Clarification: We cannot learn this from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Rasha" "Rasha" (like on Daf 10a), since "Rasha" is written in connection with Eidim Zom'min, which themseleves do not require warning.

Question: From where will we learn warning by Ir ha'Nidachas, seeing as we cannot learn it from the above cases, since their money is not destroyed (and it is implied earlier that they do require warning)?

Clarification: Throughout the Sugya, both here and above, the Gemara declines to learn the Ch ayvei Misos from one another.

Question: From where do we then learn that Niskalin and Nisrafin are exempt from paying Mamon, seeing as "Lo Yih'yeh Ason" is written in connection with a murderer (who is Chayav Hereg), in Sh'mos, 21:22?

Explanation #1: And R. Yossi does not require the sinner to declare his willingness to die.

Explanation #2: Alternatively, a Chaver is considered as if he has declared his willingness to die.

Explanation: The Gemara could have said that it is speaking where they know that she committed adultery, but not with whom she committed it ...

Question: Why they cannot still claim that they came to disqualify him from Eidus, seeing as someone who commits incest is Pasul le'Eidus.

Answer: If that was true, then they ought to have declared that P'loni had relations with a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that, in Maseches Makos, 5a, R. Akiva compares three to two, inasmuch as just as two witnesses cannot be sentenced to death unless they are both declared Chayav, so too, must all three.

Implied Question: Even though, it is R. Shimon who says this there, whereas R. Akiva compares three to two with regard to negating the entire testimony in the event that one of them is found to be a relative or Pasul?

Answer: Nevertheless, R. Akiva agrees with R. Shimon, and merely adds to what he says.

Question #1: Why then, did the Gemara not rather cite the author as R. Shimon, seeing as he is the one who says it explicitly?

Question #2: Moreover, the Gemara concludes that the Mishnah does not go like R. Akiva. Then like whom does it go (seeing as R. Shimon agrees with him)?

Explanation #2 (Part 1): The correct explanation therefore is that when R. Shimon says 'ad she'Yazumu Sheloshtan', he means when they all gave exactly the same testimony; but when the third witness says that he doesn't know, it is comparable to where he is a relative or Pasul, in which case the testimony of the other two witnesses remains intact, but according to R. Akiva, the testimony is Bateil. And that is what the Gemara means when it establishes the Mishnah like R. Akiva.

Explanation #2 (Part 2): Now, when the Gemara concludes that the Mishnah (which says 'Eidusan Kayemes') does not go like R. Akiva, it means that it does go like R. Shimon.

Question: Seeing as, if we were to examine the witnesses, and to discover that they were aware of the extended month, their testimonies would clash, how can we justify and assume that one of them did not know and validate their testimony, to kill a man when there is a doubt?

Precedent: And the Gemara in the first Perek of Pesachim (Daf 11b and 12a) poses a similar Kahya on Abaye, who holds there that according to R. Yehudah, a person errs by as much half an hour?

Answer: Since we asked which day, and they both coincided on the day of the week, it is clear that one of them knew about the extended month and the other one did not.

Question: In that case, how can the Gemara at the beginning of ben Sorer u'Moreh (later on Daf 69a) bring a proof from here that by Dinei Nefashos, we go after the majority, in that most people tend to err regarding the extension of the month? Perhaps it is different here, since they coincided on the day of the week, as we just explained?

Answer: If not for the fact that we go after the majority regarding the extended month, coinciding on the day of the week would be considered retracting from their original testimony ...

Precedent: ... much in the same way as the case where one said 'on the third' and the other 'on the fifth', whose testimonies are negated even if they both coincided on the day of the week. We do not say there that one of them erred twice regarding the extended month, because people do not generally err twice in this way.

Question: Why is their testimony upheld? If we were to examine their testimony, we would conclude that the witness who said two hours meant the beginning of the second hour, which is before Hanetz ha'Chamah (as is evident later on, and in Pesachim 93b, where the Gemara explains that from Amud-ha'Shachar until Hanetz lasts five Milin, which is an eighth of the day, which is equivalent to one and a half hours.

Answer: To be sure, if they reckoned by Hanetz, they would not err. However, the witnesses in question reckoned on the hours, something in which people are not generally experts, and they thought that the second hour begins after Hanetz ha'Chamah.

Question: The Riva asks why, according to Rava, who says in the first Perek of Pesachim (Daf 12a and 12b) that a person can err up to as much as two hours minus a fraction, their testimony is Bateil? Why don't we ask them whether the one who said the third hour did not perhaps mean the end of the third hour, and the one who said the fifth hour, the beginning of the fifth hour?

Answer: In cases that involve death-sentences, we only examine the witnesses in order to negate their testimony, since the Torah writes "ve'Hitzilu ha'Eidah", but not in order substantiate it.

Question: Why do we nevertheless not automatically assume that both witnesses erred by less than two hours, and that the act took place in the fourth hour?

Answer: Rava maintains that we will ascribe an error to one of the witnesses, but never to both.