Bava Batra 93A

מאי טעמא? לאו משום דרובא הכי איתנהו?

what is the reason that the sale is not considered to be a mistaken transaction? Is it not because a majority of slaves are like this, i.e., either thieves or gamblers? Apparently, the majority is followed in monetary matters.

לא, כולהו הכי איתנהו.

The Talmud rejects the proof: No, it is because all slaves are like this. Accordingly, no proof can be drawn as to whether we follow the majority in monetary matters.

תא שמע: שור שנגח את הפרה, ונמצא עוברה בצדה, ואינו ידוע אם עד שלא נגחה ילדה, או אם משנגחה ילדה ⁠– משלם חצי נזק לפרה, ורביע לולד.

Come and hear another challenge to Rav’s opinion from a Mishnah (Bava Kamma 46a): In the case of an innocuous ox that gored and killed a cow, and the cow’s fetus was found dead at its side, and it is not known whether the cow calved before the ox gored it and the fetus’ death was unrelated to the goring, or whether it calved after the ox gored it and the fetus died on account of the goring, the ox’s owner pays half the cost of the damage for the cow, as is the halakha for an innocuous ox (see Exodus 21:35), and 1/4th of the cost of the damage for the offspring. Since it is uncertain whether the ox caused the death of the fetus, its owner pays for half of the standard liability of half the cost of the damage.

ואמאי? לימא: הלך אחר רוב פרות, ורוב פרות מתעברות ויולדות; והא ודאי מחמת נגיחה הפילה!

The Talmud explains the proof from the baraita: But why, according to Rav, should he only pay for 1/4th of the damage to the fetus? Since there is an uncertainty, let us say: Follow the majority of cows, and since the majority of cows become pregnant and calve live offspring, one should conclude that this cow, which did not, certainly miscarried due to the ox goring it, and the ox’s owner should be liable for half the cost of the fetus. Since that line of reasoning is not applied here, it is apparent that the majority is not followed in monetary matters.