Question: Also regarding the husband there are two - firstly, a man is not appeased with Mumim. Also, we should say that here the Mumim were found (in her father's Reshus), and here they were [before Eirusin]!

These two Chazakos of the husband are stronger than the two of the woman!

"Here they were found, and here they were" is stronger than Chezkas ha'Guf, for if she was still in her father's Reshus [when the Mumim were found], her father must bring proof!

Chezkas ha'Guf does not help [her father], since the Safek arose in his Reshus, so we say "here they were found, and here they were."

When she entered her husband's Reshus, and her husband brings a proof that the Mumim were there before Eirusin, he is exempt from a Kesuvah, for "a man is not appeased with Mumim" is stronger than "a man does not drink a cup without checking it!

If so, also now that he brings a proof that they were there from Eirusin, why isn't he exempt for these two reasons?

Why is it different, that "here they were found, and here they were" alone is stronger than Chezkas ha'Guf, and the Chazakah a man is not appeased with Mumim is stronger than "a man does not drink a cup without checking it..."

However, when both of these are together, the woman's reasons [to collect] are better than his?

Answer #1: Surely, the woman's reasons are better. [When Mumim were found in her father's Reshus,] "here they were found, and here they were" alone is stronger than Chezkas ha'Guf, i.e. because [her husband's] Chezkas Mamon supports it;

Similarly, the Chazakah that a man is not appeased with Mumim, Chezkas Mamon helps it. Chezkas Mamon has power to help one [of the husband's two Chazakos against the woman's corresponding and stronger Chazakah], but it cannot help both together [against her two stronger Chazakos].

Answer #2: When both are together, the woman's reasons are stronger because even if one of them is true, i.e. Chezkas ha'Guf, or a man does not drink a cup..., she has a Kesuvah;

The husband is exempt only if all of his reasons are true. If either is false, he loses. Therefore, his reasons are weaker than hers.

Explanation #1 (Ri): It seems that the reason is because her Bari (Vadai claim) does not help for the father. This is like "you owe Ploni 100";

We say in Bava Basra (135b) that he is not believed, regarding David who says "this (Ploni) is my brother" is not believed (to force his brothers to share their inheritance with Ploni);

We wanted to prove from there that the reason is because [David's] Bari claim does not overcome the Safek claim of his brothers, and reject this. There is different, for it is like "you owe Ploni 100."

Implied question: Here there is also Chezkas ha'Guf!

Answer: It does not help [her father]. R. Gamliel said that she is believed only regarding Bari and Shema, like we said above (16a), and her Vadai claim does not help for him, like I explained.

The case is, the father claims Shema. If he claimed Vadai, he would not need to bring a proof.

Explanation #1 (cont.): The Seifa is "you owe 100 to me." For her, her Bari claim helps.

Implied question: We hold that a Bari claim does not overcome a Safek claim!

Answer: Here, there is Bari and a Chazakah.

Retraction (Ri): Since it says that the father must bring a proof, this connotes that he does not collect without a proof, even if he claims Vadai, since it did not say "or he says 'I am sure.'"

Support: Also, Shmuel's teaching below connotes that if she entered her husband's Reshus, her husband must bring a proof, even if the father and daughter claim Shema.

It (Shmuel's teaching) is not due to Bari and Shema. Rather, it is because the Safek arose in his Reshus.

Source: We challenge [Shmuel's teaching] from the case of a needle found [in the stomach. The buyer and seller] both claim Shema;

If [Shmuel's teaching] were due to Bari and Shema, this was no question! Presumably, Rav Ashi does not argue with Shmuel, for we hold like Shmuel. (Pnei Yehoshua - the Halachah follows Shmuel, and presumably the Halachah follows Rav Ashi, who is Basra. Also Rami bar Yechezkeil (76b) holds like Rav Ashi, that her Chazakah does not help her father, even though he changes Shmuel's teaching from our current understanding [based on Rav Yehudah], and says that the donkey's Chazakah helps for its owner.)

Explanation #2 (Ri): Rashi's Perush is primary. The Reisha is a case of "you owe 100 to my father", and her Chazakah does not help for her father.

Question: According to this text, it is difficult. Now it connotes that Chachamim give the husband more rights than R. Meir does;

Source: It says "R. Meir admits to Chachamim." This implies that here the husband has more rights than the father, even though normally, R. Meir does not give the husband as many rights as Chachamim do;

Our Mishnah connotes unlike this! Rather, R. Meir gives the husband more rights than Chachamim do. [He says that the husband] can claim [Mekach Ta'os] even for Mumim that can be checked [in a bathhouse], and Chachamim disagree!

