Ketubot

The one concerning a bride IN HER FATHER'S HOUSE,  are the two cases [it may be objected] alike? There it is the father  who produces the proof and receives  [the kethubah from the husband]  while here it is the owner of the ass  who produces the proof and retains [the cow],  — R. Abba replied: [The ruling concerning a] bride in her father-in-law's house.  But [the two cases] are still unlike, for there it is the husband who produces the proof  and thereby impairs the presumptive right of the father,  while here it is the owner of the ass who produces the proof  and thereby confirms his presumptive right!  — R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: [The support is derived from the case of the] bride IN HER FATHER'S HOUSE in respect of her token of betrothal.  And, furthermore, it need not be said [that this  applies only] in accordance with him who holds [that a token of] betrothal is not unreturnable  but [it holds good] even according to him who maintains [that a token of] betrothal is unreturnable, since his ruling relates only to certain betrothal, but [not] to doubtful betrothal [where the father may retain the token] only  if he produces proof but not otherwise. An objection was raised: If a needle was found in the thick walls of the second stomach [of a ritually killed beast, and it protrudes only] from one of its sides,  the beast is fit [for human consumption,  but if it protruded] from both sides, the beast is unfit for human consumption.  If a drop of blood was found on [the needle] it is certain that [the wound was inflicted] before the ritual killing;  if no drop of blood was found on it, it is certain that [the wound was made] after the killing.  If the top  of the wound was covered with a crust, it is certain that [the wounding occurred] three days prior to the killing;  if the top  of the wound was not covered with a crust,  it is for the claimant to produce the proof.  Now if the butcher  had already paid the price he  would have to produce the required proof and so obtain the refund [of his money]; but why? Let the owner of the beast rather produce the proof and retain [the purchase money]!  — [This is a case] where the butcher  has not yet paid the price.  But how can such an absolute assertion  be made?  — [This] however, [will dispose of the difficulty:] For when Rami b. Ezekiel came he said, 'Pay no regard to those rules which my brother Judah laid down in the name of Samuel; for thus said Samuel: He in whose domain the doubt first arose  must produce the proof; and the Tanna [of our Mishnah who taught about] the bride  provides support for this ruling. An objection was raised: If a needle was found in the thick walls of the second stomach etc.  Now,  if the butcher  has not yet paid the purchase price it would be the owner of the beast  who would have to produce the proof and so obtain [its price] from [the butcher]; but why? [Has not] the doubt arisen [when the beast was already] in the possession of the butcher?  — [This is a case] where the butcher has already paid the price.  But how can such a categorical statement  be made?  — It is the usual practice that so long as one man does not pay the price the other does not give his beast. THE SAGES, HOWEVER, RULED: THIS APPLIES ONLY TO CONCEALED BODILY DEFECTS. R. Nahman stated: