Answer #1: [The Makshan] prefers to ask from the Seifa, since he is able to.

Answer #2: In the Reisha there, since one witness is believed mid'Oraisa, one might have thought that this is like two and two [pairs of witnesses]. If they contradict each other, she does not drink;

Here it is an enactment mid'Rabanan (so surely, we believe two against one).

Explanation: Surely, one of them lies, and perhaps both of them lie, for they do not know the truth;

There is one opinion in the Gemara that R. Meir argues in the Reisha, and there is also contradiction, and she may not marry.

Implied question: Why wasn't the argument taught in the Reisha?

Answer: [If so], one might have thought that in the Seifa, he (R. Meir) agrees [that they may marry, since they agree that he is not alive]. (The Ya'avetz says that the next Tosfos is a continuation of this one.)

Explanation: However, one who denies and says that he is alive, she may not marry, for we establish the Reisha like them (R. Yehudah and R. Shimon).

Question: How can we infer this? It needed to teach "he did not die" to teach that even though her Tzarah contradicts her, she may marry!

Suggestion: This is obvious, since one Tzarah cannot testify for another.

Rejection: We need this very much, for R. Meir argues with it [according to R. Elazar]! And according to R. Yochanan, it teaches that R. Meir admits in this case!

Answer: We infer from "this one who says that he did not die, she may not marry";

It should have taught only "one says that he died, and one says that he did not die, she may marry";

We would know that this (Heter) applies to the one who says that he died, for the one who says that he did not die established herself to be forbidden!

Explanation: We should say that he died more than if she was quiet. If she was quiet, surely she intends to ruin her;

However, when she says that he did not die, she says so due to hatred. She wants to be Me'agen [her Tzarah (Leah), i.e. forbid her to remarry]. If she (Sarah) did not know that he died, she would be quiet, to ruin her!

Question: What is the Hava Amina to permit her? She admitted that she is forbidden!

Note: He could also ask, what is the source to say that her husband surely died, and permit her? Perhaps Leah lies to ruin Sarah!

Answer: Even if she [later] admits and gives an excuse [why she lied], she is not believed.

Note: What does it matter that she is not believed to give an excuse? Whenever she wants to marry, she can say "I heard from a witness that now my husband (Levi) died"! (Radvaz 1:117 - also the widow herself is believed to testify Ed mi'Pi Ed.) It is relevant if while in Beis Din, Ploni said "I want to be Mekadesh Leah or Sarah" (e.g. the months of Havchanah passed). Sarah cannot accept. Alternatively, it is relevant if Levi had one child and went overseas. The child died here on Pesach. Leah said that Levi died on Erev Pesach, and Sarah said that she left on Motza'ei Pesach, and Levi was still alive. She "admitted" that when Levi dies, she will be Zekukah l'Yibum. She is not believed to give an excuse why she falsely contradicted Leah.)

She is unlike a woman who said "I am married", and later said "I am single." [In that case] she is believed if she gives an excuse for her [initial] words.

Explanation (R. Yoel): This means that anyone who says "he did not die", even together [with the one who says that he died, is not contradiction].

Only regarding a Tzarah it is not contradiction. Chachamim believed her (the one who says that he died). We do not believe her Tzarah, who says that he did not die.

However, when two contradictory witnesses are together, the Seifa of the Mishnah says that she may not marry;

We said above that if one witness said that he died, and we permitted her to marry... had we not permitted her, rather, two came together, she may not marry!

Conclusion: Therefore, we explain that we discuss only Tzaros. Saying "he did not die" is not contradiction, because her Tzarah contradicts her, and we should not believe her. Therefore, the other one may marry;

However, when one says that he died, and the other says that he was killed, surely this is contradiction, since both of them come to permit themselves, and their words do not match up;

They say based on estimation. They do not know the truth of the matter.

Explanation: The Gemara properly infers from the Seifa, which says that if a woman says that he died, and a woman says that he did not die, she may not marry;

This is even if they are Tzaros, like Rashi explained. If not, what is the Chidush? This is just like a regular case of two contradictory witnesses!

Explanation (cont.): We say that granted, according to R. Elazar, the [Seifa is] Stam, like R. Meir. It argues with the Reisha, which says that she may marry, even when they are together;

However, according to R. Yochanan, this is difficult...

However, if we would explain that R. Yochanan discusses every case of "he did not die" (not only Tzaros), i.e. one after the other, what was the question from the Seifa against R. Yochanan?

Also, R. Elazar would be able to establish like everyone [not only like R. Meir], that it discusses [when they came] together!

Conclusion: The entire Sugya discusses [when they came] together. [Here we discuss] only a Tzarah. "Every 'he did not die' regarding Edus Ishah" is not precise. It refers to [only] to a Tzarah, like I explained.

Opinion: Some say that one woman contradicts a witness, when they come together.

Implied question: If this is true, it should have taught so, for this is a bigger Chidush!

Answer: Rabbeinu Yehudah found that indeed, the Yerushalmi brings a Beraisa like this.

Explanation: "A woman says" connotes even a Tzarah.

Question: What is the source of this? Perhaps it discusses other women!

A Mishnah in Sotah (31b) says that if one witness says "you became Tamei", and one witness says "you did not became Tamei", or if a woman says "you became Tamei"...

There, it does not discuss Tzaros, and even so it says "a woman"!

Answer: There, one cannot err to think that it discusses Tzaros.

Question: The Ri was unsure if this is only Terumah mid'Rabanan, or even Terumah mid'Oraisa;

We leave her (the one who testified) in her Chazakah, that she investigates well before marrying;

We do not believe her about her Tzarah, and we leave her [Tzarah] in Chezkas Eshes Ish, like the case of two paths. (If we know that there is Tum'ah on one of two paths, and anyone who walks on it will become Tamei, and Reuven walked on one path, and Shimon on the other, when each asks, we tell him that he is Tahor.)

Implied question: Here, in any case one of them does an Isur! (R. Akiva Eiger - also in the case of two paths, one Vadai transgresses, but there we rely on Safek Tum'ah b'Reshus ha'Rabim. We have no source to rely on Chazakah when one Vadai transgresses!)

Answer: In such a case (when one Vadai transgresses), we cannot learn from Sotah (that Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Rabim is Tahor), like it connotes in Nidah (2b) and Chulin (9b. Therefore, also in the case of two paths, we permit due to Chazakah.)

Implied question: Why don't we bring the Reisha, of a woman who went with her husband...? (Also this teaches that she is not believed regarding the Tzarah!)

Answer: Perhaps we infer from the Seifa, for it discusses permitting a Yevamah l'Shuk, like R. Tarfon's law.

Question (Ri): What is the support for R. Tarfon from this that it taught "we are concerned for her words", but not for her Tzarah's words?

Perhaps R. Akiva agrees here, for if we would be concerned for her Tzarah's words, there is no Aveirah at all!

However, in R. Akiva's case, if we will not be concerned for her Tzarah's words, and she eats Terumah, there is a Vadai Aveirah!

Answer: We infer only from the extra words "we are concerned for her words."

Question: She does not do Yibum because she established herself to be forbidden [to her Yavam]!

Answer #1: We infer from the fact that it taught "Choletzes", which connotes that this is the law (the Yavam must do Chalitzah), since it did not teach "we request that he do Chalitzah."

Answer #2: This (Choletzes) connotes that she does Chalitzah, even if she gives an excuse for her words.

Explanation: This is one who sells stalks of cabbage.