Question: This is difficult. Perhaps the Pasuk is coming to teach that if people swear that they do not know testimony for you regarding Ploni having any of your wheat, barley, and spelt? Later (33a), the Mishnah says such a person is liable for every single item separately!

Explanation: One would think that the second denial must be within Toch Kdei Dibur from the first denial.

Question: Why don't we say that the case is where they started and finished at the same time, and one merely finished slightly earlier than his friend, but still within Kdei Dibur?

Answer#1: It is not normal to have two witnesses testify at the same time, as one cannot hear two different people speaking at once.

Answer#2: Alternatively, the Gemara could have answered this, but instead it answered the truth.

Explanation: They must merely start Toch Kdei Dibur of each other, even though the denials are not Toch Kdei Dibur.

Question: Why is the second person liable? Let him say, I did not do anything, as the first person already denied it. If he would have retracted Toch Kdei Dibur, I also would have retracted Toch Kdei Dibur!

Answer: Being that this person testified Toch Kdei Dibur of the first person, it is considered as if they testified at the exact same time. The first person can also retract Toch Kdei Dibur of the second person's testimony, just as this can be done by the second witness. The second person does not have more time to retract than the first person. Rather, they have the same amount of time. This is why the second person cannot make anything dependent on the retraction of the first witness.

Implied Question: The witness cannot say that without my testimony she would drink the Sotah water and die, due to the witnesses regarding the Kinuy (she was warned by her husband not to be in seclusion with this man) and Stirah (she was secluded with this man). This would cause her husband to be exempt from paying her a Kesuvah. (Why isn't this a good claim?)

Answer: Often she will have a merit that will delay the Sotah water from taking effect, and she will lose through the witness more than what she would have lost through the witnesses that say she was secluded. This is because it is possible that her merit will let her live longer, and they are only considered to be indirect causes of her punishment.

Explanation: This is because the ownership status of an object is determined by the person who has it in his hand. If there would be two witnesses saying he had stolen it, he would not be believed to say that he had stolen back his own item. Now, as well, being that he admits he should be considered a thief.

Question: Why don't we believe him with an oath that he took his own item, since he could have said he did not take it at all! He would be believed with this claim if he took an oath.

Question(cont.): A similar thing is stated in Bava Basra (70b) regarding a person who deposits money by his friend with a document (saying he did so). The guardian is believed to say he returned the deposit with an oath, and the owner of the money cannot claim, "Why is your document in my hand?" He is believed that he paid back the money as he could have instead said that the money was lost under forced circumstances. He would have been believed if he would take an oath to this effect.

Answer: He is scared to lie regarding a matter where a witness contradicts him. This is as we find in Bava Basra (32b) in the case involving Rava bar Sharshom. Abaye said that Rava bar Sharshom cannot claim that he bought the land, as there was already a Kol (strong rumor) saying that the land belonged to the orphans. A person does not willingly claim something that contradicts a Kol.

Answer(cont.): However, the reasoning that he is obligated to take an oath and therefore must pay is required. If he would not have to swear he would not worry about contradicting the witness, and he would therefore have a Migu. However, to swear regarding something that the witness contradicts him is certainly difficult for him, just as it is difficult for him to contradict a Kol.

Question#1: This is difficult, as it should have said, "And he said they should split it." This is indeed the law, as the Gemara states later (47a) that Rav Nachman ruled in an actual case that they should split it.

Question#2: This is additionally difficult, as Rebbi Aba is the one who says that the oath goes back to the one who is liable to take it. This is apparent from the Gemara regarding the metal bar here. If so, he should have said that everyone agrees regarding a case where there is a single witness and someone who is opposite him who is suspected of lying when swearing that he is liable, as per the opinion of Rebbi Aba!

Explanation: This is also referring to the case stated above that everyone agrees that the witness of a Sotah is liable.

Question: Rebbi Yaakov from Orleans has slight difficulty with this. We already understand the laws regarding a person who first denies and then admits from the first part of the Mishnah! The reason that when the first person admits Toch Kdei Dibur the second person is also liable, is because the first person could also retract and admit. If he can't, why would the second person be liable?