Q&A: Deciding Sanhedrin Rulings by Majority
Deciding Sanhedrin Rulings by Majority
Question
Hello Rabbi,
First of all, thank you for a wonderful, deep, and enlightening site. I’ve learned a lot from you.
Second, I have a few questions on the topic of “how to decide”:
If I understood correctly, you present the following distinction:
When there is a legal dispute and the goal is to investigate the truth, one should decide according to the majority of wisdom (heads > feet).
When there is a value-based/governmental dispute and the goal is not investigating the truth but representing the majority view (and perhaps also domestic peace as a byproduct) — one should decide according to the majority of votes cast in a certain direction (feet > heads).
- Is it agreed in Jewish law that this is how one should act?
If so, why did a Heavenly Voice come down and decide that the Jewish law follows the House of Hillel? Why didn’t the Heavenly Voice decide that in legal issues one should follow those who are sharper, while in value-based/governmental issues one should follow the majority of votes?
2. Did the Sanhedrin deal equally with both legal issues (civil and criminal) and value-based decisions regarding the management of daily life and setting priorities?
3. In the area of civil law, would the Sanhedrin decide according to the rule of “two people holding a garment” when there is no other evidence at all?
4. I’m also interested in your personal view on the matter. What would you do regarding the question of decision-making in place of the Heavenly Voice that came down from heaven?
Thank you,
Raviv
Answer
1. It is not agreed in Jewish law that this is how one should act. On the contrary, it is commonly accepted that even in Jewish law we count feet, but there are views that do not.
As for the ruling following the House of Hillel, that is what the Talmud explains there: since the House of Hillel stated the words of the House of Shammai before their own, they were right even though they were less sharp, and therefore the Jewish law follows them.
2. In principle, the Sanhedrin was not supposed to deal with this, but when there was no king, the authority passed to them.
3. I didn’t understand the question. Jewish law says that in cases like “two people holding a garment,” they divide it. Are you asking whether the Sanhedrin ruled according to Jewish law?
4. I didn’t understand the question.
Discussion on Answer
1. No. There are such approaches in Jewish law. See, for example, Sefer HaChinukh on the commandment “to incline after the majority.”
3. There are many rules. To get to know the topic, you’ll have to study it. See Tosafot on Bava Metzia 2a and the passages it refers to there in Bava Metzia and in chapter 3 of Bava Batra.
4. If the gap in wisdom is clear, then in my opinion it is proper to follow wisdom. That has nothing to do with the Heavenly Voice, because it spoke only about the dispute between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel, and the Talmud there explains this specifically.
I’ll ask follow-up questions by the numbered points:
1. If it is not agreed in Jewish law that this is how one should act (that is, in a legal dispute according to the majority of wisdom, and in a value-based dispute according to the majority of people), then where does this distinction come from? Is this your distinction?
3. Is there another rule besides “two people holding a garment” in a case of a dispute over property, or is that the only rule (splitting 50-50 the part that is under dispute)? And what happens when there are more than two and there is no evidence — does each one get the proportional share?
4. Suppose it were in your hands to decide, in value terms and in practice, on the question of how to decide — do you think it is more correct to rule according to the distinction you presented, or instead across the board according to the House of Hillel as the Heavenly Voice decided?
Thank you