1)

(a)We ask why the Rabbanan exempt the man who denies that he ate Cheilev, even against two witnesses. Other than the fact that he has a Migu that he could have said 'Lo Achalti Shogeg Ela Meizid', the reason might be - because a person is believed on himself more than a hundred witnesses ...

(b)... specifically to matters concerning Kaparah, where we assume that a person wants to be atoned for, and will not therefore deny being Chayav if he sinned.

(c)Seeing as Mah Nafshach, he is believed, the ramifications of the She'eilah - will be in a case where he has no Migu, such as Tum'as Mikdash (as we will now see).

2)

(a)We establish the case of Tum'ah specifically by Tum'ah Chadashah. Tum'ah ...

1. ... Yeshanah is - where the Tum'ah occurred yesterday, and he entered the Beis-Hamikdash today.

2. ... Chadashah is - where the Tum'ah too, occurred today.

(b)There is no problem with Tum'ah Yeshanah - because seeing as he could have claimed 'Tavalti', we must also believe him when he says 'Lo Nitmeisi'.

(c)The problem with Tum'ah Chadashah is that - even if he claims ...

1. ... that he Toveled before entering the Beis-ha'Mikdash - he will still be Chayav a Chatas, since there has not yet been Ha'arev-Shemesh, rendering him a T'vul-Yom (and a T'vul-Yom who enters the Beis-Hamikdash is Chayav a Chatas).

2. ... 'Lo Nitmeisi Shogeg Ela Meizid' - because even if that is true, he will still be Chayav a Chatas (since the Chiyuv Chatas is not dependent on how he became Tamei).

(d)In the case of Tum'ah Yeshanah, we can believe him when he says 'Lo Nitmeisi' (and this is not a Migu be'Makom Eidim) - because we actually interpret his words to mean 'Lo Amadti be'Tum'asi' (meaning that he Toveled yesterday before nightfall).

3)

(a)We cite a Beraisa where Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim argue by two witnesses in the case of Tum'ah. The reason the Rabbanan give for ruling that he is Patur from a Korban is that - a person is believed on himself more than a hundred witnesses (which will apply even by Tum'ah Chadashah [which seemingly resolves our She'eilah]).

(b)Rebbi Ami however, rejects the proof (by establishing the case by Tum'ah Yeshanah) - attributing Adam Ne'eman al Atzmo ... itself to the Migu, since he could have said 'Lo Amadti be'Tum'asi'.

(c)The problem with this is that - in that case, Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim are simply repeating their Machlokes by Cheilev, without teaching us anything new.

(d)We solve the problem by differentiating between Cheilev - where 'Lo Achalti' can easily be interpreted as 'Lo Achalti Shogeg Ela Meizid', and Tum'ah - where 'Lo Nitmeisi' does not translate so easily into 'Lo Amadti be'Tum'asi', and we would therefore have thought that the Chachamim concede to Rebbi Meir there that he is not believed.

4)

(a)Another Beraisa learns from the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with Tum'as Mikdash) "ve'Hisvadah asher Chata alehah" that - as long as the person admits to having sinned, he is Chayav to bring a Chatas, otherwise he is Patur.

(b)There too - Rebbi Meir repeats his argument 'Im Hevi'uhu Shenayim ... '.

(c)Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Ne'eman Adam al Atzmo ... '. The Chachamim agree with Rebbi Yehudah with regard to Chalavin and Bi'as Mikdash, but not with regard to Tum'ah, because according to them, he is only believed because of a Migu, and by Tum'ah, there is no Migu (as we explained earlier).

5)

(a)When the Chachamim say ...

1. ... Bi'as Mikdash, they are referring to a case where the witnesses said 'Nichnasta le'Mikdash Tamei' and he replied 'Lo Nichnasti'.

2. ... Tum'ah - where they said 'Nitmeisa', and he replied 'Lo Nitmeisi'.

(b)The difference between them is that - in the case of Cheilev and Bi'as Mikdash, there is a Migu (because in both cases, he could have said that he did it be'Meizid as we explained in our Mishnah), whereas in the case of Tum'ah, there is not (as we will now see).

(c)Initially, we establish the Beraisa by Tum'ah Chadashah - because if it was speaking about Tum'ah Yeshanah, why would Tum'ah not be subject to a Migu, since there too, he could have said 'Lo Amadti be'Tum'asi'.

6)

(a)According to the second Lashon, Tum'ah in this case, refers, not to Bi'as Mikdash, but to simply being Tamei and touching Taharos, and the Rabbanan disagree with Rebbi Yehudah - because they only believe the man in a case which involves a Korban.

(b)According to this Lashon, we prove that the Rabbanan's reason is not because of Migu, but because of 'Adam Ne'eman al Atzmo ... ' - because otherwise, the Migu by Tum'ah Yeshanah still exists.

(c)Either way, Ravina refutes this, by establishing the case of Tum'ah when the witnesses said that he ate Kodshim be'Tum'as ha'Guf, and he replied that he did not. (categorically establishing the Rabbanan's reason as Migu). And Migu will not apply in this case because even if we were to believe him that he Toveled before eating the Kodshim, his initial argument 'Lo Nitmeisi' includes not rendering the Kodshim Tamei, whereas 'Lo Amadti be'Tum'asi' only refers to exempting him from a Korban, but does not refer to the Kodshim not being Tamei (in which case he cannot be believed [see also Chak Nasan]).

