Explanation #1 (Rashi): When [the other judges] say that he did not steal, these are Trei v'Trei (contradictory pairs of witnesses). This is not Machshir [the accused judge].

Question #1: Here, we discuss according to Rav Huna. He holds that [when there are Trei v'Trei], each [pair] may testify by itself [in another case, for we leave it in its Chezkas Kashrus. Also here,] we should leave this man (judge) it his Chezkas Kashrus!

Question #2: According to Rav Chisda, who says "why do I need these lying witnesses" [and disqualifies all of them from testimony], here he agrees, for the man is Kosher automatically;

If one of these pairs would testify about a person that he is Pasul, Rav Chisda considers them to be lying witnesses, so [the pair] would not be believed, even if no one contradicted them;

All the more so here, that there are witnesses who contradict them, they are not believed!

Question #3 (Ri): The Gemara says "if it is an accusation of a family (lineage) blemish, this is a mere Giluy Milsa;

Rashi explained that this is prone to be revealed. They will check until the matter is clarified.

How will the matter ever be clarified? Since two say that he is a slave, the entire world cannot refute them, for two witnesses are like 100!

Explanation #2: It seems that R. Chananel's Perush is correct. We do not discuss testimony of the judges, rather, of others;

The Gemara means that if before they signed, there was a protest about one of them, two from the market testify about him, and he signs;

It is as if Beis Din sat after they were Machshir him. The initial seating of Beis Din is not Batel, and they sign.

If after two of them signed, and before the third signed there was a protest about him, the protest wipes out the seating of that Beis Din;

Even though after, others testified that he is Kosher, since the seating was Batel, they must return to convene Beis Din for the case.

Explanation (cont.): [The Gemara asks] what is the protest? If it is of thievery, these are Trei v'Trei, and he is not disqualified. The two pairs cancel each other, and we leave him in his Chazakah;

Since it is revealed that he was never Pasul, the seating of that Beis Din is not Batel.

If it is protest of family lineage, that they said that he is a slave, and these [latter witnesses] are Mezim [the first witnesses]...

We cannot say that the latter say that he is not a slave, for then he would be disqualified. We cannot say "establish him on his Chazakah", for if he is a slave, he never had Chezkas Kashrus!

If so (the protesters were Huzmu), it is a mere Giluy Milsa. Since it is revealed that he was Kosher, we do not care about that protest, and the seating is not Batel.

The Gemara concludes that really, it is protest of thievery. These [latter] witnesses say that they know that he did Teshuvah. Since they agree that he was a thief, their (the first witnesses') protest is a protest, and the seating is Batel.

Since it is true that he was disqualified, he was in Chezkas Pasul until we learned about his Kashrus.

Explanation: He must write "and one is not" [alive anymore], since he explicitly wrote "we were seated among three", and only two signed.

However, surely if he did not write "and one is not", it is Kosher, for it says 'and if he wrote in it "Beis Din", nothing else is needed.' (Tosfos ha'Rosh - above, it is proper to write "and one is not" lest people say that they intended for many people, but they never made a Beis Din. Maharsha - surely, "we were seated among three" is better, for it explicitly shows that there were three.)

We discuss when he did not write "and one is not", since we ask "perhaps it was a brazen Beis Din (i.e. two)"!

Explanation: This is like Shmuel holds in general. They hold like this regarding Kiyum of documents;

However, Shmuel could hold that Kiyum of documents requires three, for Rav Nachman holds like Shmuel in Sanhedrin (3a) that two who judged, their verdict is valid...

And Rav Nachman himself holds that Kiyum of documents requires three, in Bava Basra (40a) regarding three lands for Chazakah.

Inference: A father is believed to permit his daughter when he forbade her only due to a Migo. (Ha'Peh she'Asar is a kind of Migo, i.e. he could have been silent.)

Question: If one came and said "I was Mekadesh my daughter", and after a while or a day he said "I was Mekadesh her to Ploni" he should not be believed, since now he has no Migo!

Answer #1 (Ri): In such a case that he does not contradict his initial words, rather, he comes to explain them, he is believed, even though there is no Migo;

Here we expound from "Es Biti" that ha'Peh she'Asar Hu ha'Peh she'Hitir, e.g. when the Mekadesh is in front of him, and he (the father) says "I gave my daughter to a man", and he was quiet;

Surely, this connotes that he does not recognize that this is his son-in-law, since he did not say "I gave my daughter to this [man]" or "to this man" at once, without a big interruption;

Therefore, he is not believed afterwards, only Toch Kedei Dibur (the time to say three or four words), for then there is a Migo.

Answer #2 (Ri): We can say that even in such a case he is believed without a Migo. We expound an extra [word in the] verse;

Since it is not needed here, for he is believed even afterwards, for it is logical that he is believed to explain to whom he gave her, even though he did not explain initially, for he was not concerned to explain...

We apply [the extra word] to teach about when he is not believed afterwards, that he is believed Toch Kedei Dibur through a Migo.

Question: Why do we need the verse? We know that he is believed because it is b'Yado (in his power) to be Mekadesh her!

This is like it says in Bava Basra (134b), if a husband said "I divorced my wife", he is believed, because it is b'Yado to divorce her.

Answer: Here, it is not so much b'Yado, for perhaps he will not find a man to be Mekadesh her, like it says in Kidushin (64a). Therefore, we need the verse.

Distinction: However, if he said about his Bogeres daughter "I was Mekadesh her when she was a Na'arah or minor", it seems that he is not believed, for now it is not b'Yado at all.

Implied question: Below (46b), the Gemara asks "perhaps this is only for a minor, but a Na'arah can be Mekadesh herself";

According to this, we must say that he is believed to forbid her even when it is not b'Yado to be Mekadesh her, for the verse [that teaches that he is believed] discusses a Na'arah, and we wanted to say that he cannot be Mekadesh her [now];

"Es Biti Nasati" when she was a minor. It is a Gezeras ha'Kasuv that he is believed, even though now it is not b'Yado!

Answer: According to the conclusion, we do not say so.

Explanation: Does an excuse help, or not?

Suggestion: Perhaps he asks whether or not she needs an excuse!

Rejection: Since [Rav] said "even she, if she gave [an excuse she is believed", this shows that the question is whether or not she is believed].

Citation (Yerushalmi, brought in R. Chananel's Perush): Shmuel wanted to be [intimate] with his wife. She told him that she is Teme'ah;

Citation (cont.): The next day, she said that she is Tehorah. Shmuel asked, yesterday you were Teme'ah. How can you be Tehorah today?!

Citation (cont.): She told him "yesterday, I did not have strength [to have Bi'ah]." At that time, Shmuel asked Rav, and Rav said that if she gave an excuse, she is believed.

Question #1: [One who has Bi'ah with her] is liable a Chatas, for we conclude in Yevamos (31a) that Trei v'Trei is a Safek mid'Rabanan. Mid'Oraisa, we establish the matter in its Chazakah. (Here, she is a Vadai Eshes Ish!)

Question #2: What was the answer "she married one of her witnesses?" Also the witness should be choked, for we leave her in her Chazakah! (Maharsha - Question #1 mentions a Korban, for it discusses a stranger who had Bi'ah with her. He thought that she is single; he was Shogeg. Here, we discuss Misah, for the witness knows that other witnesses say that she is an Eshes Ish, and we leave her on her Chazakah. He is Mezid.)

Answer (R. Tam): The Chazakah that a woman checks meticulously before marrying weakens the other Chazakah (Eshes Ish).

Support: For this reason we permit her when there are no witnesses at all (just she says that her husband died), even though she has Chezkas Eshes Ish.

Implied question: According to the opinion that Asham Taluy applies only to [one who ate] one piece among two pieces (one was Chelev, and one was Shumen, i.e. permitted lard). Here there is no Asham Taluy, for there is only one woman!)

Answer #1: Here, we do not need two pieces [for Asham Taluy to apply]:

According to the opinion in Kerisus (17b) that the reason we require two pieces is so it is possible to clarify the Isur...

Explanation: It is possible to clarify through an expert who recognizes whether the remaining piece is Chelev or Shumen.

Also here, it is possible to clarify through Hazamah!

And according to the opinion that we require two pieces, one of Chelev and one of Shumen, for then Ikva Isura (we know that there was Isur here)...

Also here Ikva Isura, for she had Chezkas Eshes Ish.

Answer #2: The Gemara does not mean that literally, one is liable Asham Taluy. Rather, it is an Isur Asham Taluy (just here, a Gezeras ha'Kasuv teaches that they are exempt from the Korban) for which (in other cases) there is Asham Taluy.

Implied question: A Mishnah (Yevamos 25a) says that if [we heard testimony] "we killed him", he may not marry her husband! (Here we permit her to marry one of her witnesses.)

Answer: That is not when two testify so, for we never find that two are suspected. This is proven from below, that even the one who is concerned for Gomlin (two who testify for each other. Perhaps they lie to help each other), if two testify about this one and two testify about this one, they are believed!

Support: A Mishnah (Yevamos 25a) says that if a woman did Mi'un or Chalitzah in front of a judge, he may marry her, for he is [part of] a Beis Din;

The Gemara infers that this is because he is [part of] a Beis Din, but if there were only two, he may not [marry her];

Citation (25b) Question: Why is this different than witnesses signed on a document of sale of a field or a Get? There, Chachamim were not concerned!

