Parshat Mishpatim - Drasha 5773 Majority Rules and Majority Fools

7/29/2019 Parshat Mishpatim - Drasha 5773 Majority Rules and Majority Fools

1/8

1

Parshat Mishpatim

Rabbi Shaanan Gelman

Drasha

Majority Rules and the Majority Fools

When I was a young boy we had neighbors who were

Catholic and would often make feigned attempts to

engage in religious dialogue. Usually these comments

were couched as a side remark during a larger

conversation, but invariably each exchange would lead

them back to the Church and their beliefs. In a way it

was impressive to me that they felt so strongly about

their religion that they wanted to share it with others,

despite the fact that we were not interested. I imagine

that they saw their Jewish neighbors as the ultimate prize

if only they could win us over. The children were not as

sophisticated as the adults in the home. Once we were

outside playing with their daughter, Karin, when she

posed to me the most unusual question I had ever been

asked. Pop Quiz! she said excitedly, the Devil offers

you a red hot candy in exchange for your soul, what do

you say? Without skipping a beat, and without even

processing my thoughts or convictions, I replied with the


2/8

1

most instinctive and visceral response a Jew with any

modicum of pride and self surety could possibly

manufacture That depends I said, Is the candy he is

offering me Kosher? This answer Karin was unprepared

for, as she ran off to her home, no doubt to consult the

sage advice of her parents.

Why is it that we practice so resolutely without ever

questioning? If one considers the fact that our numbers

are so infinitesimally small in comparison to other faiths

of the world, why have we resolved to continue to

promote our version of the story. Why dont we side with

the majority?

In fact, we usually do ascribe to a majority rules

mentality:

The Torah tells us:

"( : ) "

This question was once posed to the great 18th century

Talmudist and Posek Rav Yonatan Eibschutz, who wasquestioned by a Christian Scholar of his day. Since you

are clearly the minority religion, why dont you abandon

your beliefs based on your principle of


3/8

1

Rav Yonatan responded to the scholar that he did not

understand the principle of " ". He then

proceeded to explain: Lets say for example there are

nine stores which sell kosher meat, properly slaughtered

in accordance with Jewish law, and one store on the

street which sells non-kosher meat, and you find a piece

of meat and are uncertain as to which store it came from.

In such a situation you follow the (majority) and may

assume that it is kosher. But if the piece of meat is

known to have come from the store which sells non-

kosher meats, then there is nothing to talk about, we

dont have to resort to for it is known with absolute

certainty to be treif.

So too us, if we had doubts in our beliefs we would haveto follow the majority but that is not the case, we dont

have doubts, we know that our path is correct, and so we

dont revert to the mode of .1

The problem with this approach is that it sounds like a

bunch of religious dogma I know I am right, sotherefore, I do not feel the need to listen to your opinion!

1 How true is this notion when it comes to peer-pressure in general, and in particular

religious peer-pressure!


4/8

1

There is another way to look at the principle of

as well, which I believe was best summarized by

Mark Twain, who stated:

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority,

it is time to pause and reflect

The Torah Temima, Rav Baruch HaLevi Epstein

elaborates based upon this concept:

" ,

, ,

" , ,

" ..."

That which we follow the majority opinion and say that

the is (as if it doesnt exist) is only

when you have a face to face encounter of different

viewpoints, such as in the Sanhedrin, but when it comes

to views presented in in written form, we do not

follow the 2. And the reason is that when you have a

face to face interaction there is the possibility to hear the

before dismissing it. Whereas, when it comes

2 Similarly, Tosafos (Bava Kama 27b) notes that when you have a by wedont follow the majority,


5/8

1

to the multitude of opinions in the andposkim, one

could suggest that had they actually heard the opinion of

the they may have realized that the minority

viewpoint is actually more logical. Its a lot more difficult

to condemn a person to death in a Sanhedrin than on

paper. This week, the President confirmed that he has no

problem using drone warfare to take out terrorists, but

only a few years ago he lead the charge against water-

boarding. Where does such hypocrisy stem from? Its

based on the fact that when you have to see a person

face to face, it is more difficult to do him harm.

[This approach is adopted by the " " 3 in his

as well seems to be the opinion of the Rambam ( '

). And this is also why sometimes we find the Gemara and

Poskim siding with a minority viewpoint.]

In this novel take on Acharei Rabim Lhatos, we

understand that it is not the majority which is sacred, but

rather the majority in the context of the minority view.

Only once we have weighed all of the possibilities, can we

argue definitively in one direction. The dissident opinion

is crucial in shaping our own philosophy.

3Levi ibn Habib (Zamora, Spain c. 1480 Jerusalem, Palestinec. 1545) was Chief Rabbi ofJerusalem from 1525 until his death.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zamora_(Spain)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spainhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalemhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zamora_(Spain)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spainhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalemhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine


6/8

1

Scott Berkun in his essay entitled Why Smart People

Defend Bad Ideas4 brings this concept to life through an

idea he calls Death by Homogony - he argues that just

because you have many incredibly intelligent people in a

room it doesnt mean that they will be able to collectively

come up with any smart ideas. Many large groups

throughout history have come up with awful and retched

ideas; This is because the masses are influenced by peer

pressure; which is a powerful tool because it works on

our psychology as opposed to our intellect. As social

animals we are so heavily influenced by how the people

around us behave and think that otherwise brilliant

people can be reduced to poor decision makers;

emerging with a skewed reality and often wind up

employing fuzzy logic, dishonesty and a lack of moral

clarity.

And why does this happen? Because there is no balance,

no diversity of opinion, no system in place to check our

values and challenge us to think out of the box.

When a group of like minded individuals group together

to engage in an endeavor, to deal with a problem, or to

4http://scottberkun.com/essays/40-why-smart-people-defend-bad-ideas/
http://scottberkun.com/essays/40-why-smart-people-defend-bad-ideas/http://scottberkun.com/essays/40-why-smart-people-defend-bad-ideas/


7/8

1

build an organization, they cannot do so effectively if

everyone is the same.

Could you imagine if everyone in this community sharedthe exact same philosophy! What if every Jewish child

has to become a lawyer, doctor or accountant, what

would be with the artists and poets, the scientists and

inventors, the plumbers and electricians? Creativity

would be stymied, society would ultimately shut down.

What if we all got together and agreed that Kriyat

haTorah is too long and needs to be shortened, or that 15

minutes of Torah on Shabbos morning is the maximum

amount of Torah allotted per week, or that Shaleshudos

isnt important, or that being faithful to ones spouse or

honesty in business is optional! Yes, the entire

homogenous group might be happy, but we would

become boring and uninspired, dullards. Who wants to

engage in a conversation with someone who shares every

single idea that they do? Where is the growth that

emerges from challenge? What would happen to thepassion or anger, love, and pride, fear and hope; all of the

strong emotions which stem from true diversity?


8/8

1

Acharei Rabim lehatos doesnt mean that we disregard

all of the other viewpoints. And it doesnt mean that the

out-of-the-box thinkers are sidelined and their views

rejected. Rather, it means that the majority view is the

product of and is strengthened by the minority because it

has taken the time to consider all great ideas as part of a

consensus. is achieved because of the (minority)

and not in spite of it.

And this is an important ideal when it comes to building a

community. We dont form policy and vision because 3

or 4 like minded individuals who shared an identical

dream got together and imposed their will on a

community. We dont all have the same posture as to

what a shul should look like and as to what our hashkafashould be. But we do eventually have the responsibility to

mold the different perspectives into one unified vision.

And even if some ideas arent incorporated, it doesnt

mean that they werent a crucial part of the process. Inn

our community everyone belongs, not because their view

is the popular one, but because their view was an

essential building block of the greater vision.

Documents

Parshat Mishpatim - Drasha 5773 Majority Rules and Majority Fools