Bava Batra 185

מאי טעמא לאו משום דרובא הכי איתנהו

is not [the sale valid] because most [slaves] are [of] such [a character]? [And does not this prove that even in monetary matters,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such e.g.. as the purchase of slaves. ');">¹</span> one is to be guided by the majority rule?]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How, then, could Samuel say that the majority rule is applicable to ritual matters only? ');">²</span>

לא כולהו הכי איתנהו

— No; all of them are such.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore the sale is valid as if the seller had explicitly stated that the slave was a thief or a gambler. ');">³</span> Come and hear! [We learnt]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.K. 46a. ');">⁴</span>

ת"ש שור שנגח את הפרה ונמצא עוברה בצדה ואינו ידוע אם עד שלא נגחה ילדה או אם משנגחה ילדה משלם חצי נזק לפרה ורביע לולד

[If] an ox gored a cow, and its embryo was found [dead] at its side, and it is not known whether it gave birth before it was gored<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the owner of the ox is free from all liability. ');">⁵</span> or after it was gored,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And, consequently, death was caused by the goring, and the owner of the ox is responsible. ');">⁶</span>

ואמאי לימא הלך אחר רוב פרות ורוב פרות מתעברות ויולדות והא ודאי מחמת נגיחה הפילה

[the owner of the ox] pays half [the cost of the] damage [in respect] of the cow,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The owner of a butting ox, before due warning has been given him (cf. Ex. XXI, 28-36). makes good only half the damage. ');">⁷</span> and a quarter [in respect] of the young.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of half the cost of the damage to the embryo it is not certain that he is liable, since it is not known whether or not the goring was the cause of the death. Hence the loss is shared by the two parties, the owner of the ox refunding a half of the half, i.e., a quarter of the full loss. ');">⁸</span>

התם משום דמספקא לן דאיכא למימר מקמה אתא ומביעתותא הפילה ואיכא למימר מאחורה אתא ומינגח נגחה והפילה הוי ממון המוטל בספק וכל ממון המוטל בספק חולקין

[Now. if, in monetary matters, one is guided, as Rab asserted, by the majority rule,] why [does the owner of the ox only pay a quarter of the loss]? Let it be said, 'Be guided [by what] most cows [do]', and most cows conceive and give birth [to live calves] and the miscarriage must, [consequently], have been due to the goring!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the owner of the ox should, therefore, have had to refund half the loss. But since the law is not so, how can Rab assert that in monetary matters the majority rule is followed? ');">⁹</span> — There, [the majority rule is inapplicable] because there is the uncertainty whether the [ox] approached from the front,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Frightening the cow by its approach and causing miscarriage. For loss caused by fright no liability is incurred (cf. B.K. 56a). ');">¹⁰</span>

לימא כתנאי שור שהיה רועה ונמצא שור הרוג בצדו אע"פ שזה מנוגח וזה מועד ליגח זה מנושך וזה מועד לישוך אין אומרים בידוע שזה נגחו וזה נשכו רבי אחא אומר גמל האוחר בין הגמלים ונמצא גמל הרוג בצדו בידוע שזה הרגו

and the miscarriage was due to shock;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not to the goring. ');">¹¹</span> or from behind, and the miscarriage was due to goring;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since one of these contingencies is as likely as the other, the majority rule, though applied to other monetary cases, cannot be applied here. ');">¹²</span>

סברוה דרובא וחזקה כי הדדי נינהו לימא רב דאמר כר' אחא ושמואל דאמר כתנא קמא

[the indemnity] is, [therefore like] money of doubtful ownership, and all money the ownership of which is in doubt must be divided [between the parties concerned]. Must it be said [that they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab and Samuel. ');">¹³</span>

