Parallel
כתובות 76:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
one principle against two principles, and one against two cannot be upheld. [But where the defects were discovered] before betrothal, the principle of the presumptive soundness of her body cannot be applied, and all that remains is the presumption that no man drinks out of a cup unless he has first examined it and that this man must consequently have seen [the defects] and acquiesced, [but to this it can be retorted:] On the contrary, the presumption is that no man is reconciled to bodily defects, and consequently the money is to remain in the possession of its holder. R. Ashi explained: The [claim in the] first clause [is analogous to the claim] 'You owe my father a maneh', but that in the final clause [is analogous to the claim] 'You owe me a maneh'. R. Aha the son of R. Awya raised an objection against R. Ashi: R. Meir admits that in respect of bodily defects likely to have come with her from her father's house it is the father who must produce the proof. But why? Is [not this analogous to the claim,] 'You owe me a maneh'? — Here we are dealing with the case of a woman who had a superfluous limb. [But if] she had a superfluous limb what proof could be brought? — Proof that the man has seen it and acquiesced. Rab Judah stated in the name of Samuel: If a man exchanged a cow for [another man's] ass, and the owner of the ass pulled the cow but the owner of the cow did not manage to pull the ass before the ass died, it is for the owner of the ass to produce proof that his ass was alive at the time the cow was pulled. And the Tanna [of our Mishnah who taught about] a bride supports this ruling. Which [ruling concerning the] bride? If it be suggested:
—