בבא בתרא קסח.
"צורבא מרבנן לאו אורחיה למידק"
The Gemara relates that ר' ירמיה had signed a receipt that a כתובה was paid. Afterwards, the woman came to ב"ד and said that although her name is the same name as mentioned in this receipt, it isn’t her but rather a different woman with the same name. ר' ירמיה said, I too said when I saw you came in, that you are not the same woman that I remember being here before. Later ר' ירמיה retracted and said that it is in fact the original woman referenced in the receipt. אביי says although we have a rule, "כיון שהגיד שוב אינו חוזר ומגיד", a צורבא מרבנן is different, because "לאו אורחיה" to be מדייק in women. The רשב"ם explains that ר' ירמיה is permitted to change his mind. אביי also suggests, that since a צורבא מרבנן is not accustomed to looking at women, when going to be מקדש a woman for himself, he should take along a עם הארץ who looks and recognizes women, this way he will be assured that they don’t switch this woman with a different one. The [ד"ה צורבא] חידושי הר"ן brings the בעל המאור that says this rule is not specific to identifying women. Any mistake that is common for people to make, if testifying, they may change and correct their testimony and there is no חסרון of "כיון שהגיד שוב אינו חוזר ומגיד". The שו"ע [חו"מ ס' כט',א'] paskens this way as well. The [איסורי ביאה פכ"א,ג'] רמב"ם says that it is permitted להסתכל באשה before marrying her. "ולא עוד, אלא שראוי לעשות כן" i.e.; it is actually preferable to do so. The ראב"ד argues with this Rambam and brings our Gemara that a צורבא מרבנן should bring an ע"ה with him when getting married. We see from this that it is not the דרך to be מסתכל and that’s why he brings along an ע"ה. The מגיד משנה explains the רמב"ם and says a צורבא מרבנן does look, but since he’s not רגיל, he could easily get confused later, this is why he brings along a ע"ה for backup. Furthermore, if it was אסור to be מסתכל like the ראב"ד is saying, we would never instruct a ע"ה to look for us. As we never say, "עמוד וחטא בשביל שיזכה חברך"! [מס' גיטין כז:] תוספות says that an עם הארץ also has a טביעת עין like a צורבא מרבנן and proves it from our sugya that says the צורבא מרבנן should bring the ע"ה with him to clarify things later. The reason we don’t return an אבידה to a ע"ה with טביעת עין alone, is because he is not believed to be saying the truth, but not because he doesn’t have טביעת עין. [תרכב] ר' אלחנן asks, if a צורבא מרבנן is not מדייק בנשים, how may we ever rely on his testimony if it’s regarding women? Furthermore, if there is such a detail that is common for people to err about and thus are given leeway and we don’t apply כיון שהגיד, how can we accept their עדות about this type of detail to begin with? ר' אלחנן explains that really רוב פעמים a צורבא מרבנן and other people are not mistaken, this is why their testimony is believed, however if they say they were mistaken, they are נאמן because this is a detail that’s easily confusing. The [ח"א ס' רכו] מבי"ט also says that עדי קידושין must see the face of the כלה. This is the מקור for a מסדר קידושין to lift the veil of the kallah for the עדים to see who they are testifying about. ע"ש.