Question

For example, in the passage in tractate Kiddushin it is brought that if there is a majority of cases where they betroth and only afterward bring gifts, and a minority of cases where they betroth and only afterward bring gifts, then the Talmud says there is a possibility that we are concerned for the minority leniently against the majority. See Tosafot there, who ask: what is the basis for being concerned for the minority leniently? Seemingly, one could say that there I have no doubt whether he is one of the people who betroth and only afterward bring gifts or not, because she is not betrothed by virtue of the rule of “they betroth and only afterward bring gifts”; rather, my entire doubt is whether one can prove from the gifts that there had previously been betrothal or not. And on that I have a majority saying that if he is like the majority, then it can be proven that there had been betrothal. So perhaps one can say that we use majority only when the majority speaks to the core of the doubt itself. And see further in the passage in Bava Batra regarding one who repays before the due date, where it is explained there that they discussed the matter from the standpoint of a presumption, and perhaps with regard to majority, majority is not relevant there, because my whole discussion is whether one can prove from the fact that this was before the due date that there was no repayment. But my discussion is not whether repayment was made before the due date, since repayment before the due date is seemingly not a definition of repayment. Afterward I wanted to hear the Rabbi’s opinion on this.