Ketubot

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: