출애굽기 23:2의 주석

לא תהיה אחרי רבים לרעת THOU SHALT NOT FOLLOW THE MANY FOR EVIL — There are Halachic interpretations of this verse given by the Sages of Israel but the wording of the text does not fit in well with them. They derive from here that we must not decide a person’s guilt by a preponderance of one judge. And the end of the verse they explained thus: אחרי רבים להטות — but if the judges who declare the defendant guilty are two more than those who declare him innocent, then decide the matter as they declare — that he is guilty (Sanhedrin 2a). — The verse, they point out, speaks of capital cases. — The middle passage לא תענה על רב, they explained as though it were written על רַב, “thou shalt not speak against the chief of the judges, meaning that one should not give an opinion different from that given by the מופלא of the court (the most eminent among the judges, because this is disrespectful to the Presiding-judge). In consequence of this rule we begin to take the view of those in the side-benches first — we ask the youngest judges to express their opinion first (so that they may not be able to vote against the view expressed by the מופלא). Therefore the exegesis of the verse according to the words of our Rabbis is as follows: “thou shalt not follow a bare majority for evil” — to sentence a man to death on account of the one judge by whom those who condemn him are more in number than those who acquit him; “and thou shalt not speak against the chief inclining away” from his opinion. — They explained this latter phrase thus, because the word which is usually written רִיב is here written without and therefore may be read, אחרי רבים להטות — ;רַב, there is, however, a majority to whose view thou must incline. When is this the case? When there are two who preponderate amongst those who vote for condemnation over and above those who vote for acquittal. For from what is implied in, “thou shalt not follow a bare majority for evil”, I may infer: but thou shall follow it for good. Hence they (the Rabbis) said (i. e. they established the general rule): In capital cases we may decide by a majority of one for acquittal, but only by a majority of at least two to condemn. Onkelos translates the second phrase by: Do not refrain from teaching when you are being asked your opinion in a legal matter. The Hebrew text is to be explained according to the Targum as follows: לא תענה על רב לנטת If you are being asked your opinion in a legal matter do not give your answer just to incline to one particular side and so to withdraw yourself from the dispute, but decide the matter as truth requires. Such are the expositions that have been offered of this verse.

לא תהיה אחרי רבים לרעות, as the tie-breaking vote in a trial involving capital punishment. One cannot declare someone guilty of the death penalty on the basis of a solitary judge. A majority of one would be equivalent to a conviction by a single judge.

לא תהיה אחרי רבים לרעות, "Do not follow a multitude to do evil;" Our sages have offered a multitude of explanations on this verse none of which appear to address the plain meaning of the verse. I believe we need to understand this verse in terms of Numbers 35,24 and 25 ושפטו העדה…והצילו העדה. Our sages (Sanhedrin 4) comment there that when the court is to decide in matters which carry the death penalty there have to be a minimum of 23 judges in order that there could be a quorum (10) which indicts and a quorum which (may) exonerate. The extra number is designed to enable a majority to be present at all times. On folio 17 of the same tractate we are told that should all the judges indict unanimously the accused goes free.

לא תהיה אחרי רבים לרעות, if, in your opinion, the majority are about to commit an error in judgment, do not remain silent because they are the majority, but state your view. This applies even if you know beforehand that they will not accept your viewpoint but that of the majority.

לא תענה על ריב, “do not respond to a grievance, etc.” The Torah speaks of a grievance that you are asked to get involved in as one of the arbiters, with the understanding that a majority opinion would be decisive. You must voice your opinion regardless of being outvoted. Some commentators understand the verse to mean that one must not decide such matters alone, but in a quorum in which the majority opinion is accepted.

לא תהיה אחרי רבים לרעות, “do not be a follower of the majority for evil;” the plain meaning of these words is that even if you see a vast majority of people acting in a forbidden manner, do not make the fact that they constitute the norm an excuse to follow in their footsteps.
Our sages (Sanhedrin 20) explain the wording to mean that a majority of only a single vote in matters involving capital punishment is not sufficient to convict the accused. The meaning of the word לרעות, which is in the plural,- and a reference to the people voting “guilty”- is that such a verdict must be arrived at by a majority of at least two votes. However, a majority of one is sufficient to exonerate an accused. This is the meaning of the words following, i.e. אחרי רבים להטות.

