השווי שנצטוינו לנטות אחר הרוב אם אירעה מחלוקת בין החכמים בדין מכל דיני התורה, וכך ננהג גם בדין הפרטי, כגון בדין שבין ראובן ושמעון דרך משל אם אירעה מחלוקת בין דייני עירם אם שמעון הוא החייב או ראובן, נלך אחר הרוב. והוא אמרו יתעלה אחרי רבים להטות. ובפירוש אמרו (חולין י"א) רובא דאורייתא. וכבר התבארו משפטי מצוה זו והלכותיה בכמה מקומות מסנהדרין.
That is that He commanded us to follow the majority when there is a disagreement among the sages about any of the laws of the Torah. And likewise should we be drawn and directed in a private decision - by way of illustration - between Reuven and Shimon: If there is a disagreement between the judges of their city, whether Shimon or Reuven is liable, we are drawn after the majority. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "after the majority to incline." (Exodus 23:2). And in the explanation (Chullin 11a), they said, "[Judgement according to the] majority is from the Torah." And the regulations of this commandment, its analysis and its clarification have already been explained in [various] places in Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Rebels 1.)
רובא דאיתא קמן כגון ט' חנויות וסנהדרין לא קא מיבעיא לן
The Gemara explains: With regard to a majority that is quantifiable before us, for example, in the case of a piece of meat that was found on the street before ten shops, nine shops selling kosher meat and one shop selling non-kosher meat, one follows the majority and deems that piece kosher. Or when the Sanhedrin adjudicates a case, one follows a majority of the judges in determining the ruling. In these cases, we do not raise the dilemma.
לֹֽא־תִהְיֶ֥ה אַחֲרֵֽי־רַבִּ֖ים לְרָעֹ֑ת וְלֹא־תַעֲנֶ֣ה עַל־רִ֗ב לִנְטֹ֛ת אַחֲרֵ֥י רַבִּ֖ים לְהַטֹּֽת׃
You shall neither side with the mighty to do wrong—you shall not give perverse testimony in a dispute so as to pervert it in favor of the mighty—
בֵּית דִּין שֶׁנֶּחְלְקוּ מִקְצָתָם אוֹמְרִים זַכַּאי וּמִקְצָתָם אוֹמְרִים חַיָּב הוֹלְכִין אַחַר הָרֹב. וְזוֹ מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁל תּוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כג ב) "אַחֲרֵי רַבִּים לְהַטֹּת". בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת וּבִשְׁאָר דִּינֵי אָסוּר וּמֻתָּר וְטָמֵא וְטָהוֹר וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. אֲבָל בְּדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת אִם נֶחְלְקוּ בָּזֶה הַחוֹטֵא אִם יֵהָרֵג אוֹ לֹא יֵהָרֵג. אִם הָיוּ הָרֹב מְזַכִּים זַכַּאי וְאִם הָיוּ הָרֹב מְחַיְּבִין אֵינוֹ נֶהֱרָג עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ הַמְחַיְּבִין יֶתֶר עַל הַמְזַכִּים שְׁנַיִם. מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁעַל זֶה הִזְהִירָה תּוֹרָה וְאָמְרָה (שמות כג ב) "לֹא תִהְיֶה אַחֲרֵי רַבִּים לְרָעֹת". כְּלוֹמַר אִם הָרֹב נוֹטִים לְרָעָה לַהֲרֹג לֹא תִּהְיֶה אַחֲרֵיהֶם עַד שֶׁיִּטּוּ הַטָּיָה גְּדוֹלָה וְיוֹסִיפוּ הַמְחַיְּבִין שְׁנַיִם. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כג ב) "לִנְטֹת אַחֲרֵי רַבִּים לְהַטֹּת" הַטָּיָתְךָ לְטוֹבָה עַל פִּי אֶחָד לְרָעָה עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם. וְכָל אֵלּוּ הַדְּבָרִים קַבָּלָה הֵם:
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.
שְׁנֵי חֲכָמִים אוֹ שְׁנֵי בָּתֵּי דִּינִין שֶׁנֶּחְלְקוּ שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַן הַסַּנְהֶדְרִין אוֹ עַד שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה הַדָּבָר בָּרוּר לָהֶן. בֵּין בִּזְמַן אֶחָד בֵּין בָּזֶה אַחַר זֶה. אֶחָד מְטַהֵר וְאֶחָד מְטַמֵּא אֶחָד אוֹסֵר וְאֶחָד מַתִּיר. אִם אֵינְךָ יוֹדֵעַ לְהֵיכָן הַדִּין נוֹטֶה. בְּשֶׁל תּוֹרָה הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הַמַּחְמִיר בְּשֶׁל סוֹפְרִים הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הַמֵּקֵל:
The following rules apply when there are two sages or two courts that have differing opinions in an age when there was no Supreme Sanhedrin or during the time when the Supreme Sanhedrin was still undecided concerning the matter - whether in one age or in two different ages - one rules that an article is pure and one rules that it is impure, one forbids an article's use and one permits it. If one does not know in which direction the law tends, should the matter involve a question of Scriptural Law, follow the more severe opinion. If it involve a question of Rabbinic Law, follow the more lenient opinion.
הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם, אֶחָד מְטַמֵּא וְאֶחָד מְטַהֵר, אֶחָד אוֹסֵר וְאֶחָד מַתִּיר, אִם הָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶם גָּדוֹל מֵחֲבֵירוֹ בְּחָכְמָה וּבְמִנְיָן — הַלֵּךְ אַחֲרָיו, וְאִם לָאו — הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הַמַּחְמִיר. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה אוֹמֵר: בְּשֶׁל תּוֹרָה הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הַמַּחְמִיר, בְּשֶׁל סוֹפְרִים הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הַמֵּיקֵל. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הִלְכְתָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה.
In a situation where there were two Sages sitting together and one deems an item impure and the other one deems it pure, or if one deems it prohibited and the other one deems it permitted, the questioner should proceed as follows: If one of the Sages was superior to the other in wisdom and in number, one should follow his ruling, and if not, he should follow the one who rules stringently. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: If the uncertainty exists with regard to a Torah law, follow the one who rules stringently; if it exists with regard to a rabbinic law, follow the one who rules leniently. Rav Yosef said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa.