Clarification: But if he contradicts him, he is not believed - in other wards, he claims that he does not know ...

Reason: Since if he explicitly claims that he did not eat, it is obvious that he is Patur, since one witness is only believed to make the defendant swear, as Tosfos explained in the Mishnah.

Explanation #1: At first sight, this indicates that he is believed on a account of a Migu, since he could have claimed that he was Meizid.

Introduction to Question #1: But this is 'A Migu in place of witnesses', seeing as there are witnesses that he ate, and he claims that he didn't, in which case, we do not believe him against witnesses, with a Migu ...

Question #1: And the Gemara says in Bava Metzi'a (Daf 81b) that 'We do not apply Migu against witnesses'? ...

Source: In the case there - 'Do not go along the route of the River Pakud! Go along the route of Neiresh ... '.

Question #2: Moreover, this is not a Migu, since a person would make himself into a Rasha ...

Source: As the Gemara says in Kidushin (Daf 50a) in connection with the case - 'Bring me from the window, and he brought it from the chest ... even though the owner claims that he meant not the one, but the other, the owner is Mo'el, because 'Devsarim she'be'Leiv Einan Devarim' ...

Source (cont.): The Gemara then asks 'Perhaps he meant to exempt himself from a Korban?, to which it replies 'In that case, he ought to have claimed "Meizid Hayisi'.

Source (concl.): And on that the Gemara asks that 'A person does not make himself a Rasha?'

Explanation #2: We must therefore explain that he is believed here on account of Metaretz Dibureih, because we can say that by 'Lo Achalti' he meant 'Lo Achalti Shogeg Ela Meizid' ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): And what the Gemara means is - since had he claimed 'Meizid Hayisi', he would have been Patur, now too, when he said 'Lo Achalti', that is what he really meant to say, and that is how we interpret his words ...

Implied Question: And even though 'A person does not make himself a Rasha', as the Gemara says in Sanhedrin (Daf 9b) in connection with 'P'loni raped me' - who is not believed because 'A person does not make himself a Rasha'? ...

Answer: That is if it is simply to render himself Pasul, but where he said 'I ate Cheilev on purpose', where on the contrary, his intention is to avoid bringing Chulin into the Azarah, he is believed.

Question: Why don't we simply ask him if that is what he meant (See 'Chidushin' of the Shitah Mekubetzes)?

Answer: Even if he subsequently claims 'Lo Achalti Shogeg Ela Meizid', Rebbi Meir will declare him Chayav, seeing as he did not say so initially.

Proof: And so the Toras Kohanim, quoting Rebbi Meir writes 'If he initially claims 'Meizid Achalti', we accept it ...

Proof (cont.): But if he he was arguing with tem all day - i.e. he said 'Lo Achalti' and no more, then even if he then claims 'Lo Achalti Shogeg Ela Meizid', he is Chayav.

Question: How can Rebbi Meir declare him Chayav, seeing as he claims 'Lo Achalti, and a person is not forced to bring a Chatas against his will? ...

Source: As the Gemara says in Bava Kama (Daf 40a) 'We do not take a security from Chata'os' (See Hagahos Mahari Landau).

Answer: That speaks where he does not want a Kaparah, whereas here where he wants a Kaparah, only he thinks he is Patur, we do take a Mashkon.

Alternative Distinction: It could also have answered that the difference lies in a case where he claims that he did not eat - neither Shogeg not Meizid (See Shitah Mekubetzes 45).

Rashi: Offers two explanations ...

Third Explanation: The Ri has a third one (See 'Chidushin' of the Shitah Mekubetzes) ...

Third Explanation (cont.): 'And the Chachamim concede to Rebbi Yehudah ... ' - But regarding Tum'ah they do not concede - such as in the case of 'Nitmeisa', and he replies 'Lo Nitmeisi' ...

Third Explanation (cont.): And the Gemara asks how it speaks - If it is an old Tum'ah, what is the difference between the two cases? ...

Third Explanation (cont.): So it establishes it by a new Tum'ah ...

Third Explanation (cont.): And the reason the Rabanan do not concede is because Migu is not applicable - and their reason is due to Migu ...

Third Explanation (cont.): And it is only by Chalavim and Bi'as Mikdash, that they concede, because Migu is applicable, but not by Tum'ah, where it is not.

