The Rav wrote:
"(b) TOSFOS in our Sugya seems to maintain that even when we do rely on a Rov for Dinei Nefashos, we do not rely on it with regard to monetary matters, because with regard to monetary matters, a Chezkas Mamon (of the person who is presently in possession of the money) cancels out the Rov of the person trying to take the money."
Shouldn't it say: When dayonim pasken, the minority dayan is as if he doesn't exist (whether it's dinei nefashos or mamonos)? And since the miyut doesn't exist, we don't follow the chazakah. But by other types of rov the miut does exist so we follow the chazaka... (This would answer the Shev Shmaisas brother.)
Thanks for any insights.
Simcha Feldman (with brother-in-law), Philadelphia, PA
I agree that Tosfos asserts that a Rov of Dayanim is different and it overrides the Chezkas Mamon. But what I wrote applies to the non-Dayanim, everyday Rov. Tosfos writes that the everyday Rov does not apply to monetary issues because it is opposed by a Chezkas Mamon He can't mean that monetary issues and death penalties are the same, and Rov does not apply to either, since he just cited a Gemara in Sanhedrin 69a which does not apply Rov to death penalties.
Thus, he must mean that death penalties do not have a Chezkas Mamon so Rov is applied, while monetary issues have a Chezkas Mamon so Rov is not used.
Be well,
Mordecai Kornfeld