1) lechorah every case of edim should be edis shi ai afsher lazima. This is because lets say cot A says Rifka a ashes aish) was mazaneh (or fill in another aveirah), then cot B says cot A are edim zomimim. Thhen cot C says cot B are edim zomimim. B should not become edim zomimim because they could say they didnt come to make cot A edim zomimmim (harshei es harshah) but they came to save the orginal nidun (in this case Rifka) from the enosh (hatzdiku es hatzadik) [very similar to the case in senhedrin where edim can say they didnt come to kill the ashes aish but they came to assur her to her bal]. Now since cot B is edis shi ai afsher lazimah memelah cot A is also edis shi afsher lazimah (because cot B can never come). Obviously this cant be the case but, so why isnt every case of edis edis shei afsher lazimah?
Makos 013: Azaharah
2) The gemara on the bottom of yud gimal amud beis has a hava aminah that you need a azaharah to teach you a aveirah is chiav a korban (and therefore you cant learn out the chiav kares get makos). What kind of hava aminah is this? Beshlamah by cases of kares you can have such a hava aminah. But what about the cases of chiav misah (eg chilal shabbas) where you need the azahar to make you chiav misah (and therefore cant teach you tat your chiav a korban). Lacharah according to this hava amainah chiuvay misah should not be chiav a korban. This is a bit of starange hava aminah?
Makos 002: Kufra Kaparah
3) The gemara says that if edim zomimim say that nidun has to pay cofer the edim zomimim are puter b/c lav bnei coparah ninhu. Why cant the gemara give a much better answer that it would be casher zomeim lechatzain? (this is only a kasha on the Ritza shetah on beis amud aleph but not the ramban).
Makos 002: Ben Gerushah/Ben Chalutzah
4) How can you have a case of edim zomimim on bengerushah? Ar shas gemar din its alreaddy casher asah? Also why is there a gemar din at all? Do we have a gemar din on issurin? I never heard of a gemar din that a piece of meat is tref, you have a psak from a rav but not a actual gemar din from beis din.
Thank you very much for spending the time to answer all my questions
Ahron, Israel
1) You are basically using the claim in the Gemara in Sanhedrin (41a). However, the Gemara over there cites many cases where there is no defense of "Ee Atah Yachol l'Hazimah," such as where the witnesses gave warning for death, or an Eishes Chaver who was already forbidden to her husband. Additionally, this only works in a case where there is a claim that the witnesses wanted to forbid the person from something else. Accordingly, most of the time there will not be a defense of "Ee Atah Yachol l'Hazimah," as is clear from the Sugya there.
2) The Gemara is just asking that a second prohibition regarding something which the Torah already said is punished with Kares should mandate the bringing of a Korban. This is assuming that the prohibition is not accompanied with an instruction to kill the person, or in other words, where we do not know of any punishment of Misah, akin to the law of Pesach with which the Gemara is dealing.
3) You gave your own answer by saying that this is an argument among the Rishonim, which means that the Gemara would rather give a simple answer than a complicated answer. However, even if this were not the case, I don't see any particular advantage for the answer "ka'Asher Zamam l'Chatzain" if the truth is that they are not Bnei Kaparah.
4) I don't understand the question. Two Kohanim testify that another Kohen is a Ben Gerushah, and before the Gemar Din they are made into Zomimim. He never became a Ben Gerushah. Additionally, I don't know why a Beis Din cannot establish a Gemar Din about Isurin. If they didn't need a Beis Din, they would go to a Rav! The fact that they have to go to a Beis Din to testify about Yichus (as is evident from many places, among them the Rambam in Isurei Bi'ah 20:4) shows that a Gemar Din is required.
Hatzlachah Rabah,
Yaakov Montrose