Clarification: Where she is Shogeg or a Ketanah - the man does not bring a Korban.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara said earlier (on Daf 9a) 'to include Shogeg like Meizid' ...

Answer: It refers to the Shogeg of the man like his Meizid, but the woman must be Meizid (See Shitah Mekubetzes 34).

Question: The Lashon is not accurate, seeing as although the man is compared to the woman, the woman is not compared to the man ...

Proof: Since we see that, even where the man is Patur, the woman is Chayav, as the Toras Kohanim states - "ve'Ish", 'to preclude a Katan; Will we also preclude a n inr year old boy? Therefore the Torah writes "ve'Ish".

Conclusion: IN that case, a woman is not compared to a man.

Refuted Reason: Rashi explains that it is because the Torah writes "Shichvas Zera", and when he does not do it intentionally, it is not fit to take root ...

Example: Such as where he fell off the roof on tophe of t the woman.

Refutation: Who says that it is not fit to take root?

Authentic Reason: But the reason is because he is an Oneis.

Clarification: What the Beraisa therefore means is 'They made the end of Bi'ah like Ha'ara'ah, and Miskaven like she'Eino Miskaven' - with reference to ke'Darkah and she'Lo ke'Darkah, as the Gemara explains (See Shitah Mekubetzes 17).

Question: Why does the Tana not insert 'NI'er ke'Yashen together with them (See Shitah Mekubetzes 18), instead of after 'ke'Darkah ve'she'Lo ke'Darkah' (See Shitah Mekubetzes 19)

Question: Why does the Gemara use excessive language ...

Reason: Seeing as this does not explain the Beraisa, which it has already done admirably.

Refuted Explanation: Rashi (We do not have this Rashi in our text) explains that it speaks where his wife and his sister were with him in the same bed, and where he intended to be with his wife, but then discovered that it was his sister ...

Refuted Explanation (cont.): In which case he is Patur from Malkos though he is Chayav Chatas since he derived benefit - because he was Mis'asek.

Refutation: A Shifchah is also Chayav Chatas in the equivalent case where he has his wife in mind but then discovers that it was a Shifchah, seeing as she is Chayav for both Meizid and Shogeg ...

Refutation (cont.): So what does the Beraisa then mean when it says 'Nimtza Miskaven be'Shifchah ke'she'Ein Miskaven la'Arayos' - since the Din is the same by both?

Authentic Explanation: The explanation of 'Ein Miskaven by Arayos must therefore be where he fell off the roof on top of the Ervah, where he is completely Patur even from a Chatas, seeing as he is an Oneis.

Clarification: This must be speaking where the two witnesses testified at the same time ...

Reason: Because if they testified one after the other, Ula said (in Yevamos, 88b) that 'Wherever the Torah believes one witness, he is like two witnesses' ...

Reason (cont.): And since his testimony was accepted, we would no longer accept that of the second witness, who says 'Lo Achal'.

Clarification (cont.): And this must be speaking where the defendant is silent (See Shitah Mekubetzes 25), because if he would say 'I don't know', he would be Patur, as the Gemara learns from "O Hoda eilav" (See Birchas ha'Zevach).

Maskanah: The Gemara concludes that it is speaking where there is only one witness, who cannot be Mechayev him a Korban, and it must be speaking where after he testified in him, the defendant said 'Eini Yode'a' ...

Maskanah (cont.): Because if he would have said 'Lo Achalti', it is obvious that one witness is not believed ...

Source: As the Torah writes (n Devarim 9) "Lo Yakum Eid Echad be'Ish", implying that one witness can only testify against a person to be Mechayev him a Shevu'ah.

Clarification: If not for the woman who says 'Lo Achal', he would be Chayav on account of the one who said 'Achal', and to whom he was silent.

Inference: It therefore seems that a woman is believed more a Gazlan ...

Introduction to Proof: Since in the case of a Gazlan it implies that we do not say 'Shetikah ke'Hoda'ah', as the Gemara says in Perek ha'Omer (Kidushin, Daf 66a) - 'If you believe that he is not a Gazlan, go and give her a Get!' ...

Introduction to Proof (cont.): This implies that if he was a Gazlan, he would not have said 'Go and divorce her, even though he thought that he (her husband) had been silent.

Proof: So we see that wew do not say 'Shetikah ke'Hoda'ah Damya' ...

The Case: The case there concerned a blind man who arranged Beraisos in front of Mar Shmuel, when a man came and claimed that his wife had committed adultery. That was when Shmuel said to him 'If you believe that the man is not a Gazlan, then go and divorce her!' ...

Conclusion: Whereas here the woman is believed simply if the defendant is silent.

Clarification: The same will apply if he says 'Eini Yode'a', as Tosfos explained earlier.

Clarification: This refers to Pigul and Nosar as well.

Question: The Gemara says in Perek Kodshei Mizbe'ach (Me'ilah, Daf 17b) 'Pigul and Nosar do not combine', and the Gemara explains that this refers specifically to Tum'as Yadayim, but with regard to eating, they do combine?

Answer #1: That Gemara is speaking about Malkos ...

Answer #2: Or with regard to where they both fall into a pot, where they combine to give taste (to the ingredients of the pot) ...

Reason: Seeing as they one 'Shem' - since they only have one La'av between them ...

Conclusion: Whereas here it is speaking in connection with the Chiyuv of Korban.

Alternative Question: The Gemara could just as well have asked from the Reisha - 'Eid Omer "Achal" ,ve'Eid Omer "Lo Achal" - and he brings an Asham Taluy ...

Alternative Question (cont.): Only because one Eid said 'Lo Achal'; otherwise, he would be Chayav a Chatas, since 'Silence is akin to admission' ...

Clarification: And it can only be speaking where he was silent ...

Proof: Because if he contradicted him (the Eid), he would be completely Patur

Proof (cont.): And this would be the case even if he said 'Eini Yode'a', as Tosfos explained earlier.

Implied Question: One cannot answer that it speaks where he says 'Eini Yode'a' (See Birchas ha'Zevach) ...

Answer: Because it is obvious that he would then be Chayav ...

Reason: Since 'I don't know' where there are two witnesses is equivalent to silence.