Mishpatim: Opinion

There is a very provocative sentence in this weeks parsha

לֹֽא־תִהְיֶ֥ה אַחֲרֵֽי־רַבִּ֖ים לְרָעֹ֑ת וְלֹא־תַעֲנֶ֣ה עַל־רִ֗ב לִנְטֹ֛ת אַחֲרֵ֥י רַבִּ֖ים לְהַטֹּֽת׃

Do not follow a majority to do ill; neither  bear witness in a cause to turn aside after a majority  to pervert justice;

This is   very difficult verse to translate.  The meaning of the words, and the implications of their combination is not simple.  

As a contemporary  American, I would like to believe that the Torah is advising me to buck the crowd, to question the beliefs of the society.  It is telling me that the prevailing assumptions - political,scientific, etc. - should be scrutinized.  And unless those doctrines are carefully analyzed, they will lead to evil, raoth. 

Onkelos, the official translation,  is simultaneously enlightening and obscure: 

לָא תְהֵי בָּתַר סַגִיאִין לְאַבְאָשָׁא וְלָא תִתִּמְנַע מִלְאַלָפָא מָא דִבְעֵינָךְ עַל דִינָא בָּתַר סַגִיאֵי שְׁלַם דִינָא:

Do not follow the many to wickedness, and do not  fail to teach that which in your eyes is judgment;⁽⁵¹⁾ after the majority  you  shall fulfill judgment.

 Rashi seems to come to this approach,     וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר לְיַשְּׁבוֹ עַל אָפְנָיו כִּפְשׁוּטוֹ כָךְ פִּתְרוֹנוֹ: לא תהיה אחרי רבים לרעת. אִם רָאִיתָ רְשָׁעִים מַטִּין מִשְׁפָּט, לֹא תֹאמַר, הוֹאִיל וְרַבִּים הֵם הִנְנִי נוֹטֶה אַחֲרֵיהֶם: , And I say that to have the verse make sense, as it appears, it should be explained as saying: if you see villains perverting justice, do not say, since they are the majority  I would be inclined to agree with them. 

This is the end of the Rashi.  Prior to this Rashi alludes to the treatment of this pasuk in  Sanhedrin  (2a) where it is used to derive that a capital sentence requires more than a simple majority ( rabim), it requires at least one additional vote for conviction  (LeRaoth), but a simple majority will acquit. 

In fact, this verse is used in Bava Metziah (59b), in the famous case of the Tanur shel Akinai, to justify majority rule!

Bava Metzia 59b:5

Rabbi Yehoshua stood on his feet and said: It is written: “It is not in heaven” (Deuteronomy 30:12). The Gemara asks: What is the relevance of the phrase “It is not in heaven” in this context? Rabbi Yirmeya says: Since the Torah was already given at Mount Sinai, we do not regard a Divine Voice, as You already wrote at Mount Sinai, in the Torah: “After a majority to incline” (Exodus 23:2). Since the majority of Rabbis disagreed with Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion, the halakha is not ruled in accordance with his opinion. The Gemara relates: Years after, Rabbi Natan encountered Elijah the prophet and said to him: What did the Holy One, Blessed be He, do at that time, when Rabbi Yehoshua issued his declaration? Elijah said to him: The Holy One, Blessed be He, smiled and said: My children have triumphed over Me; My children have triumphed over Me

בבא מציעא נ״ט ב:ה

עמד רבי יהושע על רגליו ואמר (דברים ל, יב) לא בשמים היא מאי לא בשמים היא אמר רבי ירמיה שכבר נתנה תורה מהר סיני אין אנו משגיחין בבת קול שכבר כתבת בהר סיני בתורה (שמות כג, ב) אחרי רבים להטות אשכחיה רבי נתן לאליהו א"ל מאי עביד קוב"ה בההיא שעתא א"ל קא חייך ואמר נצחוני בני נצחוני בני

 The sages seem to take the opposite meaning from this clause! It is an assertion of power that should be ascribed to the majority. Rashi recognizes this problem, and opens with 

יֵשׁ בְּמִקְרָא זֶה מִדְרְשֵׁי חַכְמֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֲבָל אֵין לְשׁוֹן הַמִּקְרָא מְיֻשָּׁב בָּהֶן עַל אָפְנָיו

There are  interpretations  of this verse given by the Sages of Israel but the wording of the text does not fit in well with them

How can we reconcile these views? Clearly, personal opinion cannot be the rule. The subjective has too many idiosyncratic variables. Consensus and majority are ways to assure the normalcy of a decision.  

But the opinion of the righteous should not be silenced.  It can be the voice of justice. In science, it can be the voice of progress