## Ketubot Daf 76b

###### Ketubot 76b:1
[Ketubot 76b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/76b:1)

כַּלָּה בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ, מִי דָּמֵי? הָתָם — מַיְיתֵי אָב רְאָיָה וּמַפֵּיק, הָכָא — מַיְיתֵי בַּעַל הַחֲמוֹר רְאָיָה וּמוֹקֵים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
that his proof is from the *halakha* with regard to **a bride** who is still **in her father’s house,** when the burden of proof is upon the father, **is** it **comparable? There, the father brings proof and takes** money away from the husband, whereas **here, the owner of the donkey brings proof and maintains** possession of the cow. Consequently, perhaps this case is different, and he should not be obliged to provide proof.


###### Ketubot 76b:2
[Ketubot 76b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/76b:2)

אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: כַּלָּה בְּבֵית חָמִיהָ. וְאַכַּתִּי לָא דָּמֵי: הָתָם — בַּעַל מַיְיתֵי רְאָיָה וּמַרַע לֵיהּ לַחֲזָקֵיהּ דְּאָב, הָכָא — בַּעַל הַחֲמוֹר מַיְיתֵי רְאָיָה וּמוֹקֵים חֲזָקֵיהּ בִּידֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Abba said:** The proof is from the case of **a bride in her father-in-law’s house,** that is, one who has entered her husband’s domain. The Gemara raises a difficulty: **And** yet the cases **are still not comparable: There, the husband brings proof and undermines the presumption** that was in favor **of the father,** i.e., the presumptive status of the daughter’s body, whereas **here, the owner of the donkey brings proof and** thereby **maintains the presumptive status** of the donkey’s body and consequently maintains the cow **in his possession.** Perhaps, therefore, he should not have to bring proof.


###### Ketubot 76b:3
[Ketubot 76b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/76b:3)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: כַּלָּה בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ, וּלְקִידּוּשִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:** Shmuel’s proof is from the *halakha* of **a bride in her father’s house, but with regard to** the money used for **betrothal,** not for the marriage contract. The father must bring proof in order to retain the betrothal money.


###### Ketubot 76b:4
[Ketubot 76b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/76b:4)

וְלָא תֵּימָא אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר קִדּוּשִׁין לָאו לְטִיבּוּעִין נִיתְּנוּ. אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר קִדּוּשִׁין לְטִיבּוּעִין נִיתְּנוּ — הָנֵי מִילֵּי קִידּוּשֵׁי וַדַּאי, אֲבָל קִידּוּשֵׁי טָעוּת, אִי מַיְיתֵי רְאָיָה — אִין, אִי לָא — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak explains: **And do not say** that this is only **according to the one who says** in general that **betrothal** money **was not given** with the understanding that it is **to be lost,** that is, the money was handed over only for the purpose of betrothal and it must be returned if the betrothal is canceled. **Rather,** say that this is **even according to the one who says** that in the case of **betrothal** money that **was given to be lost, this applies only** to **a betrothal** whose status is **certain.** According to this opinion, if a husband later divorces his wife or dies she does not have to restore the betrothal money. **But** with regard to a **mistaken betrothal, if** the father **brings proof** then **yes,** he may keep the money; **if** he does **not** bring proof he may **not** retain ownership of the betrothal money. This supports Shmuel’s opinion that in an uncertain case the one in possession of the money must bring proof in order to retain his ownership.


###### Ketubot 76b:5
[Ketubot 76b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/76b:5)

מֵיתִיבִי: מַחַט שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת בְּעוֹבִי בֵּית הַכּוֹסוֹת, מִצַּד אֶחָד — כְּשֵׁרָה. מִשְּׁנֵי צְדָדִין — טְרֵיפָה. נִמְצָא עָלֶיהָ קוֹרֶט דָּם — בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהוּא לִפְנֵי שְׁחִיטָה, לֹא נִמְצָא עָלֶיהָ קוֹרֶט דָּם — בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהוּא לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to Shmuel’s opinion with regard to presumptions from a *baraita* about a different issue: In a case of **a needle that is found in the thick wall of** a slaughtered animal’s **second stomach,** if it has pierced the stomach **from** only **one side,** the animal is **kosher.** If the stomach is pierced **from both sides,** meaning that the needle pierced a hole completely through the wall of the stomach, it has the status of **an animal with a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months** [***tereifa***], and one is consequently prohibited to eat from it. Furthermore, if **a drop of** congealed **blood is found on top of** the needle, **it is certain that** the perforation was created **before** the **slaughtering** of the animal, and it is therefore a *tereifa*. If **no drop of blood is found on it, it is certain that it** occurred **after** the **slaughtering,** which means the animal is kosher.


###### Ketubot 76b:6
[Ketubot 76b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/76b:6)

הוּגְלַד פִּי הַמַּכָּה — בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁשְּׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים קוֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה. לֹא הוּגְלַד פִּי הַמַּכָּה — הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה. וְאִי יְהַיב טַבָּח דְּמֵי — בָּעֵי לְאֵיתוֹיֵי רְאָיָה וּמַפֵּיק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **a scab appeared over the wound** on that spot, **it is certain that** the incident happened **three days before** the **slaughtering.** The significance of this fact is that if the animal was sold to a butcher after this point in time, the butcher can claim that the transaction was performed in error, as he did not intend to purchase a *tereifa* animal. If **a scab did not appear over the wound,** and the seller claims that the animal was injured while in the possession of the butcher who purchased the animal, while the butcher claims that it was wounded when he bought it, **the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. And** therefore, **if** the **butcher had** already **given the money, he needs to bring proof and** then he can **take** his money back from the seller.


###### Ketubot 76b:7
[Ketubot 76b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/76b:7)

וְאַמַּאי? בַּעַל בְּהֵמָה לַיְיתֵי רְאָיָה וְנוֹקֵים?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara returns to Shmuel’s opinion: **But why** should this be the *halakha*? **Let** the **owner of the animal,** i.e., the seller, **bring proof and establish** the validity of the sale, just as the owner of the donkey must provide proof in order to maintain possession of the cow. Why is the burden of proof upon the butcher?


###### Ketubot 76b:8
[Ketubot 76b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/76b:8)

בִּדְלָא יְהַיב טַבָּחָא דָּמֵי. מַאי פַּסְקָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: This *baraita* is referring to a case **where the butcher had not** yet **given** the **money,** but was going to pay at a later time. Therefore, the seller is the one claiming money from the butcher, and he must offer proof in order for the transaction to be upheld. The Gemara poses a question: **Why** was it stated **without qualification?** The wording of the *baraita* implies that either side must bring proof. This *baraita* appears to refute the opinion of Shmuel.


###### Ketubot 76b:9
[Ketubot 76b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/76b:9)

אֶלָּא, כִּי אֲתָא רָמֵי בַּר יְחֶזְקֵאל, אָמַר: לָא תְּצִייתִינְהוּ לְהָנֵי כְּלָלֵי דְּכָיֵיל יְהוּדָה אַחִי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל. הָכִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כֹּל שֶׁנּוֹלַד סָפֵק בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה. וְתַנָּא תּוּנָא כַּלָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, when Rami bar Yeḥezkel came, he said: Pay no attention to those rules formulated by my brother Yehuda in the name of Shmuel.** In actuality, **this is** what **Shmuel said:** In **whosesoever’s domain the uncertainty came into being, the burden of proof rests upon him.** In the case of the exchange of the cow for the donkey, it is the owner of the cow who must provide proof. **And the *tanna*** of the mishna also **taught** along similar lines with regard to **a bride.** If the bride was in her father’s domain he must provide proof; if she was living with her husband the burden of proof is upon him.


###### Ketubot 76b:10
[Ketubot 76b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/76b:10)

מֵיתִיבִי: מַחַט שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת בְּעוֹבִי בֵּית הַכּוֹסוֹת כּוּ׳, וְאִי דְּלָא יְהַיב טַבָּח דָּמֵי — בַּעַל בְּהֵמָה בָּעֵי לְאֵיתוֹיֵי רְאָיָה וּמַפֵּיק, וְאַמַּאי? סְפֵיקָא בִּרְשׁוּת טַבָּח אִיתְיְילִיד!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection: A needle that is found in the thick wall of** an animal’s **second stomach…**the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. **And if** the **butcher had not** already **given the money,** the **owner of the animal needs to bring proof, and** only then can he **take** his money. The Gemara asks: **But why? The uncertainty was formed in** the **butcher’s possession.** According to Rami Bar Yeḥezkel’s opinion, it should be the butcher’s responsibility to provide proof.


###### Ketubot 76b:11
[Ketubot 76b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/76b:11)

דִּיהַיב טַבָּח דְּמֵי. וּמַאי פַּסְקָא? סְתָמָא דְמִילְּתָא, כַּמָּה דְּלָא יָהֵיב אִינִישׁ זוּזֵי — לָא יָהֵיב אִינִישׁ חֵיוְתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: This *baraita* is referring to a case **where the butcher had** already **given the money.** Since the butcher is the one demanding money from the seller, he must provide proof. The Gemara poses a question: **But why** was it stated **without qualification?** How is it known that the *tanna* was referring to this particular case? The Gemara answers: **The ordinary situation** is that **as long as a person has not given money,** the other **person will not give** him **the animal.** It can therefore be assumed that the butcher paid for the animal before he was allowed to slaughter it, which means it is he who is claiming the return of the money.


###### Ketubot 76b:12
[Ketubot 76b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/76b:12)

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּמוּמִין שֶׁבַּסֵּתֶר. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **And the Rabbis say: In what** case **is this statement said? With regard to hidden blemishes.** But he cannot claim to have been unaware of visible blemishes. **Rav Naḥman said:**