And let the collar hang from the necks of the majority. Rashi means that you should not say: “What difference will it make if I judge the case truthfully? They are the majority and I am one person, and they will not heed me.” Rather, you should do your duty, “and let the collar. . .”

(Exodus 23:2) "You shall not incline (judgment), after many for evil": The implication is that you do not rule with them (beth-din) for evil, but you do rule with them for good. How so? If twelve (of the twenty-three judges) acquit and eleven incriminate, he is acquitted. If thirteen incriminate and ten acquit, he is incriminated. __ But perhaps if eleven acquit and twelve incriminate he is incriminated? It is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "Do not speak (solitarily) in a quarrel" — Scripture states: Kill by witnesses; kill by incliners — Just as witnesses, (a minimum of) two, so, incliners, two (and not one). If eleven acquitted and eleven incriminated, and one said I do not know, another is to be added — an exhortation to the judge to incline (by one) only for acquittal. Thus "Do not speak (solitarily) in a quarrel."

V. 2. לא תהי׳ אחרי רבים לרעות. Schwerlich kann hier רעות im Sinne des moralisch Schlechten verstanden werden. Das ganze Gesetz gibt dem Gerichte Vorschriften, und eigentümlich wäre es, wenn dem Gerichte als solchem noch besonders verboten würde, nichts Schlechtes zu tun. Dazu kommt, dass ja die רבים, die Majorität, wie aus dem Schlusssatz erhellt, selbst das Gericht repräsentiert und deren Ausspruch als das Gerichtsurteil zu gelten hat. Will man es als Vorschrift für die Meinungsäußerung eines einzelnen Mitgliedes im Gerichtskollegium verstehen, so hätte eine solche Vorschrift noch weniger Sinn. Nicht nur לרעות, wenn die Majorität eine offenbare Schlechtigkeit begehen will, überhaupt, selbst in zweifelhaften Fällen, wo die Meinungen im Kollegium über das, was "Recht" ist, geteilt sind, darf ja kein Mitglied etwas anderes als seine eigene Ansicht der Sache äußern, mag diese mit der Ansicht der andern übereinstimmen oder von allen divergieren, wie dies noch im Verfolge der Vorschrift hervortreten wird. Offenbar vielmehr ist hier das רעות in dem Sinne wie להרע או להטיב (Wajikra 5, 4), נשבע להרע ולא ימיר (Ps. 15,4), in dem Sinne des Schadens, des Nachteils, des Unglücks zu verstehen, wie denn ja auch gerade רעות eben so oft als Leiden, Unglück, wie als Schlechtigkeiten vorkommt, und sind darunter, wie die Überlieferung (Sanhedrin 2 a) lehrt, Verurteilungen zu Todesstrafen verstanden, die nicht nach einfacher Majorität erfolgen sollen. Während zur Freisprechung die Majorität von einer Stimme genügt, ist zur Verurteilung eine Majorität von mindestens zweien erforderlich.

ולא תענה על ריב, “and do not ignore the majority view seeing you consider yourself as smarter than your colleagues, when this would result in perverting justice;”

But I think that if one wishes to explain the verse so that every thing should fit in properly, its exegesis must be as follows: לא תהיה אחרי רבים לרעת, If you see wicked men wresting judgment do not say: since they are many I will incline after them;

ולא תענה על ריב, when your colleagues the other judges ask your opinion,

ולא תענה על (דברי) ריב לנטות אחרי רבימ להטות , contributing thereby to pervert justice. This rule applies even if because of your joining the majority the accused will be found innocent and saved from execution.

ולא תענה על רב, “and do not respond to a grievance, etc.” this is a warning to the judge not to argue on behalf of any of the litigants. It includes a warning to all other non-litigants present not to argue on behalf of either of the litigants. Only the actual litigant is allowed to present arguments on his own behalf. The claimant presents his arguments first and the accused replies to his arguments. Nobody else intervenes in a litigation to which he is not a direct party (Baba Kama 46). Sanhedrin 36 adds the comment that seeing the word for litigation, strife, ריב is spelled defectively, without the letter י so that it could also be read rav, i.e. a scholar, we derive from this that the customary courtesies of someone having to stand in front of a scholar, his Rabbi, etc., are dispensed with when both the Rabbi and the student are facing each other as litigants. The student does not have to display any deference for his opposite number. [Rabbi Chavell interprets our author to mean that junior members of the tribunal must not challenge a ruling made by senior members after it has been made. Ed.]