Citation (cont.) Answer: The Mishnah says this (he is part of a Beis Din) to teach unlike the opinion that two suffice for Mi'un. (However, even two are not suspected)

Conclusion: [In the Mishnah, one witness says] that he, along with many men, killed him.

Implied question: A Mishnah (Yevamos 117b) says that if one witness says that he died, and one witness says that he did not die, she may not marry!

Answer: This is not difficult for Ula. There, the witnesses testified together. Even if she married, she must leave;

Ula discusses one after the other. When one witness came and said that he died, they permitted her. Afterwards, a witness came and said that he did not die;

If she married, she need not leave, but l'Chatchilah she may not marry, due to Rav Asi's teaching, like we conclude.

Support: The Reisha there proves that there is a difference between together and one after the other;

It says that if one witness said that he died, and she married, and a witness came and said that he did not die, she need not leave;

The Gemara explains that she did not [need to] truly marry. Rather, if they permitted her to marry, even if she did not marry, she does not leave, i.e. [she does not lose] her initial Heter.

Inference: This is only if they permitted her before the second witness came and said that he did not die. Had he come before they permitted her, no (she may not marry).

Question: In Sotah (31b), it connotes that Ula discusses all cases, both together and one after the other!

The Mishnah there says that if one witness said that she became Tamei (had Bi'ah in seclusion), and a witness said that she did not become Tamei, she drinks (Sotah water);

Citation (31b) Inference: This is only due to the contradiction. If not, one witness is believed. What is the source of this?...

Citation (cont.) Question: Since mid'Oraisa one witness is believed, how can the other witness contradict him? Ula taught that whenever the Torah believed one witness, [he is like two]!

Citation (cont.): Ula answered that the text should say that she does not drink. R. Chiya says that she drinks. According to R. Chiya, it is difficult due to Ula's teaching (we should believe the first witness)!

Citation (cont.) Answer: This is not difficult. We distinguish between together, and one after the other.

Inference: Ula discusses also when they came together. Therefore, he needed to alter the text [of the Mishnah], and he did not answer like R. Chiya!

Answer #1: We can say that Ula discusses only one after the other, but he holds that it is difficult to establish the Mishnah to discuss when they came together, for it connotes that they came one after the other.

Answer #2 (Ri): Even if Ula discusses in every case, this is only there, for mid'Oraisa one witness is believed about a Sotah, like we learn there from "v'Ed Ein Bah";

Here, regarding Edus Ishah (testimony that a man died to permit his widow to remarry, one witness) is believed only mid'Rabanan. He is believed like two only when they came one after the other.

Implied question: Since we distinguish mid'Oraisa from mid'Rabanan, what is the proof from Ula?

Answer: It seems to him (Abaye) that he is considered like two in any case of one after the other [when one witness is believed] mid'Rabanan, just like a case when they are together [and one witness is believed] mid'Oraisa.

Explanation: This is a verse. It is attributed to Rav Asi, because he was wont to bring it.

Question: A Mishnah (Yevamos 117b) says that one witness came and said that he died, and she married, and a witness came and said that he did not die, she does not leave;

The Gemara asks that [she does not leave] only because she married. Had she not married, she may not marry. This is unlike Ula, who taught that whenever...!

What was difficult? Ula taught only b'Di'eved, but l'Chatchilah he agrees that she may not marry, due to Rav Asi's teaching!

Answer (Ri): There, we infer that it is only because she married. Had she not married, she may not marry, and if she married, she must leave;

Our Mishnah connotes like this. Only when she married and afterwards came the witness [who says that he did not die] she does not leave. Had the witness come before she married, and afterwards she married, she must leave;

Therefore, we asked from Ula's teaching.

Question: How did we answer there that it means that if one witness said that he died, and they permitted her to marry, and a witness came and said that he did not die, she does not leave her initial Heter? This implies that she may marry l'Chatchilah!

Answer: Surely, l'Chatchilah she may not marry. She does not leave her initial Heter regarding if she married, she does not leave.

Question: Why do we need the witness who says that she was not divorced? Also without him, she must leave, for Devar sheb'Ervah (a change in a woman's marital status) requires at least two witnesses!

Suggestion: We know that she was married only through these two witnesses [who argue about whether or not she was divorced].

Rejection: If so, the one who says that she was divorced would be believed through a Migo. If he wanted, he could have been silent!

Answer (and defense of Suggestion): This is not a Migo. Perhaps he wants to testify that she was divorced in order to disqualify her from Kehunah (Tosfos Yeshanim).

Note: If she was previously divorced, there is a Migo! In such a case, we must say that we already knew about this marriage, and there is no need for the witness who says that she was not divorced now. - PF)