favor and seek to establish his merit, the good within him becomes revealed, and the punishment can then bring atonement.
The Rambam writes in Hilchos Sanhedrin, chapter 9:
“If, in a capital case, all the members of the Sanhedrin begin by declaring the accused guilty, he is exempt, until some of the judges argue in his favor, seeking to establish his merit, and the judges who find him guilty subsequently constitute the majority. He may then be executed.”
The wording of the Rambam indicates that the deficiency is not in the Sanhedrin itself, as other commentators explain. Indeed, it is difficult to say that every member of the Sanhedrin approached the case incorrectly. Rather, although their judgment is valid, it cannot actually be carried out.
For this reason, the Rambam does not say, “They acquit him.” Instead, he says that the accused remains exempt “until some of the judges argue in his favor…and he may then be executed.” Through the presence of some judges who argue in his favor, the court’s judgment can be implemented.
The explanation is as follows:
It is well known that the punishments of the Torah serve as atonement. This is reflected in the explanation of the Kesef Mishneh concerning the law that when a person was executed on the basis of testimony, and the witnesses were afterward exposed as conspiring witnesses, those witnesses are not executed. Their sin is too great to bear, and even death cannot bring them atonement.
Accordingly, when none of the members of the court are able to find any merit in the accused, this demonstrates that his sin is too great to bear. The punishment of death would therefore be unable to bring him atonement, and he is not executed.
It may be added that the Rambam’s wording implies that the court’s ruling is correct, but that in practice the accused cannot be executed. According to the above explanation, however, since his sin is too great to bear, it would seem that the ruling itself is not correct.
The explanation is that “a Jew, although he has sinned, remains a Jew.” In his true inner will, every Jew desires to fulfill all the mitzvos and distance himself from transgression. At times, however, this desire is concealed to the utmost degree.
Thus, when all the judges begin by arguing for guilt, this indicates that the good within him is so deeply concealed that the punishment cannot bring him atonement. This is not a deficiency in the court, for “a judge can judge only according to what his eyes see.” The judges are therefore unable to perceive the good that lies hidden within him.
When, however, some of the judges argue in his favor and seek to establish his merit, the good within him becomes revealed. The punishment can then bring him atonement.
The practical lesson is that the Torah of truth rules that it is possible to find merit in every Jew, because every Jew possesses a G‑dly soul. It is necessary only to reveal it by judging him favorably and by telling him that within him is a Divine spark that desires to fulfill all the mitzvos.
This is especially true in our generation. Although “I am asleep,” nevertheless, “my heart is awake”—and this is particularly so when the King is in the field.