7)

(a)Rav Nachman rules like Rebbi Yehudah (Adam Ne'eman al Atzmo ... ).

(b)Rav Yosef qualifies Rebbi Yehudah's ruling - restricting the concession of allowing him to eat Kodshim after two witnesses have testified that he is Tamei, to when he is on his own, but not in public.

8)

(a)According to Resh Lakish, Rebbi Meir will concede that if two witnesses testify that he is Chayav for having relations with a Shifchah Charufah, he is believed to say 'Lo Ba'alti' - since he could have claimed that he did not complete his Bi'ah (something which the witnesses cannot know).

(b)According to Rav Sheishes, Rebbi Meir will concede that if two witnesses testify that a Nazir became Tamei Meis (and is Chayav a Korban), he is believed to say 'Lo Nitmeisi' - because he could have claimed that he nullified his Nezirus (which again, the witnesses cannot have known).

(c)And according to Abaye, Rebbi Meir will concede that if two witnesses testify that he knows a certain testimony (and is Chayav a Chatas for swearing that he does not), he is believed to say 'Lo Yada'ti' - because he could have said that he did not intend to be a witness (in which case his Shevu'ah was not false).

(d)Yet Rebbi Meir does not hold of the Chachamim's Migu in our Mishnah - because saying 'Meizid Hayisi' would have made him a Rasha, something that he would not do.

9)

(a)When Rebbi Zeira asked why our Mishnah obligates someone who ate two k'Zeisim of Cheilev in one Ha'alamah to bring only one Chatas and not two, Abaye replied that - it is Ha'alamos that divide, and here, since there is only one Ha'alama, there can only be one set of Malkos.

(b)Others extrapolate from our Mishnah, which specifically refers to one Ha'alamah, from which we can infer that if he had eaten them in two Ha'alamos - he would be Chayav two sets of Malkos.

(c)To explain that, Abaye replied - 'Ha'alamos Mechalkos'.

10)

(a)Our Mishnah obligates someone who ate two half-k'Zeisim of Cheilev in one Ha'alamah to bring a Chatas. The problem with this is that - it seems too obvious to warrant mention in the Mishnah.

(b)Resh Lakish in the name of bar Tutni answers that the Tana is speaking where he ate them in two different dishes (bi'Shetei Tamchuyin), according to Rebbi Yehoshua - who maintains that Tamchuyin divide ...

(c)... but only le'Chumra, whereas in our Mishnah, if Tamchuyin Mechalkin were to exempt the person from a Chatas, it would constitute a Kula.

11)

(a)A second Lashon quotes Resh Lakish in the name of bar Tutni on the Seifa 'mi'Shenei Minin, Patur' - which Resh Lakish now interprets as mi'Shenei Tamchuyin, Patur (like Rebbi Yehoshua) even if it is the same species, in which case - Rebbi Yehoshua holds Tamchuyin Mechalkin even le'Kula.

(b)For the sake of uniformity, the Reisha must then be speaking - by Miyn Echad ve'Tamchuy Echad.

(c)To explain the Chidush, Ravina establishes the Reisha where there was a Yedi'ah in between - and the author of our Mishnah is Rabban Gamliel (as we will now see).

(d)The Mishnah in Shabbos discusses someone who writes two Osiyos (letters) in two Ha'alamos, one in the morning and one in the afternoon. The Chachamim say 'Patur'; Rabban Gamliel - Chayav ...

(e)... because holds h'Ein Yedi'ah le'Chatzi Shi'ur'.

12)

(a)With reference to someone who eats two half-k'Zeisim (discussed in the previous Mishnah), Rebbi Meir requires him to eat them 'like one eats parched ears of corn - that they are already broken up into small pieces, ready to eat (The Halachic ramifications of his ruling will be discussed in the Sugya).

(b)According to the Chachamim - he must eat them within the time limit of K'dei Achilas P'ras (four egg-volumes).

(c)Our Mishnah rules that if a Kohen ...

1. ... eats Tamei food or drinks Tamei beverages, then, provided he eats them Toch 'K'dei Achilas P'ras' - his body becomes Pasul from eating Terumah.

2. ... drinks wine, then enters the Azarah and performs the Avodah (see Tiferes Yisrael) - he is Chayav Kareis.

(d)Rebbi Eliezer qualifies the latter ruling - restricting it to where the Kohen drinks a Revi'is of undiluted wine without a pause.

13)

(a)We ask whether Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah ('ke'Ilu Ochel K'layos') comes to be stringent or lenient. He will be ...

1. ... more stringent - if he means that he eats them casually one after the other, but without a break (see Rabeinu Gershom) even if it takes him all day to eat them.

2. ... more lenient - if he too, requires 'K'dei Achilas P'ras', only he permits a short break in between (like one tends to do when eating K'layos).

(b)We resolve the She'eilah from the Lashon of the Chachamim 'Ad she'Yash'heh ... K'dei Achilas P'ras' - implying that one is only Chayav if he eats them within this Shi'ur (in which case Rebbi Meir must hold that this is not necessary), and Rebbi Meir comes to be stringent; because had the Chachamim come to be stringent - they would have said 'Im Shaha (as long as he waited) bi'Chedei Achilas P'ras ... '.