Question: [The Mishnah says] "did you warn him?" What is the source for warning?

Answer (R. Shmuel bar Nachman citing R. Yonason): "V'Ish Asher Yikach Es Achoso... [v'Ra'ah Es Ervasah...] Chesed Hu" (v'Ra'ah... alludes to showing him the reason, i.e. that he transgresses).

(R. Bun): Kayin married his sister, and Hevel married his sister. I (Hash-m) did Chesed with the first people (to permit siblings to marry) in order to build the world - "Ki Amarti Olam Chesed Yibaneh."

(Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Yochai): ""Al Pi Shnayim Edim Yumas ha'Mes" - does the Mes die? Rather, [they must warn and] inform him through which death he will die.

(Beraisa - R. Yudah bei R. Ilai): "V'Chi Yazid Ish Al Re'ehu Lehorgo b'Armah" - they [warn him, and] make him alert about which death he will die.

If he was worthy of a harsh death, and they warned him for a light one, he can say "had I know that it is a harsh death, I would not have done this matter."

If he was worthy of a light death, and they warned him for a harsh one, R. Yudan bei R. Ilai holds that [it is invalid, for] they must make him astute about which death he will die.

If they were warning him and he was silent, or they were warning him and he tilted his head, even though he said "I know", he is exempt, until he says "I do so in order to [get killed]."

If they saw him murder, and they told him 'know that he is a Yisrael, and the Torah said "Shofech Dam ha'Adam b'Adam Damo Yishaech"', even though he said "I know", he is exempt, until he says "I do so in order to [get killed]."

If they saw him transgress Shabbos, and they told him 'know that it is Shabbos, and the Torah said "Mechaleleha Mos Yumas"', even though he said "I know", he is exempt, until he says "I do so in order to [get killed]."

Question (R. Chiya bar Gamda): Why was the Mekoshesh (the man who gathered) wood liable - for detaching (KORBAN HA'EDAH - with the root), or for harvesting (without the root)?

Answer: We learn from the following [Beraisa]]. "Va'Yihyu Vnei Yisrael ba'Midbar va'Yimtze'u" - this teaches that they found him detaching wood from the ground.

Question (R. Chiya bar Gamda): How was the Mekoshesh killed - through stoning? (They did not know this beforehand. This is difficult for the Tana above who requires warning which Misah he will receive!)

Answer: We learn from the following [Beraisa]. They knew that the Mekoshesh is Chayav Misah, but they did not know which death [and even so, he was killed]!

Rebuttal (R. Chiyah - Beraisa): "Hotzei Es ha'Mekalel mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" - how was he killed? Through stoning. (The Sifra says that they did not know that he is Chayav Misah until Hash-m said. I.e. even though he was not warned, it was a Hora'as Sha'ah to kill him. We can say that also the Mekoshesh was not warned properly, and it was a Hora'as Sha'ah to kill him!

[The Mishnah said, what did he serve - e.g. Ba'al] Pe'or or Markulis?

Question: "And how did he serve it" - [do we ask whether he served] through its [special] Avodah, or through Avodah done to Hash-m (bowing, Shechitah, Zerikah or Haktarah)?

Answer: We learn from the following. A case occurred and two [witnesses] came and said "we saw this person serve idolatry, and we do not know whether it was Pe'or or Markulis." We judge him for both of them, and through whichever acquits him, we exempt him. (ZAHAV HA'ARETZ - this shows that we do not ask whether he did its Avodah, or Avodas Hash-m, for if he said the latter, we cannot exempt him! Rather, we ask what action he did. TAL TORAH - we could not exempt him if they said that he threw a rock, even if he served Pe'or, for this is like Zerikah.)

(Mishnah): Whoever asks many Bedikos, he is praiseworthy.

A case occurred in which Ben Zakai asked about [the size of] the stems of the figs.

What is the difference between Chakiros and Bedikos? If one witness cannot answer a Chakirah, their testimony is invalid. If a witness, or even both witnesses, cannot answer Bedikos, their testimony is valid.

For both Chakiros and Bedikos, if they contradict each other, their testimony is disqualified.

