When a court reaches a split decision - some say that the defendant is not liable, and others say that he is liable, we follow the majority. This is a positive mitzvah of Scriptural origin, as Exodus 23:2 states: "Follow after the inclination of the majority." When does the above apply? With regard to financial matters and with regard to laws involving questions of what is forbidden and what is permitted, what is impure and what is pure and the like. With regard to capital cases, different laws apply if there is a difference of opinion whether the transgressor should be executed or not. If the majority rule to exonerate him, he is exonerated. If, however, the majority rules that he is guilty, he should not be executed until there are at least two more judges who hold him guilty than who exonerate him. According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that the Torah warned against this saying Ibid.: "Do not follow the majority to do harm." That is to say that if the majority are inclined "to do harm," i.e., to execute the defendant, you should not follow them until there is a significant inclination, and there is a majority of two judges who rule that he is guilty. This is implied by (Ibid.): "to follow the inclination of the majority and influence the judgment." A positive inclination may be made on the basis of a majority of one, a harmful inclination, on the basis of a majority of two. All of these concepts are based on the Oral Tradition.
📊 Majority Rules
Following the majority in judicial decisions is a positive Torah commandment from Exodus 23:2. This applies whether the majority favors liability or exoneration in monetary cases.
The following laws apply when there is a difference of opinion within a court of three judges with regard to a monetary issue: If two say the defendant's claim should be vindicated and one says that he is liable, his claim is vindicated. If two say that he is liable and one says his claim should be vindicated, he is held liable. If one says that his claim should be vindicated and one says he is liable, or two say that his claim should be vindicated or that he is liable and the third judge says: "I do not know," we add another two judges. Thus five judges debate the matter. If three say the defendant's claim should be vindicated and two say that he is liable, his claim is vindicated. If three say that he is liable and two say his claim should be vindicated, he is held liable. If two say that his claim should be vindicated and two say he is liable, and the fifth judge says: "I do not know," we add another two judges. If, however, four say his claim should be vindicated or that he is liable and one says: "I don't know," or three say his claim should be vindicated and one says that he is liable, and the fifth says: "I don't know," we follow the majority. This applies whether the judge who says: "I don't know" is the same who said "I don't know" at the outset or another individual. If, in this situation as well, the opinions are evenly balanced and one says: "I don't know," or in any situation that there is a doubt, we continue to add two more judges until we reach 71 judges. If, after reaching 71, the issue is still unresolved, i.e., 35 hold him liable, and 35 wish to vindicate his claim and one says: "I don't know," they debate the matter until the judge who has not made up his mind sides with one of the opinions and thus there will be 36 who vindicate him or 36 who hold him liable. If neither that judge or another changes his opinion, the matter remains unresolved and the money is allowed to remain in the possession of its owner.
⚖️ 2 vs 1
In a court of three, a two-to-one majority decides the case — whether for liability or exoneration. If all three disagree with each other on different grounds, two more judges are added until a majority is reached.
Whenever a judge says: "I don't know," he is not required to explain the rationale for his statements and explain the reason why he is in doubt. In contrast, a judge who rules that a litigant's claim is vindicated must state why he vindicates the claim, or if he holds him liable, he must state why he holds him liable.
🤔 Abstention Rules
A judge who says 'I don't know' is not required to explain his doubt. But a judge who rules for one side must explain his reasoning. The 'I don't know' judge counts toward the quorum but not toward the majority.
6/7
🎓 Key Principles
Chapter 8
📜
Majority Rule is a Torah Commandment Following the majority is not merely a practical convention — it is a positive commandment from the Torah. This elevates democratic judicial process to a level of religious obligation.
🔢
A Two-Vote Majority Suffices Even in a court of only three judges, a majority of two is sufficient and binding. This ensures that small courts can function effectively without requiring unanimity.
🗣️
Judges Must Explain Rulings, Not Doubts A judge who rules on a case owes the parties an explanation. A judge who abstains with 'I don't know' does not. This asymmetry reflects that certainty carries the burden of justification.
🔄
Deadlock Requires Expansion When three judges each take a different position with no majority, the court must expand by adding two judges at a time until a clear majority emerges — ensuring every case reaches resolution.