Question: If he proves that the Mum was there before Kidushin, the Chazakah that she was born unblemished does not apply. We are left with the Chazakah that a man does not drink until he checks. We should say that he accepted the Mum!

Answer: No, a man does not accept Mumim; also, we leave the money in its Chazakah (by him. Therefore, two Chazakos favor him.)

Answer #3 (to question 3:f, 75b - Rav Ashi): (The entire Mishnah is like R. Gamliel.) In the Reisha, she claims that he owes to her father (he receives the Kesuvah of an Arusah; the Chazakah of her body does not help for him.) In the Seifa, she claims that he owes to her.

Question (Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika - Beraisa): R. Meir admits regarding Mumim that are fit to come with her from her father's house, that the father must bring proof.

She is claiming that he owes her, and still, she must bring proof!

Answer: The Beraisa discusses a Mum such as an extra finger (which certainly was there before Kidushin).

Question: If so, what proof can she bring?

Answer: She must prove that the husband accepted the Mum.

(Rav Yehudah citing Shmuel): Reuven traded his cow for Shimon's donkey. Shimon was Moshech (brought to his premises) the cow to acquire it. When Reuven went to be Moshech the donkey, he found that it was dead. Shimon must bring a proof that his donkey was alive at the time that he pulled the cow (if not, the trade is void and he must return the cow).

The Mishnah of a Kalah supports this.

Question: To which Mishnah does he refer?

Answer #1: (He refers to the Reisha of our Mishnah, a Mum found in a) Kalah in her father's house.

Rejection: There is different! There, the father must bring a proof to collect from the husband. Shmuel requires Shimon to bring a proof to keep the cow he is holding!

Answer #2 (R. Aba): (He refers to the Seifa, a) Kalah in her father-in-law's house.

Rejection: There is different! There, the husband must bring a proof to weaken the father's Chazakah. In Shmuel's case, Shimon must bring a proof to establish his Chazakah!

Answer #3 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): He discusses a Kalah in her father's house, regarding the Kidushin money.

This is not only like the opinion that Kidushin money is returned (if the Chasan dies). Rather, even the opinion that Kidushin money is not returned says so only about a Vadai Kidushin. Here, regarding a mistaken Kidushin, if the father cannot bring a proof he must return the money.

Question (Beraisa): If a needle was found in the Beis ha'Kosos (a double fold of flesh at the end of the Keres stomach) and it protrudes from one side, the animal is Kosher. If it protrudes from both sides, it is Tereifah;

If blood is found on it, it was there before the slaughter (so the animal is Tereifah). If not, it came after the Shechitah (and the animal is Kosher).

If the wound formed a scab, the needle was there three days before the Shechitah. If not, the one who wants to take money must bring a proof.

If the butcher already paid for the animal, he must bring proof to recover his money. According to Shmuel, the seller should need to bring a proof to keep his money!

Answer: The case is, the butcher did not yet pay. (The seller must bring proof to force the butcher to pay.)

Question: Why should we say that the Tana discusses only this case? (This is left difficult.)

(Rami bar Yechezkel): Do not heed what my brother (Rav Yehudah) says in Shmuel's name. Rather, (when the cow was traded for the donkey) Shmuel said that the burden of proof is on the one in whose Reshus the doubt arose. The (Seifa of the) Mishnah of a Kalah supports this (like Rava explained).

Question (Beraisa): If a needle was found in the Beis ha'Kosos...

If the butcher did not yet pay for the animal, the owner must bring proof to get paid. According to Shmuel, the butcher should need to bring a proof to avoid paying!

Answer: The case is, the butcher paid.

Question: Why should we say that the Tana discusses only this case?

Answer: People do not (normally) give their animals before being paid.