Why are the possibilities why the Rabanan hold that a person’s statement about himself, that he did not do the Aveirah, can overpower two witnesses?
Because if he wanted he could have said that he did it on purpose, and would not be Chayav a Korban.
Because a person is believed regarding himself, more than 100 witnesses.
He does not Darshen the Posuk “Oh Hodah Eilav – Mikol Makom” to include that a Korban obligation is incurred through witnesses.
Answers A and B.
Answers B and C.
What is the Chiddush of the Braisa of Tumah, according to Rav Ami?
There is no Chiddush.
That we can qualify his words even when he became Tamei intentionally.
That we can qualify his words even when he said, “I did not become Tamei.”
That we can qualify his words even when he said, “I did not eat Cheilev.”
That a person is believed regarding himself, more than 100 witnesses.
Why doesn’t Ravina hold that “I wasn’t Tamei” isn't a good defense-Migo when witnesses tell someone, “You ate Kodashim while Tamei”?
Because the explanation of “I was Tamei, but I had immersed in the Mikveh and had become Tahor by then,” aren’t the same words as the “I was not Tamei” that he said, making it impossible to qualify the exact words he said.
Since there is a difference between “I was not Tamei” and “I had since become Tahor”; namely, the Taharah-status of all the Kodashim foods that he touched before immersing in the Mikveh.
Ravina is discussing a case where the witnesses were standing near the Mikveh, and they didn’t see him come in.
A person is scared to change his story and qualify his words in something that can easily be revealed – it can be investigated if he indeed immersed in the Mikveh.
Ravina doesn’t hold of a defense-Migo against a Korban obligation, in general.
What is the reason for the Mishnah’s case that a person who ate two half-Zeisim of two Minim is Potur from bringing a Korban?
Because they were two Tamchuyin (ways of cooking the food).
Because the Chelev of a cow and Chelev of a goat do not join together.
Because Yediyah does not make a difference in a scenario of Chatzi Shiur.
Because we are in doubt about the time-span to join them together, whether it is K’dei Achilas Pras, or Ochel Keliyos.
Because the combination of one Zayis being cow-Chelev and the other being goat-Chelev, coupled with the fact that they are cooked differently, together creates several mitigating factors, that thus do not obligate a Korban.
In what context did R. Meir say his time-span of K’Ochel Keliyos?
In regard to someone who entered the Mikdash after having drunk wine.
L’Chumra – As long as had he eaten very small pieces he would still be eating, is still considered connected to the original Achilah.
L’Kula – The only Tziruf is when he was actually eating in this fashion.