Kiddushin 11A

עד שתכנס לחופה, משום דעולא.

until she enters the wedding canopy, due to the reason of Ulla, lest she feed her non-priestly family members the teruma that her husband has given her.

ובן בג בג? סימפון, בעבדים לית ליה. אי מומין שבגלוי הוא ⁠– הא קא חזי ליה. אי משום מומין שבסתר ⁠– מאי נפקא ליה מיניה? למלאכה קא בעי ליה לא איכפת ליה.

The Talmud asks: And ben Bag Bag, what does he say about this a fortiori inference? The Talmud answers that he maintains that this a fortiori inference is invalid because he does not accept that there can be a claim of simfon with regard to the acquisition of slaves. The reason is that if it is an exposed blemish that the master found on the slave, he saw the blemish and purchased him regardless. Therefore, he cannot later claim that the transaction was unfair. If it is due to hidden blemishes on his slave, what difference does that make to him? Why should it matter if a slave has hidden blemishes? He needs him only for labor, and he does not care if he has hidden blemishes that do not impair his ability to perform labor.

נמצא גנב או קוביוסטוס ⁠– הגיעו. מאי אמרת, לסטים מזויין או (נכתב) [מוכתב] למלכות? הנהו קלא אית להו!

And even if this slave is discovered to be a thief or a gambler [kuvyustus], which are considered hidden blemishes that affect his work, it has come to him, i.e., the slave is acquired by the one who purchased him and the transaction is non-refundable. The reason is that the buyer should have suspected behavior of this kind, which is common among slaves, and therefore he suffers the loss. What do you say? Perhaps he discovered that the slave is an armed bandit and subject to be killed by the government for this, or sentenced to death by the government for another reason, and is sought by the authorities. This is not a valid claim, since these matters generate publicity, and therefore he is assumed to have taken the risk into consideration.