Answer #2: Furthermore, it is a case of 'Kavu'a', and based a. on the principle 'Kol Kavu'a ke'Mechtzah al Mechtzah Dami (making it a Safek), and b. on that of 'Safek Nefashos Lehakel', he is Patur mi'd'Oraysa,

Question: But why do we then not mix them all up, and apply the principle 'Kol de'Parish, me'Ruba Parish'?

Answer #1: It is forbidden to do that in order to be stringent (only in order to be lenient).

Answer #2: Furthermore, it is a decree in case one comes to take from the Kavu'a.

Implied Question: And when the Gemar asks 'Why not give the reason that the majority of them are Niskalin?' ...

Answer: ... it means that - surely the fact that the Niskalin are in the majority should not make it any worse (but not that we go after the majority)?

Question (Part 1): The Gemara in Perek Eilu Na'aros (Kesuvos, 32a) learns from the case of Chovel ba'Chavero (someone who wounds his fellow-Jew) that wherever a person is Chayav both money and Malkos, he pays and is Patur from Malkos. And the Gemara asks there how one can learn other cases from ' Chovel ba'Chavbero', where, on the one hand, he is Chayav to pay five things, whereas on the other, if Mamon is considered more lenient, then it is different in that there is a Heter for Beis-Din to give him Malkos.

Question (Part 2): But if Mamon can possibly be considered more lenient, then we can ask the same Kashya that the Gemara asks here 'Im-Kein, Isguri Isgar?'

Answer: That case is different, since the Torah has pity on one's fellow-Jew's money.

Question: Why does he receive the stricter punishment? Why is this not a case of 'Eidus she'I Atah Yachol Lehazimah', seeing as, bearing in mind that the sinner is Chayav Misah anyway, if the latter witnesses become Zom'min, they cannot be sentenced to death, as is evident in the first Perek of Makos, 5a, in the case of where two witnesses arrive and testify that the defendant's case was concluded on Sunday ... '?

Answer #1: It speaks here where the sinner perpetrated the second sin in front of Beis-Din, in which case even if it is a case of 'Eidus she'I Atah Yachol Lehazimah', he is sentenced to death (as we learned earlier with regard to a T'reifah who killed) in order to fulfil the Pasuk "u'Vi'arta ha'Ra mi'Kirbecha".

Answer #2: Alternatively, since, in the event that the first witnesses would become Zom'min or simply proved false, the second witnesses testimony wold be acceptable, it is not considered 'Eidus she'I Atah Yachol Lehazimah'.

Explanation #1 (Part 1): At the beginning of Perek Eizehu Neshech (Bava Metzi'a, 61a & 61b), the Gemara explains that people who lend on interest are compared to murderers, since 'the Torah writes here "He gave on interest ... "

Explanation #1 (Part 2): And Rashi explains there that "Damav bo Yih'yeh" implies the blood that he spilled, by impoverishing his fellow-Jew, who consequently died of hunger, will rebound on him'.

Question: This is not correct however, since here in our Sugya, we learn that it comes for Sekilah, since by Ov and Yod'oni and in many other places, "Demeihem Bam" refers to Sekilah.

Explanation #2: It therefore seems that the Gemara there pertains to the Pasuk that is cited here "ve'Holid ben Paritz ... " (who later commits sins for which he is Chayav Sekilah).

Proof: According to all the texts, the Gemara in the first Perek of Temurah, 6b (which issues the same statement), reads 'and the Pasuk continues "ve'Holid ben Paritz ... " '.

Clarification (Part 1): This is not so clear-cut, since a case where one's mother-in-law becomes one's father's wife is a case of 'Isur Mosif, in the event that he hasbrothers ...

Clarification (Part 2): Yet, according to those who hold that Sekilah is more stringent, he will be judged because of Eishes Av.

Explanation #1: The Gemar is referring to a Korban, to render him Chayav to bring two Chata'os, because he sinned be'Shogeg.

Explanation #2: Alternatively, where they warned him because of Eishes Ish and not because of Chamoso.

Gemara's Answer: To which Rabah answers that it is speaking be'Meizid, and where they warned him for both sins.

Implied Question: Even though in Perek Arba Achin t(Yevamos, 32b & 33a) the Gemara implies that this is not the final conclusion ...

Answer: ... nevertheless it is, as the Gemara states in Perek Amru Lo (Kerisos, 14a & 14b).

Question: At the end of Perek ha'Ba al Yevimto (Yevamos, 64b & 65a) the Gemara states 'Nisu'in u'Malkos ke'Rebbi', since we have learned a S'tam Mishnah like him - 'Mi she'Lakah ve'Shanah ... '?

Answer: Rav Yosef who is being quoted there holds 'Malkiyos Mechazkos' (the number of sets of Malkos creates a CHazakah)..

Implied Question: Even though we do find a Tana who holds 'Aveiros Mechazkos' (the sins create the Chazakah) - in the Beraisa that we will cite shortly 'Hisru bo ve'Shasak, Hisru bo ve'Hirchin es Rosho ... ', that is because in the case there, there is no Malkos.

Answer #1: In any event, Rav Yosef extrapolates from the Mishnah 'Mi she'Lakah ... ' that 'Malkiyos Mechazkos'.

Answer #2: Alternatively, he holds that the Kipah too, requires warning, and until he becomes Muchzak by transgressing two or three times, he cannot be warned for the Kipah. Consequently, if we hold that three times is a Chazakah, he could not be taken to the Kipah before the fourth time, as will become evident shortly.

Question: Why does one not warn him at the second time according to Rebbi' and at the third time, according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, that if he transgresses after that, he will be Muchzak and will be brought to the Kipah?

Answer (Part 1): Because he is not Chayav to go to the Kipah until he is Muchzak to transgress warnings of Malkos ...

Answer (Part 2): Consequently, should we warn him for Kipah only, it will not suffice, whereas if we warn him for both Malkos and Kipah, he cannot receive two punishments in one go.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the Chazakah only takes place after the sinner has received Malkos three times, at which point, even though he has now been established as a Rasha, we no longer send him to the Kipah, since a person cannot receive two punishments.

Refutation: It was not necessary however, to say this Dochek answer ...

Explanation #2: ... because, what 'Malkiyos Mechazkos' means is that, since even after receiving Malkos two or three times, he does not refrain from transgressing, he will not refrain from transgressing in the future either.