<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">RJR:<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">I've always felt that going to more than one poseik (even in different areas of psak) raises the likelihood that one will be accepting positions which are based on a higher order tartei dsatrei (Internal inconsistencies that even the poseik may not be consciously aware of).<br class=""></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div>Me:<br class=""><br class="">Of course the Sanhedrin ruled by majority, so following the Sanhedrin’s psak entails the same problem.<br class=""><div><br class="">RMB:</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">Would the Sanhedrin have had two unrelated votes on halakhos where the<br class="">pesaqim are tightly correlated?<br class=""><br class=""></blockquote><br class="">I looked for this over Shabbos. I didn’t find anything conclusive, but I did find some hints. Conceptually, though, that would imply that the Sanhedrin can’t function as a court of appeal for normal disputes, which seems unrealistic.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>See. H. Sanhedrin 10:5.</div><div><br class=""></div><div><a href="http://www.hebrewbooks.org/rambam.aspx?sefer=14&hilchos=79&perek=10&halocha=5&hilite=" class="">http://www.hebrewbooks.org/rambam.aspx?sefer=14&hilchos=79&perek=10&halocha=5&hilite=</a></div><div><br class=""></div><div> I’m guessing here that RJR’s inconsistencies are correlated the the Rambam’s ta’amim. But see Shach HM 25 SK 19:2</div><br class=""><div class=""><a href="http://beta.hebrewbooks.org/tursa.aspx?a=cm_x8762" class="">http://beta.hebrewbooks.org/tursa.aspx?a=cm_x8762</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">who suggests that there is a typo in the Rambam.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">And see Pischei Tshuva SK 7 there who cites the Noda B’Yhuda second edition HM 3 (which I didn’t’t look up inside) confirming a psak BD based on two contradictory ta’amim (with the third judge advocating no monetary award).</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Nobody I noticed suggested that such a peak would bind the future psakim of the judges or the court.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">And see Hazon Ish al HaRambam Hashlamos H. Mamrim 1:4 that Hazal after the Hurban still had the status of Sanhedrin.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><a href="http://beta.hebrewbooks.org/reader/reader.aspx?sfid=14333#p=737&fitMode=fitwidth&hlts=&ocr=" class="">http://beta.hebrewbooks.org/reader/reader.aspx?sfid=14333#p=737&fitMode=fitwidth&hlts=&ocr=</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">And there is an issue d’orayysa for a judge to refuse to rule after having decided a case, so I don’t see how RMB’s elegant suggestion would be viable.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">David Riceman</div></body></html>