Q&A: Majority and Proximity
Majority and Proximity
Question
Hello Rabbi,
Why is it that when majority and proximity conflict, the majority takes precedence?
After all, both are forms of decision-making based on statistical probability.
Proximity too is basically a kind of majority—the odds are greater (or at least it increases the likelihood) that the murderer/thief came from the nearby place rather than the distant one.
Why does majority override proximity, and why did the later authorities (Acharonim) assume that majority is clarification, whereas proximity is only a practical rule of conduct?
Answer
You’ve entered into a topic that’s far too broad for this format. The question depends on what kind of majority we’re talking about: one that is not present before us, or one that is present before us. Not all the later authorities (Acharonim) say about every majority that it is clarification.
I also don’t think one can speak here in sweeping terms. Sometimes proximity is clarification, but maybe not always. When there has been a murder and there are two cities near it, I wouldn’t say that the odds are greater that the murderer came from the closer city. Why assume that? So in general proximity is treated as a practical rule of conduct. A majority is usually clarification, although with a majority that is present before us there is a dispute about this. In a case where the majority is clarification, it seems very reasonable that it would override a mere practical rule. But the discussions of majority and proximity also deal with a majority that is present before us (for example in the case of the heifer whose neck is broken). Even so, it seems to me that everyone agrees that majority has some logical force, even if it is not really statistics. I wrote about this at length in my columns on majority.