Answer: R. Chananel's Perush is correct. His text says "Chachamim agree to R. Meir."

Question: Also this is problematic. "Admit" does not apply, since they do not argue in such a case!

Rashi's text: Rashi's text says only "R. Meir admits."

Question: This is difficult. To whom does he admit? (Meginei Shlomo - R. Meir admits to R. Yehoshua that the father must bring a proof, even if she entered the husband's Reshus, for Chezkas ha'Guf does not help to make someone pay.)

Question: Why do we challenge Rav Ashi more than all the Amora'im above?

According to the opinion that different Tana'im taught the Reisha and Seifa, we could ask what is the difference between her father's house and her husband's house!

Also according to the opinion that "here they were found, and here they were", why must the father bring a proof? There is one [Chazakah] against two! (She has Chezkas ha'Guf, for she was born without the Mum, and a man does not drink a cup without checking it, so he saw and was appeased. He has only the Chazakah that men do not accepts blemishes.)

Suggestion: The Makshan thought that "[Mumim proper] to come with her" connotes that they are old, and it is recognized that they are from before Eirusin, and her Chezkas ha'Guf is weakened. Therefore, the father must bring a proof.

Rejection: If so, what was the question against Rav Ashi? Rav Ashi said that he is believed only due to Chazakah!

Answer: We can say that really, he holds that "here they were found, and here they were." We discuss Mumim that the husband cannot know through checking, e.g. epilepsy with a fixed time, and bad breath;

She can guard herself so people will not know about these. Even though she entered her husband's Reshus, the father must bring a proof;

Now, it is not one Chazakah against two, for we cannot say that there is a Chazakah that a man does not drink a cup without checking it, so he saw and was appeased, since he cannot know these through his female relatives.

Limitation: However, we cannot explain like this according to the text in the Tosefta "Mumim proper to arise in her father's house."

Implied question: The owner of the donkey is Muchzak (he already took the cow). Also Chezkas ha'Guf supports him (the donkey was alive initially). We should establish the donkey in its Chazakah, that it was alive!

Answer #1: Shmuel holds that we establish the cow in the Chazakah of its original owner.

Implied question: [A Mishnah] in Bava Metzi'a (100a) says that if one traded a donkey for a cow, and it was found that [the cow] gave birth, they divide [the calf]...

Citation (100a) Question: We should see in whose Reshus it is. The other party is ha'Motzi mi'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah (he wants to take, so he must bring a proof)!

Inference: We do not establish in the Chazakah of the original owner when the other party seized!

Answer: There, we ask based on the conclusion here, that does not hold like this (Shmuel does not follow the Chazakah of its original owner).

Question #1: According to the Hava Amina, why must the donkey's owner bring a proof? He is Muchzak, and we should establish the donkey in its Chazakah, that it was alive!

Shmuel himself holds in Bava Basra (92a) that if one sold an ox to his friend, and it was found to be a gorer, he need not return the money. We do not establish [the money] in the Chazakah of the original owner!

Rather, we follow the current status quo (the seller has the money), even though the majority, who sell for plowing, supports the original owner [of the money];

All the more so, here we should follow the current status quo, for Chezkas ha'Guf supports it!

Suggestion: There, the reason is because [the buyer] was not particular to check whether it is a gorer, so we should say that he bought it for Shechitah!

Rejection: If so, why did we need to say there according to Shmuel "we follow the majority regarding Isur, but not regarding Mamon"? His reason is not due to [not following] the majority, rather, because [the buyer] was not particular!

Question #2: In Bava Basra (105a), Shmuel said 'if one said "I sell to you a Kor (30 Sa'im) for 30 (Sela'im), a Se'ah for a Sela", each Se'ah that he measures out, he acquires';

This is because we are unsure whether we follow his initial words (it is one sale, and he does not acquire until he measures out all 30), or his final words (each Se'ah is a sale unto itself).

We should establish [the grain] in the Chazakah of the original owner!

Retraction: Shmuel's reason is not due to the Chazakah of the original owner.

Answer #2: Rather, we should say that since we found the donkey dead, just like now it is dead, we should establish that it was dead also before.

This is like we say in Nidah (4a), that we assume that Tum'os were previously in the same state they were found in.

Limitation: We say so only regarding death of a donkey, a Mum, and a needle found in the stomach.

Implied question: [When a Mum is found in] a Kalah in her father-in-law's house, why must the husband bring a proof? (We should say that previously she was in the same state!)