Our verse intends to remove two obstacles which may mislead a scholar when he ponders the meaning of this ruling. 1) When a judge sits in a collegium of judges and he notices that all his colleagues have made up their minds that the accused is guilty, whereas he feels that the accused is innocent, he may say to himself that by voting according to his conscience the accused will be executed seeing there are already two quorums, one which votes "guilty" and one which could vote "innocent;" this judge may say to himself that if he too votes "guilty" the accused would be freed seeing the guilty vote would be unanimous, the result he has been arguing for. He will justify his behaviour by recalling the dictum of the sages that when faced by a majority one must not insist on one's own opinion. The Torah instructs such a judge not to apply this dictum when voting to indict someone. One must only vote one's own conscience even if the result of such a vote does not correspond to one's wishes or convictions. The Torah uses the word לרעות advisedly, telling such a judge he would do something evil by voting with the majority in order to thwart their purpose. Such a judge is to remember that in the final analysis G'd is the judge; if G'd instructed the judges to let the accused go free in the event they agree unanimously that he is guilty, this does not give the dissenting judge the right to play G'd, i.e. to be the final arbiter of the fate of the accused.

ולא תענה על רב לנטת. Sollte hier unter ריב die zu entscheidende Prozesssache verstanden sein, so wäre dieser Begriff hier durch einen Ausdruck bezeichnet, der, zumal bei einem so bedeutsamen Gesetze, viel zu beschränkt, nur einer Kategorie entspräche. Unter ריב könnte nämlich nur der Zivilprozess verstanden werden, in welchem sich zwei Parteien gegenüber stehen, während beim Kriminalprozess nach jüdischem Begriffe nur eine Partei, der Angeklagte, vor dem Gerichte steht, dessen Ankläger die bei der Sache ganz unbeteiligten Zeugen sind. Es scheint daher ריב nur in der Bedeutung wie דברי ריבות בשעריך (Dewarim 17,8) zu nehmen sein, wo es den Meinungsstreit im Gerichte bedeutet; und ענה ist die Meinungsäußerung, die Abstimmung. נטה heißt: Abweichen von dem, was man als Recht erkannt hat. Sollte es nun heißen: gib keine von deiner Rechtsüberzeugung abweichende Stimme ab, so würde es heißen: לא .לא תטה לענות תענה לנטות sagt vielmehr: stimme nicht so ab, dass von der eigenen Überzeugung abgewichen werde. Der Sinn des Gesetzes ist demnach: wenn die Ansichten über eine Sache im Gerichte geteilt sind und das Urteil durch Abstimmung geschöpft werden soll, so soll die Abstimmung in einer Weise geschehen, dass keiner veranlasst werde, in der Stimmabgabe von seiner eigenen Meinung abzugehen. Die Überlieferung lehrt: דיני נפשות מתחילין מן הצד, dass man die Abstimmung über Kapitalfragen (über Todesstrafen und מלקות) von den jüngern Mitgliedern des Kollegiums anfange; würde man mit dem ältesten, autoritätsvollsten beginnen, so könnten die jüngeren bei so ernsten Fragen ihm zu widersprechen Anstand nehmen und nicht nach ihrer Überzeugung abstimmen. Geraten wird immer, auch bei Abstimmungen in zivilgerichtlichen Sachen mit den jüngeren zu beginnen. Diese Halacha wird auf unseren Text zurückgeführt und wird bemerkt, dass darauf auch die, sonst nicht wieder vorkommende mangelhafte Schreibung des Wortes ריב hinweise, in welchem das י fehlt und das daher auch als רַב gelesen werden könne: לא תענה על רב ,"lasse die Stimmabgabe des Ältesten nicht vorangehen." Wir haben gesehen, wie das לא תענה על רַב nichts als die unmittelbar praktische Befolgung des לא תענה על ריב לנטות ist. (Sanhedrin 36 a, siehe נמוקי יוסף das.)

אחרי רבים להטות, “but make certain that the verdict is based on a majority of the judges’ opinions.”

ולא תענה על רב לנטת וגו׳, and if the defendant asks you about that judgment do not give him as a reply concerning the dispute any statement which will incline after that majority, thereby wresting judgment from the truth, but pronounce the decision just as it should be and let the collar hang around the neck of the majority (i. e. if you be outvoted let them bear the responsibility).

לנטות אחרי רבים, do not be influenced by the fact that the majority thinks differently from you. Assuming that in a trial 10 of the 23 judges had expressed the view that the accused was innocent whereas eleven had expressed the view that the accused was guilty,

There is still a second obstacle that a judge may face in such situations. Assume that the judge in question is convinced of the guilt of the accused. He is aware that his opinion is shared by all his colleagues. The judge in question realises that if he votes his conscience, i.e. "guilty," this will make the vote unanimous and result in the accused (whom he thinks of as guilty) going free. In order to prevent this from happening our judge resolves to vote "innocent" in order to ensure that the accused will be convicted. By doing so our judge convinces himself that he merely ensures that the majority will prevail, a laudatory objective. However, morally speaking, this too is a way in which a single judge imposes the outcome of a trial on the majority. To prevent this from happening the Torah wrote לא תענה על ריב לנטות אחרי רבים, "neither shall you vote in a dispute so as to ensure the vote will be based on a majority (as opposed to unanimity)." The Torah explained the reason for this legislation as being להטות, i.e. that the individual judge in question attempts to pervert the outcome of the proceedings by not voting his conscience.

אחרי רבים להטות ist das Motiv des Vorangehenden. Absolut heißt es: nach der Majorität sind schließlich alle Ansichten zu neigen, d. h.: wenn einmal abgestimmt ist, so wird das Majoritätsvotum Gesetz und Gerichtsurteil, und es hat die dissentierende Minorität sich mit ihrer Ansicht dem Majoritätsvotum unterzuordnen. Diese Bestimmung, dass das Urteil auf der Ansicht einer Majorität und nicht einer Minorität beruhen soll, ist auch das Motiv der vorangehend gebotenen Vorsicht in der Abstimmungsordnung und ist daher durch den Akzent eng mit לא תענה וגו׳ verbunden. Würde man in der Abstimmung mit dem autoritätsvollen Ältesten beginnen, so würden leicht die Jüngeren aus Hochachtung, gegen ihre Meinung, ihm beistimmen, das schließliche Urteil könnte dann in Wirklichkeit nur von der Ansicht dieses Einzigen getragen sein und soll doch rein auf der Ansicht der Majorität beruhen. לא תענה על ריב לנטות, weil, oder damit: אחרי רבים להטות.

להטות, if you were to cast your vote with the majority there would then be a majority of 2 out of a total of 23 voting guilty, and that decision would have been arrived at by your single vote. You are not allowed to salvage your conscience by voting with the majority unless this represented your absolute conviction. You must explain the reason for your vote. Unless there is a majority of two votes in favour of guilty no one can be convicted of the death penalty.

Dieser Kanon אחרי רבים להטות, nach welchem die Minoritätsansicht in die der Majorität völlig aufgeht und das Majoritätsvotum das Gerichtsvotum wird, findet als "Majoritätsregel" אזלינן בתר רובא, in den verschiedensten Gebieten des Gesetzes eine fruchtbare Anwendung. Wie die Gerichtsmajorität für das ist, so trägt für die gesetzliche Beurteilung der verschiedensten Beziehungen das Ganze den Charakter der Mehrzahl seiner Glieder, die Eigentümlichkeit der Minderheit verschwindet im ganzen, und für jedes vorkommende einzelne gilt die Präsumtion, dass es den Charakter der Mehrzahl habe; und zwar ist nicht nur, wie hier bei סנהדרין, eine in Übersichtlichkeit vorliegende Mehrzahl. רובא דאיתא קמן, sondern auch eine nur erfahrungsmäßig vorauszusetzende Mehrheit, רובא דליתא קמן, maßgebend (Chulin 11 a). Wie tief dieser Kanon in der Natur des menschlichen Erkenntnisvermögens begründet ist, haben wir bereits im חורב (Kapitel 71) zu entwickeln versucht.