Explanation #1: Because, granted, we would not have believed him had he said that he intended not to confess, nevertheless, 'Meizid Hayisi' is a more acceptable argument, and does not appear to be as much of a swindle (See Maharsha).

Explanation #2: The Ram however, explains that had he said 'Meizid Hayisi', we would have believed him more ...

Proof: Like the case cited in the first Perek of Bava Metzi'a (Daf 3b) - 'They said to him "You ate Cheilev", and he denied it - where the Chachamim exempt him (from a Korban) since he could have said 'Meizid Hayisi'.

Clarification: When above, Rava needed to say 'Devarim she'be'Leiv Einan Devarim' ...

Clarification (cont.): We must say that according to the Lashon that 'I Ba'i, Salik', an Oneis happened on the way ...

Clarification (concl.): Whereas according to the Lashon that 'I Bai, Lo Salik', an Oneis occurred that even together with a group, he was unable to go.

Clarification: Rashi explains that he was Meshadech the woman and that she agreed, and not prior to the Kidushin, when he sends her gifts with witnesses ...

Clarification (cont.): We suspect that he sent them in the form of Kidushin ...

Explanation #1: His explanation implies that we suspect that the gifts are actually the Kidushin ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): And he inserted the word 'Shidech', because otherwise, it would not be Kidushin, since how would she know? ...

Proof: As the Gemara said in the first Perek (above, Daf 6a) in connection with 'He gave her Kidushin without explaining'.

Question: The Ram queries this however, in that even if he was Meshadech, so what, seeing as he must also have talked to her from one thing to the other about Kidushin?

Explanation #2: One must therefore explain 'Chosheshin' to mean that since he sent her gifts, we suspect that he may have already betrothed her before.

Support: And this is also implied when the Gemara will say shortly 'In a place where one betroths and then writes the Kesubah, we suspect' ...

Support (cont.): Seeing as this can only mean we suspect that he already betrothed her ...

Proof: Because to say 'We suspect that he sent them as Kidushin' is not applicable, since it is obvious that he did not send her the Kesubah in the form of Kidushin.

Clarification: That she is Mekudeshes - meaning that where he sent gifts before the Kidushin, it is obvious that she is betrothed ...

Reason #1: Since perhaps he sent them as Kidushin.

Reason #2: Others explain that it is obvious that she is betrothed, because we say that he betrothed her earlier, as Tosfos explained.

Clarification (cont.): And the Gemara answers 'One must say that most people betroth and then send gifts, and a minority send gifts and then betroth; one would have thought that we take into account the minority' ...

Clarification (concl.): In which case she is not Mekudeshes. Therefore it comes to teach us that we go after the majority and she is Mekudeshes.

Question: How can the Gemara say that we should take into account the minority - when it is to be lenient?

Answer: But this is not a Kashya, since we find this in many places ...

Example #1: Such as in Gitin (Daf 19b) - 'We suspect that he may have written it (the Get) with invisible ink, and it is a hundred per cent Get'.

Example #2: And at the beginning of Perek Echad Dinei Mamonos (Sanhedrin, Daf 32a) - 'A Sh'tar that is dated on Shabbos or on the tenth of Tishri is Kasher', because 'we suspect that they wrote it later'.

Alternative Text #1: Rabeinu Chananel reverses the text - 'We must say that the majority of people first send gifts and then betroth, and a minority betroth and then send gifts; We would have thought that we do not take into account the minority' ...

Clarification: And that she will not therefore be Mekudeshes; And it teaches us that we do take into account the minority and she is Mekudeshes.

Clarification (cont.): It now fits nicely - inasmuch as we take into account the minority - due to the stringency of the Isur of Eishes Ish (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim).

Clarification (concl.): And when Rav Papa says 'In a place where they first betroth and then send gifts' - that refers to the minority, nevertheless we suspect that the minority (too) first send gifts - meaning that that they all first send gifts (See Maharsha).

Alternative Text #3: The Ri however, found another text that reads - 'Mesavli ve'Hadar Mekadshi, P'shita' - that we do not take Kidushin into account, and she is not betrothed ...

Alternative Text #3 (cont.): 'Lo Tzericha de'Ruba Mesavli ve'Hadar Mekadshi, u'Miy'ut Mekadshi ve'Hadar Mesavli; We would have thought that we take the minority into account and she is Mekudeshes; therefore it teaches us ... '.

Clarification: This means that your Kidushin will not take effect on her.

Question: If "Lo Sikach" means that Kidushin is not effective on her, then why is Kidushin effective on Chayvei La'avin, such as an Almanah to a Kohen Gadol and a Gerushah and a Chalutzah to a Kohen Hedyot - seeing as the Torah writes there "Lo Sikach"?

Answer: It is not from the implication of "Lo Sikach" that the Gemara Darshens, but from the words "ve'Ishah el Achosah Lo Sikach" which it takes to mean 'in one go' ...

Answer (cont.): In other words each one has the Din of Achos Ishah and is therefore Asur ...

Answer (concl.): And we learn that Kidushin is not effective on Achos Ishah in Perek ha'Omer (later on Daf 67b) since it is a Chayvei Kerisus.

Introduction to Question: In Perek Arba'ah Achin (Yevamos, Daf 28b) in connection with three brothers, two of whom were married to two sisters ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): Rebbi Shimon exempts them both from Chalitzah and Yibum, based on the Pasuk (Vayikra 18) 'Ishah el Achosah Lo Sikach li'Tzeror", when they become Tzaros (rivals) to each other'.

Question: Implying that even though Kidushin is not effective, they are subject to Kareis ...

Proof: Seeing as it exempts them from Chalitzah and Yibum?

Answer: It is different there, since one cannot ask 'Is he Chayav Kareis?', like it asks here

Reason: Because without the Kidushin there is Kareis, since he is subject to the Isur Eishes Achiv where there is no Mitzvah.