Answer: Even when we say that just like we find this Mum now, it was before Nisu'in, we can still say that it arose after Eirusin. Therefore, she has a Kesuvah;

We do not go so far to say that the Mum was there before Eirusin, which is two Reshuyos (jurisdictions) earlier, based on what we find now.

Distinction: However, when it is found in her father's house, we say that [the Mum was there] before entering this Reshus (Eirusin), just like it is now.

Objection #1: It is due to the severity of Kodshim that we say that all Tum'os were previously in the same state they were found in!

Objection #2: Shmuel said in Kidushin (79a) that if her father was Mekadesh her on the road, and she was Mekadesh herself in the city, and she is a Bogeres in front of us, we are concerned for the Kidushin of both of them;

We do not say that just like she is a Bogeres now, so she was before Kidushin!

Suggestion: There, it is due to the severity of Eshes Ish [that we are concerned for the Kidushin of both of them].

Rejection: We bring regarding this an argument of R. Yakov and R. Noson regarding money!

Answer #3 (Riva): Only here, when the Machazik (the new owner) himself is unsure about the cow, and he does not have a clear claim, so it is as if he has no Chazakah, we follow the Chazakah of the original owner;

This is like when a Kohen seized [a Safek Bechor - Bava Metzi'a 6b]. We take it from him [because he himself is unsure].

Distinction: However, if one sold an ox to his friend, and it was found to be a gorer, since the buyer buys for both [plowing and Shechitah], the Machazik (the seller, who took the money) can claim "I sold it to you for Shechitah. If you wanted it for plowing, you should have specified!"

Since he has a Vadai claim, his Chazakah helps.

Similarly, in the case of "I sell to you a Kor for 30, a Se'ah for a Sela", he can say "I said two expressions, so I can use whichever I want";

Since he is Muchzak, we do not remove property from his Chazakah, since he has a claim.

Consequence: Based on this, what Rashi explains below is fine, like I will explain. (Maharsha - if Shmuel's reason is because he follows the Chazakah of the original owner, this answers almost all Tosfos' questions against Rashi in the coming Dibur.)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He holds like the opinion that different Tana'im taught the Reisha and Seifa.

Objection #1: How can we establish the case of a Kalah in her father's house, regarding Kidushin money, according to R. Yehoshua?

R. Yehoshua said that Chezkas ha'Guf does not help, i.e. to take money. Did he say that it does not help to keep money?!

Objection #2 (R. Tam): Above, we proved that R. Yehoshua follows Chezkas ha'Guf when there is no Chezkas Mamon, and all the more so here, when Chezkas Mamon supports Chezkas ha'Guf, R. Yehoshua follows it!

Objection #3: Shmuel himself ruled above (12b) like R. Gamliel!

Objection #4: What was the question [below] from the case of a needle found [in the stomach? [Shmuel] can say that it is like R. Gamliel, and he (Shmuel) holds like R. Yehoshua!

Explanation #2: Shmuel holds like Rav Ashi. Now he learns from a Kalah in her father's house, regarding Kidushin;

Just like there, even though the father is Muchzak, he must bring a proof, for her Chezkas ha'Guf does not help for her father;

Also here, the donkey's owner must bring a proof, even though he is Muchzak, for the Chazakah of the donkey does not help for him!

Explanation #2 (cont.): Now, we do not distinguish at all between whether or not the Safek arose in his Reshus;

However, we cannot establish [Shmuel] like Rava, who said "here they were found, and here they were";

There is different, for the Chazakah of the father's Reshus was weakened. Here, the Chazakah of the Reshus of the owner of the donkey was not weakened. Just the contrary, the Chazakah of the Reshus of the owner of the cow was weakened!

Explanation: He establishes Kalah of our Mishnah like Rava, and the one in whose Reshus the Safek arose must bring a proof, even if he is Muchzak;

This is like we ask from the case of the needle, that the butcher should bring a proof, even though he did not pay, and he is Muchzak.

Question: In Bava Metzi'a (100a), if one traded a donkey for a cow, and [it was found that the cow] gave birth, [they divide the calf. The Gemara] asked that we should see in whose Reshus it is. The other party is ha'Motzi mi'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah;

Inference: If it were in the Reshus of the owner of cow, he must bring a proof.

What is the reason? The Safek arose in his Reshus. After the owner of cow did Meshichah on the donkey, it became known that the cow gave birth!

Answer: We must distinguish between a Safek that arose for his benefit like there, to a Safek that arose for his detriment, like here.

Explanation: This refers to a Kalah in her father-in-law's house. Just like we establish her in Chezkas Shleimah, and the Mum came now, even though he (her husband) is Muchzak...

Also here, we establish the donkey in the Chazakah that it is alive, and now it died.