Explanation #1: They (the home army) sit confident, for there is no [army] encampment in back of them, and they have time to pour libations and have Bi'ah;

However, a troop of another kingdom, they fear the kingdom they invaded, so they have no free time. Also R. Chananel and the Yerushalmi explain like this.

Explanation #1 (cont.): The Gemara asks that from the same kingdom, it is impossible that one of them (the women of the city) did not escape;

We should permit all of them, and attribute leniently (for every woman, we assume that she escaped), for Chachamim were lenient about a captive, like we say below "if there is one hiding place, it saves all of these the Kohanos"!

Implied question: We are unsure [whether it saves all of them] if it can hold only one woman!

Answer: Here, it is clear to us to permit, for there, it is not sure that someone hid, but here, surely [at least one] escaped!

Explanation #2: Rashi's explanation is difficult. (He says that the home army does not do any damage; an invading army damages. We ask that when the home army entered, certainly one soldier escaped to rape a woman. Why are all permitted?)

Question #1: [According to this,] we ask that we should attribute to be stringent, and regarding a hiding place, we attribute to be lenient!

Question #2: What is the answer, that the city is surrounded... and no one enters? It says that an army entered the city!

Question #3: Since we asked from the Mishnah in Avodah Zarah (about pouring libations), we should have said "it is impossible that no one escaped to pour libations"!

Question #4: There [in Avodah Zarah] it explains that there is no time to pour libations. It does not give the reason that the home army does not want to destroy the residents.

Question #5: Why is wartime different than peacetime?

Answer: According to Rashi, we can say that R. Yitzchak ben Elazar does not come to answer the contradiction between our Mishnah and the one in Avodah Zarah. He holds like Rav Mari (they find time to rape, but not to pour libations).

Also that Mishnah discusses a siege of another kingdom. He comes to explain only our Mishnah.

Support: Avodah Zarah 71a connotes like this. It asks from our Mishnah against the Mishnah there, and [gives only Rav Mari's answer, but] does not bring R. Yitzchak's teaching.

Implied question: Why does it mention that he did Taharos? (We could have discussed whether he himself must immerse!)

Answer #1: Regarding the person, we require both of them to immerse and be sprinkled [with Mei Chatas], lest they come to Vadai Tum'ah, if both of them will touch the same loaf;

Therefore, we tell them "go immerse! The river is in front of you."

Answer #2: We want to teach in the Seifa "if he was sprinkled on and immersed and went on the second path and did Taharos, they are Tehoros, but if the first Taharos are still around, both are Teluyos (Safek);

If he did not become Tahor in between, the first Taharos are Teluyos, and the latter are burned.

Explanation: We do not permit one person to eat both of them, for if so, he eats Vadai Tum'ah.

Source: We say so in Shevuos (19a). If one walked on one path and did not enter the Mikdash, and walked on the other path and entered he is liable, for in any case he is Tamei.

Suggestion: He comes to ask at once [about himself and his friend].

Rejection: There, all agree that they are Tamei. This follows from a Kal va'Chomer from when both come to ask at once!

Answer: Rather, we discuss one who asked about himself and they were Metaher him, and afterwards he comes to ask about his friend;

One opinion compares this to asking at once, since he asked about both of them in one session.

One opinion compares this to one after the other, since they were Metaher him before [he asked about his friend];

Also here (when there is one hiding place), since we permit all of them, this is like at once.

Implied question: [Normally,] one comes in front of us to ask only about one (e.g. his wife)!

Answer: In any case, it is known to all that there were many Kohanos. It is as if he comes to ask about all of them at once. Here, all agree!

Rashi struggled to explain that this is like R. Yosi. There was no need to do so.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is due to Get Yashan. [One may not divorce if they were secluded after the date on the Get, lest she became pregnant, and people will say that the child was conceived after divorce

Explanation #2: This is unlike Rashi explained in Gitin (73a), that [if one gave a Get and said 'you are divorced] from today if I die [from this illness]', she is divorced retroactively from when he gave it;

She may not be secluded with him due to concern [lest they have Bi'ah with intent] for Kidushin, like one who divorced his wife and lodged with her in an inn. Beis Hillel say that she needs another Get from him (Gitin 81a).

Get Yashan does not apply at all according to the Perush there. The Gemara there connotes like this. (Pnei Yehoshua, Gitin 76b - since the Get takes effect retroactively, if she became pregnant in the interim, the child truly was conceived out of wedlock. Get Yashan is only when there is lest people mistakenly say so about a child conceived amidst wedlock!)

Support (for Explanation #1 - R. Tam): "What is her status during those days?" (between giving the Get until he recovers or dies) refers to 'from today if I die', and it is as if he said "from the time I am in the world";

He does not intend to divorce her until a moment before he dies, even though he said "from today";

[According to this,] the reason is due to Get Yashan. The Tosefta connotes like R. Tam's Perush.

Explanation: The one who came now was born here, and went overseas with his father;

Now, when he returned and said "I do not recognize you", it looks like Sheker, for he should know whether or not it is his brother, since he knew him beforehand;

Therefore, Rav Chisda said that it is proper that he said that he does not recognize him, like we find regarding Yosef.

Explanation (Ri): The case is, he brought witnesses, and they say "the testimony you ask, we will not tell you anything about it." There are Raglayim l'Davar (circumstantial evidence) that he is a strongarm;

Explanation (cont.): [Rav Chisda] said to him "go...", i.e. bring those same witnesses who are afraid to testify against you, that they will testify that he is not your brother, or they will say that they do not know whether or not he is your brother.

[The Gemara said] also now, since they fear him, they will lie to say that he is not his brother, or that they do not know whether he is his brother;

Distinction: However, if there are no Raglayim l'Davar, it does not seem at all that he is believed to say that [his opponent] is a strongarm.

Support: If you would not say so, anyone could say that his opponent is a strongarm, and his opponent must bring witnesses, and if he does not, he will lose!

Support: Also, he said "also now, they will come and testify [falsely]";

Just because these witnesses fear him, does the entire world fear him?! (This supports what Tosfos said above, that Rav Chisda told him to bring the same witnesses.)

Explanation: They would not (1) be silent and not testify the truth, and (2) say Sheker.

The same applies to her Shifchah.

Explanation: Even so, she and her husband are not believed [even l'Fi Tuman].

Implied question: "Yochanan who eats Chalos" was believed about himself l'Fi Tumo!

Answer: That was for Terumah. Here, they made a stringency for lineage.

Explanation (Ri): Mesi'ach l'Fi Tumo is Kosher only for Edus Ishah (to testify alone that a man died to permit his widow to remarry), which is [an enactment] mid'Rabanan, like it says in Yevamos (121b). Here, regarding a captive, Chachamim were lenient [for others to testify about her l'Fi Tuman, but not for her or her husband to do so].