I would like to ask a question on Tosphot in Ketuboth page 76a first Tosphot on the page. Tosphot suggests that the husband has two hazakot, each one worth (let's say for instance .6). Therefore, each one by itself is more powerful than the hazakot of the wife whose hazakot would be worth 1.0 each. The reason is both hazakot of the husband are combined with hezkat money and lets us give a value to hezkat money also to be .6. So, each hazaka of the husband overrides the hazaka of the wife since each one is combined with hezkat mamon So .6 of one with .6 of momon is 1.2 which is more that one hazak of the wife. however in a case where bothh hazakot of the husband are weighed against both hazakot of the wife, the hazakot of the wife override that of the husband since she has 2.0 while the husband has only 1.8, i.e., his two regular hazakot, plus one of hezkat money, The problem I have on this answer is that in the cases we are talking about, the case after the hupa where the husbnad brings proof the blemish was before the engagment, and the case where she is still in her fathers' home, and thus the father has to bring proof the blemish occurred after the engegemenet. In these cases, we are only talking about who has to bring proof, not the probabbility of when the event of her receiving a blemish occurred. I mean to say in no scenario are we dealing with a case in which there is the hezaka of the husband weighed against one hazaka of the wife. The only case we are considering is when she is in her father home, and she is engaged and she received a blemish. In this case, there are two hazakot of the wife against two of the husband. Answer to my question is this: The hazakot of the wife do not work together. They say different opposite things. One is the blemish was before the engagement and the husband agreed to it. The other is hezkat of the body, and so it does not matter if he agreed since she is already in his realm of responsibility. So, the hazakot of the wife do not automatically work together. But the hazakot of the wife might work to together in a case where is is already after the hupa. But if the time frame is that she is still in her father’s home, the there is only one hazaka of the husband against one hazaka of the wife. The basic subject is this. The Mishna says if the blemish was found while she is sill in her father’s home, the father has to bring proof it occurred after the engagement. If it was found after the chupa, the husband has to bring proof it occurred before the engagement. Rava says the reason for the Mishna is, “Here it was found, so here it is.” Abaye asked if so then it should be enough if the husband brings proof the blemish was found to be on her even after the engagement, and we would assume it occurred before the engagement, since as long as she is in her father’s home, the father is the one who must bring proof, The Gemara answers for rava two hazakot of the wife overrides one of the husband. Tospot asks how can each one by itself before more that that of the wife and yet both together are less than that of the wife.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I would like to ask a question on תוספות inכתובות דף ע'ו ע''א first תוספות on the page. תוספות suggests that the husband has two חזקות, each one worth let's say for instance שתי שלישים . Therefore, each one by itself is more powerful than the חזקות of the wife whose חזקות would be worth one each. The reason is both חזקות of the husband are combined with חזקת money and lets us give a value to חזקת money also to be שתי שלישים. So, each חזקה of the husband overrides the חזקה of the wife since each one is combined with חזקת ממון So שתי שלישים of one חזקהwith שתי שלישים of חזקת ממון is four thirds which is more that one חזקה of the wife. However, in a case where both חזקות of the husband are weighed against both חזקות of the wife, the חזקות of the wife override that of the husband since she has two while the husband has only one and one third, i.e., his two regular חזקות, plus one of חזקת money, The problem I have on this answer is that in the cases we are talking about, the case after the חופה where the בעל brings proof the מום was before the אירוסין, and the case where she is still in her fathers home, and thus the father has to bring proof the מום occurred after the אירוסין, In these cases we are only talking about who has to bring proof, not the probability of when the event of her receiving a מום occurred. I mean to say in no scenario are we dealing with a case in which there is the חזקה of the husband weighed against one חזקה of the wife. The only case we are considering is when she is in her father home, and she is engaged and she received a מום. In this case there are two חזקות of the wife against two of the husband. The answer to my question is this. The חזקות of the wife do not work together. They say different opposite things. One is the מום was before the אירוסין. and the husband agreed to it. The other is חזקת of the body and so it does not matter if he agreed since she is already in his realm of responsibility. So, the חזקות of the wife do not automatically work together. But the חזקות of the wife might work to together in a case where she is already after the חופה. But if the time frame is that she is still in her father’s home, the there is only one חזקה of the husband against one חזקה of the wife. The basic subject is this. the משנה says if the מום was found while she is sill in her father’s home the father has to bring proof it occurred after the אירוסין. If it was found after the חופה the husband has to bring proof it occurred before the אירוסין. רבא says the reason for the משנה is, “Here it was found, so here it is.” אביי asked, if so then it should be enough if the husband brings proof the מום was found to be on her even after the אירוסין and we would assume it occurred before the אירוסין, since as long as she is in her father’s home he is the one who must bring proof, The גמרא answers for רבא two חזקות of the wife overrides one of the husband. תוספות asks how can each one by itself before more that that of the wife, and yet both together are less than that of the wife.