Bava Batra

is not [the sale valid] because most [slaves] are [of] such [a character]? [And does not this prove that even in monetary matters,  one is to be guided by the majority rule?]  — No; all of them are such. Come and hear! [We learnt]:  [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  or after it was gored,  [the owner of the ox] pays half [the cost of the] damage [in respect] of the cow,  and a quarter [in respect] of the young.  [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!  — There, [the majority rule is inapplicable] because there is the uncertainty whether the [ox] approached from the front,  and the miscarriage was due to shock;  or from behind, and the miscarriage was due to goring;  [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  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'  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  and of confirmed legal status  have the same force, must it be said that Rab  is of the same opinion as R. Aha  and Samuel  is of the same opinion as the first Tanna?  — 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.  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. 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!  This  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;  [if they are] linseed, he is not responsible.  R. Jose said: