Today I would like to answer the question I asked yesterday on Rav Shmuel Rozovski. To a large degree, he answers the question himself. He says that the Tosphot in Ketuboth 75b (forth Tosphot on the page, first words “but where”.) is going like R Joshua. And that pretty much answers the question. He can therefore say that the Gemara in Nida page 2b is going like the tana kama of R Joshua. case there is a white hair is in a spot of leprosy. It is not known whether it came before the spot and therefore the person is not impure, or perhaps it came after the spot appeared and therefore the person is impure. The sages said it is a case of doubt and R Joshua said the person is pure. so, we see the sages hold a status of the body and status of law cancel each other. Thus, the question from Nida is answered. Thee mikve was found lacking the right volume and that is status of the body which we push forwards in time. Thus, we would say the mikve lacked the right volume after the person was tovel the person that dunked has status of being impure which cancels that a status of law and we say he remained impure. 99So, each cancels the other and we are left with status of now which also pushes the lack backwards in time and so the food that was prepared on it is definitely impure. This clearly answers my question on Rav Shmuel because the gemara in Nida holds a status of law can stand before a status of body according to the sages. The only question on this is that it is hard to figure out what the general approach of r Joshua is. In Ketuboth he argues with Raban Gamliel . The case is a woman comes to court and says she was found to be not a virgin but the reason is because she was raped. Raban Gamiel says she is believed and the Gemara says the reason is status of the body and a migo. R Joshua disagrees there. So there he does not hold with status of the body as opposed to what he says in Ketuboth page 75. Also I might add here that the case of page 9 is hard to understand. It says if the new husband comes to court and claims he did not find her to be a virgin, she is forbidden to him. But what would happen if right then she says yes, I was not a virgin because I was raped after the engagement and the law is like Raban Gamliel that she is believed and some (ramban, rashba, rabainu yona) says she is even permitted to her husband. What would be the law? Is she already forbidden to him and that cannot be changed? --------After writing the above paragraph I saw the Rosh in Ketuboth chapter one, paragraph 18 where he brings Rabbainu Yona, and now I see that R Yona the Ramban and Rashba hold if she contradicts the husband she is not believed and she is forbidden to him. But if she says she had sex before the engagement then she is permitted to him. She is believed. The Rambam holds once he says he found her to not be a virgin she is automatically forbidden to him but she gets the 200 zuz ketubah. The thing that I am still curious about is that Raban Gamliel is only talking about the wife of a Israeli. There she says she was raped after the engagement and is believed. But he did not mention the case of the wife of a kohen. I think it is understood that she also would be believed if she says the act of sex was before the engagement but that is not mentioned by him. And I am not sure why she would be believed. Her plea goes against status of the body. ___________________________________________Today I would like to answer the question I asked yesterday on רב שמואל Rozovski. To a large degree, he answers the question himself. He says that the תוספות in Ketuboth 75b (forth תוספות on the page, first words “but where”.) is going like ר' יהושע. And that pretty much answers the question. He can therefore say that the Gemara in Nida page 2b is going like the תנא קמא of ר' יהושע. THE case there is a white hair is in a spot of leprosy. It is not known whether it came before the spot and therefore the person is not טמא, or perhaps it came after the spot appeared and therefore the person is טמא. The sages said it is a case of doubt and ר' יהושע said the person is pure. so, we see the חכמים hold a חזקה of the body and חזקה of דין cancel each other. Thus, the question from נידה ב' ע''ב is answered. The מקווה was found lacking the right volume and that is חזקת הגוף which we push forwards in time. מי שטבל יש לו חזקת דיןSo, each cancels the other, and we are left with חזקה of השתא which also pushes the lack backwards in time, and so the food that was prepared on it is definitely טמא.This clearly answers my question on רב שמואל because the גמרא in נידה holds a חזקה of דין can stand before a חזקה of גוף according to the תנא קמא. The only question on this is that it is hard to figure out what the general approach of ר' יהושע is. In כתובות he argues with רבן גמליאל. The case is a woman comes to court and says she was found to be not a virgin but the reason is because she was raped. רבן גמליאל says she is believed and theגמרא says the reason is חזקה of the body and a מיגו. AND ר' יהושע disagrees there. So there he does not hold with חזקה of the body as opposed to what he says in כתובות page 75. Also, I might add here that the case of page 9 is hard to understand. It says if the new husband comes to court and claims he did not find her to be a virgin, she is forbidden to him. But what would happen if right then she says yes, I was not a virgin because I was raped after the engagement and the law is like רבן גמליאל that she is believed and some says she is even permitted to her husband. What would be the law? Is she already forbidden to him and that cannot be changed?----------------After writing the above paragraph I saw the רא''ש in כתובות chapter one, paragraph 18 where he brings ר' יונה, and now I see that ר' יונה the רמב''ן and רשב''א hold if she contradicts the husband, she is not believed, and she is forbidden to him. But if she says she had sex before the engagement, then she is permitted to him. She is believed. The רמב''ם holds once he says he found her to not be a virgin, she is automatically forbidden to him, but she gets the מאתיים זוז כתובות. The thing that I am still curious about is that רבן גמליאל is only talking about the wife of a Israeli. There she says she was raped after the engagement and is believed. But he did not mention the case of the wife of a kohen. I think it is understood that she also would be believed if she says the act of sex was before the engagement, but that is not mentioned by him. And I am not sure why she would be believed. Her plea goes against status of the body.