אמר לך רב אנא דאמרי אפילו לתנא קמא עד כאן לא קאמר תנא קמא התם אלא דלא אזלינן בתר חזקה אבל בתר רובא אזלינן

differ on the same principles] as the [following] Tannaim? [It has been taught:] [If] an ox was grazing and a dead ox was found at its side, it must not be said, although the one is gored and the other is wont to gore, one bitten and the other wont to bite, 'It is obvious that the one gored or bit the other'. R. Aha said: [In the case of] a camel which 'covers'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A euphemism. Lit., 'to be behind'. At the time of mating it is ferocious, and is likely to attack other males with fatal results. ');">¹⁴</span> among [other] camels, and a dead camel was found at its side, it is obvious that the one killed the other. Now, assuming that [the principles] of majority<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Most animals do not gore. therefore every animal must be regarded as innocuous until the contrary has been proved. ');">¹⁵</span>

ושמואל אמר לך אנא דאמרי אפילו לר' אחא עד כאן לא קאמר ר' אחא התם אלא דאזלינן בתר חזקה דהוא גופיה מוחזק אבל בתר רובא לא אזלינן

and of confirmed legal status<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ox referred to was wont to gore', therefore, legally, a confirmed butter. ');">¹⁶</span> have the same force, must it be said that Rab<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who accepts the majority principle. ');">¹⁷</span>

ת"ש המוכר פירות לחברו וזרען ולא צמחו ואפי' זרע פשתן אינו חייב באחריותן

is of the same opinion as R. Aha<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who attributes the killing to the 'covering' camel because of its legal status (legally regarded as ferocious and likely to kill). ');">¹⁸</span> and Samuel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who disregards the majority principle in monetary matters. ');">¹⁹</span>

מאי אפי' לאו אפילו זרע פשתן דרובא לזריעה זבני ואפ"ה לא אזלינן בתר רובא

is of the same opinion as the first Tanna?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who does not attribute the killing to the animal though its legal status is that of a goring ox. Would Rab's and Samuel's views accordingly be regarded as opposed respectively to those of the first Tanna and R. Aha? ');">²⁰</span> — Rab can tell you: What I have said [is valid] even according to the first Tanna. For the first Tanna made his statement, there, [that the killing is not to be attributed to the butting ox], only because one is not to be guided by the principle of legal status, but one is to be guided by that of majority.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And thus, in this case, it is to be assumed that the other oxen, who form the majority, have done the killing. ');">²¹</span>

תנאי היא דתניא המוכר פירות לחברו וזרען ולא צמחו זרעוני גינה שאין נאכלין חייב באחריותן זרע פשתן אינו חייב באחריותן רבי יוסי אומר

And Samuel can say: What I have said [is valid] even according to R. Aha. For R. Aha made his statement there, [that the 'covering' camel is assumed to be the killer], only because one must be guided by the principle of legal status, since it is the [camel] itself that has been confirmed in that status, [and is standing near by], but one Is not to be guided by the majority principle.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A principle which seeks to attach to the animal a status that may not belong to it. Thus it seeks to assume that this ox has been bought for slaughtering, because the majority of other oxen are bought for that purpose. ');">²²</span> Come and hear! [IF] ANYONE HAS SOLD FRUIT TO ANOTHER … AND [THE BUYER] SOWED THEM AND THEY DID NOT GROW, EVEN [IF THEY WERE] LINSEED, HE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE. Does not 'EVEN' imply. 'even linseed most of which is bought for sowing purposes'? And [does not this show that] even in such a case one is not guided by the majority principle!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How, then, can Rab say that the majority principle is to be followed? ');">²³</span> This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether the majority principle is to be relied upon in monetary questions. ');">²⁴</span> is [a subject of dispute between] Tannaim. For it has been taught: [In the case when] one has sold fruit to another and [the buyer] sowed them and they did not grow, [if they are] garden seeds which are not eaten, he is responsible;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because everybody buys them as seed for sowing purposes only. ');">²⁵</span> [if they are] linseed, he is not responsible.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since some persons buy them for purposes other than sowing, the seller can claim to have sold them for any of these purposes. ');">²⁶</span> R. Jose said: