Ketubot 76A

חדא במקום תרתי, וחדא במקום תרתי לא אמרינן. עד שלא תתארס ⁠— העמד הגוף על חזקתו לא איכא למימר. מאי איכא? חזקה דאין אדם שותה בכוס אלא אם כן בודקו, והאי ראה וניפייס הוא ⁠— אדרבה: חזקה אין אדם מיפייס במומין, והעמד ממון על חזקתו.

one presumption opposed by two others. And we do not say that one presumption is decisive when it is opposed by two. However, if the husband brings proof that that she was blemished before she was betrothed, we cannot say: Establish the state of the woman’s body according to its presumptive status, since it has been established that the blemishes existed prior to the betrothal. What claim is there in the woman’s favor? Only 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. The Talmud responds: On the contrary, there is a presumption that a person does not become appeased with regard to blemishes, and therefore the money is established according to its presumptive status and we do not obligate the husband to pay for the marriage contract.

רב אשי אמר: רישא ״מנה לאבא בידך״, וסיפא ״מנה לי בידך״.

Rav Ashi said that the contradiction between the first and last clauses of the Mishnah can be resolved in the following manner: The first clause is similar to a claim made by one who says: My father has 100 dinars in your possession. When the blemishes were discovered he had not yet married her, and therefore the payment for the marriage contract would go to the woman’s father, and not to her. And the latter clause is referring to a married woman who claims the marriage contract for herself, and it is therefore as though she says: I have 100 dinars in your possession. The presumptive status of her body enables her to claim money only for herself, not on behalf of someone else, including her father.