Summation of Rejection #1: Rather, it says there that he holds like the other teaching of R. Yehudah, who says that [Hasra'as Safek] is not valid Hasra'ah;

Rather, surely it connotes that [Reish Lakish himself] holds like this (one is lashed for Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh).

Rejection #2: Also in Shevuos (21a) we ask a contradiction between R. Yochanan [what he inferred from R. Yehudah] and another teaching of R. Yochanan;

Inference: [R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish] argue about what they themselves hold (and not merely about R. Yehudah's opinion).

Answer (to Question (d), 90b): Here, Reish Lakish exempts only according to the opinion that requires Lav she'Yesh Bo Ma'aseh [for lashes], but he himself holds like R. Yehudah (that one is lashed even for Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh).

Implied question: Why did [Reish Lakish] say below "this is R. Yehudah [who says that one is lashed even for Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh." Reish Lakish agrees!]

Answer: He means that it is like R. Yehudah, and [Reish Lakish] holds like him.

Question: We heard that R. Meir says so only in Makos (4a) regarding Edim Zomemin, and there he learns from Motzi Shem Ra, who is lashed and pays;

[The Gemara] asks that you cannot learn from Motzi Shem Ra, for it is a fine, and answers that he holds like R. Akiva, who says that [also] Edim Zomemin is a fine;

If so, here that we discuss Mamon, what is the source [that R. Meir holds that] he is lashed and pays?

Answer: According to Rabanan, the reason he does not get lashed and also pay is due to Kedei Rish'aso, which is written regarding Edim Zomemin;

They expound from it that you obligate (punish) him for one evil, and not for two evils;

However, R. Meir holds that Edim Zomemin is a fine, and he learns from Motzi Shem Ra that they are lashed and pay;

If so, he can establish Kedei Rish'aso only for Misah and lashed (one who does not get both of them). From where could he learn that one does not get lashed and also pay?!

Therefore, we say that everywhere R. Meir holds that one is lashed and pays.

Question: Still, we could establish like R. Meir "Kedei Rish'aso" to teach about lashes and Mamon, e.g. while testifying falsely they tore a person's silk;

The payment [for the silk] is not a fine, so we cannot learn from Motzi Shem Ra!

Answer: We should establish the verse [which implies that] you do not punish him for two evils only when both of them are due to false testimony;

Therefore, we cannot establish it for Mamon and lashes, for regarding two evils of false testimony he is lashed and pays. Therefore, we establish it for Misah and lashes.

Question: We say in Sanhedrin (72a) that coins were stolen from Rava in a tunnel [that a thief made under his house]. The thieves returned them, and he did not accept them;

He said "since Rav said that if one took Kelim in a tunnel and left, he is exempt, for he acquired them through his blood" (they do not owe me).

Why didn't he accept them? [The thieves] must return them to be Yotzei Yedei Shamayim!

Answer: The thieves did not want to be Yotzei Yedei Shamayim. They thought that they are obligated to return [bi'Ydei Adam]. Therefore, he did not accept them.

Question: The Tana taught "Yeshalem (he pays)." How can you say that he teaches Midas Chasidus?! (Rava asked so in Chulin 130b.)

Answer #1: "Yeshalem" (future tense) connotes an obligation more than [what it says here,] "Meshalem".

Answer #2: There, we ask because even to be Yotzei Yedei Shamayim he is not obligated. Here, he is obligated to be Yotzei Yedei Shamayim. This is a proper Chyuv. It properly teaches Meshalem.

Answer #3 (Ri): There, the Sugya means as follows. The Tana taught "he pays. This is R. Eliezer's opinion, and Rabanan disagree." If it were Midas Chasidus, they would not argue with him!

Explanation #1: Esnan was written primarily regarding Arayos, for a Zonah results from [a Bi'ah of] Chayavei Kerisus;

Also, in Temurah (29b) we learn "To'evah" (in the verse of Esnan) from Arayos.

Explanation #2: Some say that we learn in Yevamos (59b) 'perhaps even Esnan of a dog and Mechir (what was paid for a) Zonah [are forbidden for a Korban]! It says "Gam Shneihem" - two are forbidden (Esnan of a Zonah, and Mechir of a dog), and not four;

Since we need a verse to exclude Esnan of a dog, even though one who has bestiality [need not pay, because] Kam Lei bid'Rabah Minei (he is Chayav Misah), this shows that the Torah forbade an Esnan even if one [was Chayav Misah for the Bi'ah, e.g. he] had Bi'ah with his mother.

Rebuttal: The verse does not say "two are forbidden, and not four"! Perhaps we expound "two, and not three", and it comes to exclude only Mechir Zonah! (It need not exclude Esnan of a dog. Since he was Chayav Misah for the Bi'ah, he has no obligation to pay, and even if he pays, it is not considered an Esnan.)