(Gemara): How did he detach [the figs - was it] through their stems? How did he eat them - was it with their pits?

Note: The case is, he was liable for detaching on Shabbos. Eating them was relevant, to make it Melachah ha'Tzerichah l'Gufah (SHIREI KORBAN). MAR'EH HA'PANIM equates the Yerushalmi to the Bavli. The Bavli rejected this opinion, and concludes that the case was, someone murdered under a fig tree. I see no source to (or other Meforshim who) explain the Yerushalmi like the Bavli.

(Mishnah - Nazir 3:7): If there were two sets of witnesses - these testify that he accepted to be a Nazir twice, and these testify that he accepted to be a Nazir five times - Beis Shamai say, the testimony is divided, and there is no Nezirus. (We do not force him; if he knows that he accepted, he must fulfill what he accepted);

Beis Hillel say, amidst five are two. [All agree that] he is a Nazir [at least] twice.

(Rav): They argue about Klal, but in a case of Prat (counting; these are explained below), all agree that amidst five are two;

(R. Yochanan): They argue about one who counts, but in a case of Kolel, all agree that the testimony is divided (there is no Nezirus).

What is Kolel, and what is counting? Kolel is when this [set] says [that he said] two, and this one says five;

Counting is when this one says [that he said] "one, two", and this one says "three, four."

(Rav): Contradiction of testimony in the testimony itself - the testimony is not Batel;

(R. Yochanan): Contradiction of testimony in the testimony itself - the testimony is Batel;

All agree that contradiction of testimony after the testimony, the testimony is not Batel.

R. Yochanan teaches like he taught elsewhere, for R. Ba bar Chiyah said in the name of R. Yochanan that if [the lender] was Huchzak [both witnesses saw him] to count out [coins to the borrower], this one says that he counted from a wallet, and this one says that he counted from a bundle of coins - this is contradiction of testimony in the testimony itself. Even Rav agrees that the testimony is Batel;

What do they argue about? There are two sets of witnesses. One says that he counted from a wallet, and one says that he counted from a bundle. This is contradiction of testimony in the testimony itself. [R. Yochanan says that] the testimony is Batel, and according to Rav, the testimony is not Batel.

If one says that [after the borrower received the coins,] he counted [them] into his lap, and one says into his hollow belt, all agree that this is contradiction of testimony after the testimony. The testimony is not Batel.

If one says that he killed him with a sword, and one says that he killed him with a staff, this is contradiction of testimony in the testimony. Even Rav agrees that the testimony is Batel;

What do they argue about? There are two sets of witnesses. One says that he killed him with a sword, and one says that he killed him with a staff, this is contradiction of testimony in the testimony. [R. Yochanan says that] the testimony is Batel, and according to Rav, the testimony is not Batel.

If one says that he went to the north [after killing him], and one says that he went to the south, all agree that this is contradiction of testimony after the testimony. The testimony is not Batel.

Support (for Rav - Mishnah Yevamos 15:5): [If one wife of Ploni says that he died, and one wife of Ploni says that he was killed,] R. Yudan and R. Shimon say, since both agree that he is not alive, they may remarry.

Rebuttal: [The one who brought this support,] did not he not hear that R. Lazar said that R. Yehudah and R. Shimon agree about witnesses [if witnesses disagree in such a case, the widow may not remarry]?!

Question: What is the difference between witnesses and a Tzarah (co-wife)?

Answer: [Chachamim] did not give any significance to a woman's words regarding her Tzarah (for they often hate each other. Perhaps she seeks to ruin her.)

R. Yochanan: If R. Lazar said so, he heard so from me and said so.

Question: Our Mishnah is unlike Rav! For both Chakiros and Bedikos, if they contradict each other, their testimony is disqualified! How does Rav answer this?

Answer #1 (R. Mana): Rav explains that it is when one witness argues with one witness. (We said that Rav agrees when there is only one set of witnesses.)

Answer #2 (R. Avin): [Rav] can explain even when a set of witnesses [argues] with a set. Capital cases are different, for it says "Tzedek Tzedek Tirdof" (strive to vindicate the accused).