Ketubot

BUT IN RESPECT OF DEFECTS THAT ARE EXPOSED HE  CANNOT ADVANCE ANY VALID PLEA.  AND IF THERE WAS A BATH-HOUSE IN THE TOWN HE CANNOT ADVANCE ANY VALID PLEA  EVEN AGAINST CONCEALED BODILY DEFECTS, BECAUSE HE [IS ASSUMED TO HAVE HAD HER] EXAMINED BY HIS WOMEN RELATIVES. GEMARA. The reason then  is because the father produced proof, but if he produced no proof,  the husband is believed.  Whose [view consequently is here  expressed]? [Obviously] that of R. Joshua who stated, 'Our life is not dependent on her statement'.  Now read the final clause: IF SHE CAME UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE HUSBAND, THE HUSBAND MUST PRODUCE PROOF, the reason then  is because the husband produced proof, but if he produced no proof,  the father is believed,  a ruling which expresses the view of R. Gamaliel who stated that the woman is believed!  — R. Eleazar replied: The contradiction  [is evident]; he who taught the one did not teach the other. Raba said: It must not be assumed that R. Joshua  is never guided by the principle of the presumptive soundness of the body, for the fact is  that R. Joshua is not guided by that principle only where it is opposed by the principle of possession.  Where, however, the principle of possession is not applicable R. Joshua is guided by that of the soundness of the body; for it was taught: If the bright spot  preceded the white hair, he  is unclean; if the reverse, he is clean. [If the order is in] doubt, he is unclean; but R. Joshua said: It darkened.  What is meant by 'It darkened'? Rabbah replied: [It is as though the spot] darkened  [and, therefore,] he is clean. Raba explained:  The first clause [is a case of] 'Here  they  were found and here they must have arisen'  and so is the final clause: Here  they  were found and here they must have arisen.  Abaye raised an objection against him:  IF SHE CAME UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE HUSBAND, THE HUSBAND MUST PRODUCE PROOF THAT THESE DEFECTS WERE UPON HER BEFORE SHE HAD BEEN BETROTHED  AND [THAT, CONSEQUENTLY,] HIS BARGAIN WAS MADE IN ERROR; [Thus only if she had the defects] BEFORE SHE HAD BEEN BETROTHED [is the husband's plea] accepted,  [but if they were seen upon her] only after she had been betrothed  [his plea would] not [be accepted]. But why? Let it be said,  'Here they were found and here they must have arisen'!  — The other  replied: [The principle  cannot be applied if the defects were discovered] after she had been betrothed because it may be taken for granted that no man drinks out of a cup  unless he has first examined it; and this man  must consequently have seen [the defects] and acquiesced.  If so,  [the same principle should apply] also to one [who had defects] prior to her betrothal. [Since,] however, [it is not applied], the presumption must be that no man is reconciled to bodily defects, [why then is it not presumed] here  also that no man is reconciled to bodily defects? — This, however, is the explanation: [The principle  cannot be applied to defects discovered] after she had been betrothed because two [principles] are [opposed to it:] The presumptive soundness of the woman's body  and 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. What possible objection can you raise?  Is it the presumption that no man is reconciled to bodily defects? [But this] is only