Question: We could establish the verse to discuss one who said "take this lamb and have Bi'ah with your son or your father." Kam Lei bid'Rabah Minei does not apply (since the one who pays is not Chayav Misah)!

Answer: We should establish the verse to discuss a Stam Esnan, which the Bo'el gives.

Question: Esnan is only when [the animal] is in her Chatzer at the time of the Bi'ah, like it says in Avodah Zarah (63a), but if he had Bi'ah and afterwards gave to her, it is permitted;

If so, how is it proven from Esnan that one is obligated [to pay] to be Yotzei Yedei Shamayim, even though Kam Lei bid'Rabah Minei?

In Bava Kama (70b), it connotes that Chatzer totally acquires, even when Kam Lei bid'Rabah Minei!

Answer: Even though Chatzer totally acquires, it should not be considered an Esnan, rather, a gift, if not that he is obligated to be Yotzei Yedei Shamayim when it was not in her Chatzer [at the time of the Bi'ah].

Question: Why must the oven be ignited? It suffices to clean it, for then [the bread would receive only] Nat Bar Nat (the lard was Nosen Ta'am to the oven, and the oven gives taste to the bread);

Fish that were put (while hot) in a bowl [used for meat], one may eat them with Kutach (a dairy dip, for the fish received only Nat Bar Nat of meat)! There it is explained.

Question (Ri): How is it proven from Shmuel that there is no Isur mid'Rabanan?

Shmuel discusses only mid'Oraisa, similar to "adulterers [are not liable] until [the witnesses] see them acting like adulterers", which is in order to kill them;

Source: [His teaching] was brought for this in Makos (7a) regarding "if we were on the Sanhedrin, they never would have killed anyone."

Question: Since the verse discusses only Kil'ayim, what is the source to forbid inserting [the Ever into the female] Min b'Mino?

Answer: He infers from that the Tana taught "he may not hold." He should have taught "he may not enter", for "Lo Sarbi'a" connotes inserting!

Rather, he mentioned holding because he need not teach inserting. The Tana knows that [inserting] is forbidden even Min b'Mino due to "v'Nishmarta mi'Kol Davar Ra";

We expound from this in Avodah Zarah (20b) that a man may not look at a male or female donkey, pig or bird while they mate [lest this lead to Hirhur, and a seminal emission];

Therefore, we establish Lo Sarbi'a [to forbid] holding, Im Eino Inyan (since it is not needed for inserting).

Explanation #1: We can say that he asks about when they thresh with their legs, but not with their wings, for they cannot thresh with their wings;

If we require with all its strength, this is fulfilled. Or, perhaps we require hands (or wings or forelegs) and [hind] legs, and this is lacking, for they do not thresh with their wings.

Explanation #2: We can say that we ask even about when they thresh with their wings. Perhaps we require truly similar to an ox (front and hind legs).

Question: It connotes that it is obvious to him that if [something works] with its hands (front legs or wings) and [hind] legs, like an ox, it eats. He does not require truly similar to an ox;

If so, he should learn also birds, like the Mishnah in Bava Kama (54b) equates an ox, Behemah, Chayah and bird regarding muzzling. If so, what was his question?!

Answer: Since R. Yosi b'Ribi Yehudah requires similar to an ox, he asks that perhaps a bird is unlike an ox regarding muzzling, and the Mishnah there is like the first Tana here.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): An animal cannot reach and eat from a vine above the wagon it carries, for the animal is in front of the wagon.

Question (Ri): That vine is detached, and not attached!

Explanation #2: Rather, "attached" is when it threshes attached Peros. [We ask] how can it eat the sheaves itself that it threshes;

Granted, it is fine that an ox eats all detached [Peros], for all detached grain there is considered one bundle. It need not eat from the very [sheave] that it threshes;

However, what is attached, each stalk is considered by itself!

Explanation: We answer that we discuss Sharcha. Rashi explained that this is long legumes or grain. It can eat from the very sheaves that it threshes.

Question: What is the source to infer this? Our Mishnah does not connote so at all!

It teaches only that he eats due to Hashavas Aveidah. If not for this, he would not eat, even if walking is like doing an action, for one who works with this vine may not eat from another vine!

Answer: He infers from the fact that our Mishnah did not say "due to Hashavas Aveidah, workers eat while bringing Kelim from row to row", which is doing an action;

From this we would know that even one who does an action, he eats only due to Hashavas Aveidah.

Rather, surely it taught while walking from row to row, which is not an action. This implies that if they did an action, they would eat mid'Oraisa.