Third Explanation (cont.): Whereas Rebbi Yehudah, whose reason is because 'Adam Ne'eman al Atzmo ... ', exempts in both cases.

Resolving the She'eilah: And the She'eilah is resolved, in that the reason that they argue with Rebbi Meir is on account of 'Metaretz Dibureih' (we interpret his words), as the Gemara implies here ...

Resolving the She'eilah (cont.): But that if the Rabanan of Rebbi Meir is Rebbi Yehudah, then his reason is because 'A person is believed on himself ... '.

Refutation: However Ravina refutes the proof; he establishes it by Tum'ah Yeshanah, yet one cannot prove anything from here, because we can say that even according to Rebbi Yehudah he is only believed on account of the Migu ....

Refutation (cont.): And the reason that they argue here by Tum'ah Yeshanah, and the Rabanan say that he is Chayav - assuming the witnesses say that he ate Kodshim be'Tum'as ha'Guf, and he counters that he did not become Tamei ...

Reason: Which, according to the Rabanan, is not considered Metaretz Dibureih - i.e. that he did not remain Tamei, only he Toveled ...

Reason (cont.): Because whereas had he said that he did not eat, we can explain his words to mean that he did not eat be'Tum'ah, but Toveled first ...

Reason (cont.): But where he claims 'Lo Nitmeisi' his first statement has already been contradicted - because 'Lo Nitmeisi' implies neither Shogeg nor Meizid

Reason (concl.): Seeing as he did not answer them with regard to the eating of which they accused him.

Introduction to Question 1: There is a Kashya on the current Sugya from the Gemara in the first Perek of Bava Metzi'a (Daf 3b) which asks that - 'Self-admission ('Piv') should not be more effective than the admission caused by witnesses, from a Kal va'Chomer ...

Introduction to Question #1 #1 (cont.): 'If already Piv ... ', which the Gemara queries 'Whereas Piv is Mechayev him a Korban, witnesses are not?'

Question #1: What is the Kashya, bearing in mind that Piv is only Mechayev him a Korban where the witnesses do not contradict him ...

Question #1 (cont.): Because if he were to claim that he ate Cheilev be'Shogeg, and the witnesses would say that on the same day and at the same time he ate Cheilev after they had warned him, or that he ate, not Cheilev, but Shuman, he would not be Chayav a Korban ...

Question #1 (concl.): And by witnesses, there where he does not contradict them, he is also Chayav ...

Proof: Seeing as even on the testimony of one witness he is Chayav, as is implied here?

Question #2: Moreover, on the contrary, witnesses are more stringent than Piv, seeing as witnesses are Mechayev him even if he contradicts them ...

Proof: Because until now the Rabanan only exempt him on account of a Migu, but if he were to contradict them outright, he would be Chayav a Korban.

Question #3: Moreover, what does the Gemra mean when it answers 'Rebbi Chiya holds like Rebbi Meir? Why can he not hold even like the Rabanan, seeing as they too, are Mechayev him there where Metaretz Dibureih is not applicable? (See 'Chidushin' of the Shitah Mekubetzes)

Implied Question: But earlier, where the Gemara establishes the Reisha by one species and two dishes, the Gemara does not extrapolate 'So we see that the Seifa speaks by two species - real species such as Cheilev and Dam ...

Answer: Since we could answer that the Tasna learns the Seifa on account of the Reisha.

Answer (cont.): But we do not find 'the Reisha on account of the Seifa'.

Clarification: And it refers to it as 'He'elam Rchad', according to Raban Gamliel, who does not consider Yedi'ah on half a Shi'ur, a Yedi'ah ...

Implied Question: Yet he nevertheless learns it ...

Answer: To teach us that even in one He'elam of two different species, he is Patur.

Inference: We can learn from here that the Shi'ur P'ras is speaking in two cases ...

Case #1: One regarding making a break - that if one makes a break of a P'ras between one eating and another, they do not combine ...

Case #2: The other, like the Gemara says elsewhere - that if one places a k'Zayis T'rumah in the Shi;ur of a P'ras of Chulin, that he is Chayav on it.

Text: Some texts read 'Shekatzim' ...

Clarification: It is speaking about Tamei Shekatzim.

Question: Why is he not anyway Tamei when he touches them?

Answer: It speaks where where someone stuck it into his throat.