But with regard to visible blemishes, he cannot claim that the betrothal was in error, as he presumably saw and accepted them before the betrothal. And if there is a bathhouse in the city, where all the women go to bathe, even with regard to hidden blemishes he cannot make this claim, because he examines her through the agency of his female relatives. He would have asked one of his relatives to look over the woman he is about to marry.

GEMARA: The mishna states that if the woman had blemishes while she was in her father’s house, the father must bring proof that they developed after the betrothal. The Gemara infers: The reason the father’s claim is accepted is due to the fact that the father brings proof, but if the father does not bring proof then the husband is deemed credible when he claims the betrothal was a mistaken transaction because the blemishes predated it. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who said in a mishna (12a) with regard to a case when the wife claims that she was raped after her betrothal while her husband says it happened beforehand, that we don’t live from, i.e., we don’t rely on the words of her mouth, but rather she must substantiate her claim.

The Gemara continues: Now say the latter clause of the mishna: If she had entered the husband’s domain, the husband must bring proof. Again the Gemara infers: The reason his claim is accepted is due to the fact that the husband brings proof, but if the husband does not bring proof then the father is deemed credible. We arrive at the opinion of Rabban Gamliel, who said that the woman is deemed credible when she says that the incident occurred after the betrothal. Consequently, the first and last clauses of the mishna appear to contradict one another. Rabbi Elazar said: This mishna is disjointed, and does not follow a single opinion; the tanna who taught this halakha did not teach that halakha.

Rava said: Do not say that Rabbi Yehoshua does not follow the presumptive status of the body at all, that is, it should not be assumed that Rabbi Yehoshua fundamentally rejects the idea that one’s body is presumed to remain in its initial, intact state until proven otherwise. Rather, say that Rabbi Yehoshua does not follow the presumptive status of the body only when there is an opposing claim of monetary possession. An example of this is the case in the mishna where the woman seeks to extract money from her husband for payment of her marriage contract by claiming that she was raped after the betrothal. Since acceptance of her claim would mean her husband has to pay, Rabbi Yehoshua maintains that the presumptive status of her body alone is not sufficient.

But when there is no possession of money, as in the mishna, Rabbi Yehoshua does in fact follow the presumptive status of the body. As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the halakhot of leprosy: If the bright white leprous spot preceded the white hair then the one afflicted is ritually impure; if the white hair preceded the bright white spot he is pure. If it is uncertain which came first, he is impure. And Rabbi Yehoshua says: Dull. They asked: What is the meaning of dull? Rabba said that dull means it is ritually pure, as though the plague was of a dull shade, which is not impure. This shows that in an uncertain case where there is no issue of monetary possession, Rabbi Yehoshua accepts the presumptive status of the body, and therefore, the one afflicted is ritually pure.

Rava said a different answer to the contradiction in the mishna: In the first clause of the mishna, where the blemishes were discovered while she was still in her father’s house, the assumption is that since they were discovered here, they were also created here. In other words, since the blemishes were found while she was still in her father’s house, there is a presumption that they were also present at the earlier stage, prior to the betrothal. Consequently, the burden of proof is on the father who claims the blemishes developed at a later stage. In the latter clause of the mishna as well, since the blemishes were discovered when she was in the husband’s house, it is assumed that since they were discovered here, in the husband’s domain, they were also created here, after the marriage.

Abaye raised an objection to Rava’s opinion from the mishna: If she had entered the husband’s domain when the blemishes were discovered, the husband must bring proof that she had these blemishes before she was betrothed, and therefore his transaction of betrothal was a mistaken transaction. The Gemara infers: If he brought proof that these blemishes were there before she was betrothed then yes, his claim is accepted, but if he proved that the blemishes were present from a point in time after she was betrothed, even if she was still in her father’s house, his claim is not accepted. But why? Even if his proof concerns the period after the betrothal, let us say that since they were discovered here, they were also created here, and she presumably had these blemishes before the betrothal.

Rava said to him: With regard to a case where the blemishes were found to have been present from a point in time after she was betrothed, there is a reason why one does not assume that they were there beforehand: Because it can be said that there is a presumption that a person does not drink from a cup unless he first examines it. In other words, one does not betroth a woman unless he first investigates her to determine if she is acceptable to him. And consequently this man has undoubtedly seen her blemishes and been appeased about them. Therefore, in the event that the blemishes did exist at the time of betrothal, it can be assumed that the husband knew about them and accepted the situation.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If that is so, then even if he brought proof that the blemishes existed before she was betrothed, we should also rely on the above presumption and say that he must have been aware of them and betrothed her regardless. But this is not the halakha. Rather, it must be that we say there is an opposing presumption that a person does not become appeased with regard to blemishes. Therefore, it must be proven that he saw these blemishes and did not object. Here too, we should say there is a presumption that a person does not become appeased with regard to blemishes.

Rather, the mishna must be explained differently: If he brought proof that she had these blemishes from a point in time after she was betrothed, his claim of a mistaken betrothal is not accepted because there are two presumptions opposing it. There is a presumption of: Establish the state of the woman’s body according to its presumptive, unblemished status and consequently assume that the blemishes were not present at the time of betrothal, and additionally there is the presumption that a person does not drink from a cup unless he first examines it, and this man has undoubtedly seen her blemishes and been appeased. What do you say in opposition to this argument, that there is a presumption that a man does not become appeased with regard to blemishes? Even so, it is