Q&A: Following the Majority in Monetary Matters — What Is the Logic?
Following the Majority in Monetary Matters — What Is the Logic?
Question
Hello Rabbi Michi,
I wasn’t able to understand the distinction between cases where we apply the reasoning of Sha'arei Yosher that the Rabbi brought in several places (226, 509) regarding following the majority in monetary matters (that I made a reasonable and not bizarre decision, and therefore the majority has no significance against me), and places where we do not apply it (for example, when I claim that I repaid within the term). After all, it doesn’t seem reasonable that in every case where a person’s decision stems from free choice we would throw out all the presumptions and statistical decision rules we have. Is there some distinction between the cases, or do we simply decide based on common sense how unreasonable the person’s claim is, and based on that decide whether to follow the majority or not?
Answer
I didn’t understand the question. I explained the difference. What exactly is unclear to you?
I’ll just note that repayment within the term is a presumption, not a majority rule (everyone agrees that in monetary matters we follow a presumption). You can see several explanations here about the unique character of this presumption, and of presumptions in general: https://ygolan.org/article-category/%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%97%D7%96%D7%A7%D7%AA-%D7%90%D7%99%D7%9F-%D7%90%D7%93%D7%9D-%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%A2-%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%9A-%D7%96%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%95/
What I especially liked was Rabbi Gutman’s explanation (the other two are not correct in my view), according to which a majority is a situation where most people act in way X and a minority act differently. But a presumption is a situation that is true of all people, except that for each individual it happens in most cases. In such a situation, when you claim that you repaid within the term, what you are really saying is that you acted against your own nature, and we will not accept that without evidence. We need to examine whether all evidentiary presumptions can be explained this way. If so, that is a wonderful explanation of the difference between a majority and a presumption.