When two talmudic sages disagree, it does
not mean one of them is wrong. The minority opinion in
a halachic discussion is not wrong .There may be several
acceptable options, but in actual practice, only one can
become the universally followed mode – and that is the
prerogative of the majority. This issue is discussed at length
by the Ran in his commentary to the Talmud:
There is a very famous but troubling episode recorded
in the Gemara about a session of the Sanhedrin, where the
sages were called upon to decide whether a certain object
was t a m e h or tahor (Bava Metzia 59a). The majority voted
that it was tameh, in opposition to the opinion of Rabbi
Eliezer, who was so sure that it was t a h o r, that he called
upon Heaven itself to confirm his opinion as correct – " Let
the walls of the Study Hall prove" that he is right. The
Gemara records that in response to his demand, the walls
of the Study Hall indeed began falling down. Nevertheless,
the rabbis in majority refused to concede. Finally, a voice
from heaven ( bat kol ) even declared that Rabbi Eliezer was right – and yet the others stuck to their guns! Ultimately,
the ruling remained as the majority had declared it.
This begs the question – if Heaven itself protests against
their ruling, how in the world could they, or would they,
stubbornly stick to it? In his exposition, the Ran offers a
fascinating answer:
Behold, they [the majority] clearly saw that Rabbi
Eliezer's position accords with the truth more than
theirs...nevertheless, they proceeded to act in
accordance with their majority opinion, inasmuch
as their understanding led them to consider it tameh.
And even though they realized that their
understanding is opposite of the truth, they did not
want to declare [the object] tahor but rather...they
stuck to their decision to declare it tameh because if
they had changed their decision, it would have been
going against Torah teaching which gives the final
decision to the scholars of each generation to rule in
accordance with their understanding. And that
which they rule, that is what G-d commanded.
The Ran goes even further in his Derasha 11:
The matter is as follows, as we have already written,
that Hashem Yisbarach ceded the ruling on these
[halachic] matters to the minds/hearts of the
scholars of every generation, and He commanded us
to follow them. Thus it results that whatever they
agree to on one of these issues, that is what Moshe
Rabbenu was commanded from the Mouth of G-d.
And we must also believe that even if they agreed
on something and it is the opposite of the truth –
which we know to be so because a prophet tells us –
nevertheless it is not proper for us to deviate from
the agreed teachings of our c h a c h a m i m.
Based on the above, the author of Ketzot HaChoshen
in his preface, as well as R. Moshe Feinstein zt"l in his
preface to Iggerot Moshe, explain that the responsibility of
the talmid chacham is to rule in accordance with his
understanding of the Torah, even if objectively it may turn
out to be the opposite of the truth! The posek must rule
in accordance with his own understanding of Jewish law;
he has to proceed from a deep sense of reverence and fear of
heaven, and do the best he can. Even so, concedes Rav
Moshe, it is possible that he may err.
If we accept that the majority opinion is "right", or at
the least that it expresses the normative ruling which Jews
should follow, that is not to label the minority view as
"wrong." The Gemara has already pronounced that " eilu
ve'eilu divrei Elokim chayim," both the majority a n d the
minority opinions are the words of the Living G-d. However,
only one view can be the normative ruling which should
be followed in practice; this means that even if the rabbis
"err" in their ruling, they are not telling us something
"wrong." This principle is one of the reasons why the Talmud
records not only the majority conclusion of Torah debates
but the minority positions as well. Thus, great rabbis can
disagree, and they can both be true to Torah principles.
If this is true (and it is) in matters of halacha, it also
holds true in areas of h a s h k a f a – ideology, attitudes to
other nations, and questions of the direction which the
Jewish community ought to take.
Journal Of Contemporary Halacha
