Q&A: A Fortiori Inference at the Beginning of Sanhedrin
A Fortiori Inference at the Beginning of Sanhedrin
Question
In Sanhedrin 3a, Rabbi Yoshiya’s view is cited that deciding by majority is from the Torah only in capital cases (from the verse “to incline after the majority”). He is challenged from a source implying that monetary cases too are decided according to the majority, and the Talmud explains: “He derives it by an a fortiori inference from capital cases: if in capital cases, which are more stringent, the Merciful One said, ‘go after the majority,’ then monetary cases — all the more so.” I tried to arrange this in a table based on what I saw in the Rabbi’s book, but I didn’t understand what the columns are. What I got was: capital cases: stringency-1, majority-1. Monetary cases: stringency-0, majority-0 — unlike the Talmud, where majority is supposed to carry over to monetary cases… What is the right way to understand the factors in this a fortiori inference?
Answer
This is an a fortiori inference based on one datum, like: “Behold, the children of Israel have not listened to me, so how will Pharaoh listen to me, and I am of uncircumcised lips.” And so too with the biblical a fortiori inferences in general. The table describes a Talmudic a fortiori inference, not a biblical one, and it is based on three data points.
In an a fortiori inference based on one datum, the hierarchical relationship is the result of reasoning or of knowledge from some other source (Pharaoh is less obedient than the children of Israel). Then one can infer from the datum in the lighter case (the children of Israel do not listen to Moses) the conclusion regarding the more stringent case (Pharaoh will not listen to him).
In an a fortiori inference based on three data points, two of them are used to create the hierarchical relationship, and then that is applied to the third datum and the conclusion is inferred. That is what the table describes.
The example you brought is of the first type, because the hierarchy between capital cases (the stringent case) and monetary cases (the lighter case) is the result of reasoning, and therefore a table is not relevant here.
Discussion on Answer
What does this have to do with this thread? What are you talking about?
It was just an aside on this whole topic of “to incline after the majority.”
But this a fortiori inference is being applied to a Jewish law, and seemingly one could easily suggest a refutation: what is unique about capital cases? That they involve acquittal and conviction, so Scripture said to incline after the majority; monetary cases, which do not involve acquittal and conviction, perhaps we should not incline according to the majority there — no?
I didn’t understand. You asked what the structure of the a fortiori inference is, and I answered. Now you’re asking why they didn’t refute it? That’s a different question, and I didn’t understand that one either. Why do you think monetary cases do not involve acquittal and liability? Of course they do. On the contrary, in contemporary legal systems it is accepted that in criminal law a high degree of certainty is required, whereas in civil law 51% is enough, because one party’s right is the other party’s obligation.
I also didn’t understand the point about an a fortiori inference regarding a Jewish law. Do you mean a law given to Moses at Sinai? Absolutely not.
The plain meaning in the Torah is the opposite of what the Sages derive.
The first 2 verses, each one splits into 2 parts: the first half of each verse is a personal instruction for everyday life, and the second half of each verse is the instruction when it comes to expression in court.
“You shall not bear a false report” — in its plain sense: don’t ignore lies and filth that you hear around you.
“Do not put your hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness” — don’t lie in testimony in court for the sake of some wicked person.
“You shall not follow the majority to do evil” — don’t go along with the herd when they are doing bad things.
“And you shall not answer in a dispute so as to incline after the majority to pervert” — don’t use in court the excuse that most people think this way, so it’s probably true. There is only one truth, and the majority does not determine it.
“And you shall not favor a poor person in his dispute” — and just as truth is not determined by the majority, so too it is not determined by your personal feelings.