Clarification (Part 1): We rule like Shmuel, as we explained at the beginning of the Masechta.

Clarification (Part 2): This is the explanation - He applies Shmuel's ruling to 'Udisa' - meaning that they wrote a Sh'tar Hoda'ah with two people without a Kinyan. And there the Halachah is not like him, as the Gemara said above 'If he admitted in the presence of two people then, if a Kinyan was made, they write a Sh'tar, and if they did not, they don't.

Clarification): We cannot say that we believe him with a 'Migu' because he could have remained silent ...

Reason: ... because his is not in fact, a 'Migu', since had he remained silent, the money would have remained there and would not have reached the hands of P'loni.

Clarification: The principle of 'she'Lo Lehasbi'a es Banav is not applicable here.

Clarification: Because neither 'Mechzei ke'Shikra' (it appears false) nor 'Lo Seilech Rachil' apply here.

Explanation: This means that they heard from their father, one after the other that so-and-so his son is the B'chor.

Refutation: Not like Rashi, who explains it in connection with a blemish that could be caused by man, on which the Kohanim are suspect - that, if one witness testifies that this blemish occurred by itself, and a second witness testifies that a second blemish occurred by itself ...

Proof: Because in that case, why would two witnesses be required? Why is even one witness not believed, and even if he heard it from another witness ('Eid mi'Pi Eid'), as we learned in Perek Kol Pesulei ha'Mukdashin (Bechoros, Daf 36a) and in Perek Chavis (Shabbos, Daf 45b).