Q&A: The Laws of Majority Derived from "Follow the Majority"
The Laws of Majority Derived from "Follow the Majority"
Question
In BeTzel HaChokhmah, p. 103, it says: “The later authorities discuss at some length the question of how all these different and varied principles can be derived from that same verse, which instructs us to follow the majority of judges in a religious court. Seemingly, these are fundamentally different principles.
Several later authorities explain that the principle of nullification by majority is learned from the laws of majority in a religious court, because Jewish law requires that monetary cases be decided by a panel of three judges. Now, if two judges hold one opinion and the third judge holds a different one, then the majority position that is accepted as the Jewish law ruling was adopted by two judges and not by three. But Jewish law requires that the legal ruling in monetary cases be rendered by three judges. We are therefore forced to conclude that the law of following the majority determines not only that the minority is disregarded, but that it is actually nullified, and therefore it is considered as though it itself holds the majority view, and that is how there are three judges.”
I am really puzzled by this explanation (by the way, what is its source, if you remember?). When a religious court rules on something that was under dispute (one judge holds A and the other two judges hold B), that does not mean that the Jewish law ruling was accepted only by 2! After all, the one is obligated to submit to the opinion of the other judges at the ruling stage, by force of the majority rule. In other words, it is clear that after they have discussed the matter, even if they remain in disagreement, when they come to sign the ruling, the third judge who disagrees also signs with them and accepts the ruling by force of the majority. In other words, even though his theoretical opinion is different, his practical ruling at the end of the deliberation is not different—meaning that the Jewish law ruling was issued by three.
Answer
I didn’t understand the question. You are repeating exactly what I wrote and wondering about what I wrote.
The source is Rabbi Chaim in stencil notes on Bava Kamma 28, and Rabbi Shimon in Sha'arei Yosher, if I remember correctly, at the beginning of Gate 3.
Discussion on Answer
?
What difficulty did you raise? You yourself wrote that if there are two against one, it is considered as though all three ruled together. It is from that very point that we derive the rule that the majority is like the whole and/or nullification by majority.
I didn’t understand. You only brought there the explanation of the later authorities mentioned above for the question, “How do we derive that the majority is like the whole, and nullification by majority, from ‘follow the majority’?”—and I raised a difficulty with that explanation.