Question: They are very different! In the Reisha, we should establish her b'Chezkas Penuyah. In the Seifa, we should establish her b'Chezkas Eshes Ish (therefore, she must leave)!

Answer #1: In the Reisha, even though we should establish her b'Chezkas Penuyah, in any case two pairs of contradictory witnesses is a Safek mid'Rabanan. This is clear from Yevamos 31a;

We should have said that she must leave, mid'Rabanan.

Answer #2: Some say that since we do not distinguish between whether witnesses came before she married or after she married, this shows that it is not like R. Menachem bar Yosi. Rather, it is like Rabanan;

If so, also in the Seifa, why must she leave? We know that Rabanan say that she does not leave!

Observation: We did not need to say so. Even if there was only the witness who says that she became Mekudeshes, she does not leave, for Devar sheb'Ervah requires at least two witnesses!

Question: Why can't she marry l'Chatchilah? We should leave her on her Chazakah!

Answer #1: The case is, we know that he threw Kidushin [money] to her. We are unsure whether it landed closer to him or to her. One of the two witnesses says that it was closer to him, and one says that it was closer to her;

Since he surely threw Kidushin to her, we should not say that we leave her on her Chazakah to permit her l'Chatchilah (for there are grounds to say that her status changed).

Answer #2: The case is, there were lamps burning and beds spread, for he was ready to be Mekadesh her, like it says in Gitin (89a), and one witness says that she became Mekudeshes then, and one says that she did not become Mekudeshes then.

Question: What is his source? Perhaps it cannot refer to the Seifa, for even if witnesses came and afterwards she married, she does not leave!

Answer: Based on what we explain below that she did not truly marry (just she was permitted to marry), this is fine.

Implied question: Rav Hamnuna discusses [a woman who says that she was divorced] in front of him (her husband)!

Answer: In any case, regarding one who married and afterwards witnesses came, it helps [that she said that she was divorced] not in front of him.

Explanation: She may marry l'Chatchilah. Scandalous talk does not apply at all.

Suggestion: We can explain like the case in Yevamos. She does not leave her initial Heter regarding if she married, she does not leave, but l'Chatchilah, she may not marry.

Rejection: The case of Shmuel's daughters below connotes that he permitted them l'Chatchilah.

Explanation: She does not leave her initial Heter.

Explanation: They were already forbidden [to Kehunah].

Suggestion: He means that perhaps there are witnesses overseas.

Rejection: If so, also the Mishnah is difficult! It says [if she said] "I was captured and I am Tehorah", she is believed;

Objection: What is the reason? Perhaps there are witnesses overseas!

Explanation: Rather, he means that there are rumors that there are witnesses overseas who know that she was captured.

Question (Rashba): How could we think now that "witnesses" refers to witnesses who know that she was captured?

If so, why was the need to say that there are witnesses overseas? There are witnesses in front of us, for her captors are here!

Explanation: Above, he asked "[perhaps] there are witnesses overseas!", i.e. there are rumors that there are witnesses of Tum'ah there, like I explained.

Question (R. Tam): In Kidushin (12a), regarding the man who was Mekadesh with a piece of marble. Rav Chisda was calculating whether it is worth a Perutah...

(Rav Chisda heard that there are witnesses abroad that it was worth a Perutah that day. He was not concerned for them.) We conclude that this is like R. Chanina, who said that we do not forbid a woman due to [rumors that there are] witnesses abroad;

It says that Abaye and Rava disagree with Rav Chisda. We were lenient about a captured woman, but this is no source to be lenient about a married woman!

Since we conclude that we discuss witnesses of Tum'ah, what is the difference between a captive and a married woman?

Explanation #1 (Rashi, there): We were lenient about a captured woman [for if she was defiled], there is [only] an Isur Lav [to a Kohen].

Question (R. Tam): Also a captive can lead to an Isur Skilah, if she married a Kohen and her son will do Avodah of the Mizbe'ach on Shabbos [and really he is a Chalal, who is Pasul for Avodah].

Note: B'Di'eved, Avodah of a Chalal is Kosher! The Hafla'ah answers that if a Chalal was made Kohen Gadol (and offered Par Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur), this was invalid. The Chasam Sofer answers that we allow extra Kohanim to engage in the Avodah on Shabbos, for "b'Rav Am Hadras Melech." This is permitted only for Kosher Kohanim.

Alternate text: Some texts there say "if we were lenient about a captured woman, who makes herself repulsive to the captors...", i.e. so it is not so common that she is defiled, will we be lenient about a married woman?! It is common that witnesses know whether it was worth a Perutah!

Explanation #2: Even without this text, we can say that it is not common that witnesses know that she was defiled, but it is common that witnesses know that it was worth a Perutah.

Assertion (Ri): The text does not say "this one says 'I was captured and I am Tehorah...'", rather, 'this one says 'I am Tehorah...'", for we discuss when there are witnesses that they were captured.

Observation: We can defend the text. The case is, they do not know that there are witnesses that they were captured. The Mishnah teaches that even so, they are not believed.

Explanation: Here we do not ask "why do we need also this?", like we ask against Rav Papa's answer, for now all the clauses are needed;

'I am Tehorah and my friend is Teme'ah' teaches that since there are witnesses, she is not believed about herself;

'I and my friend am Teme'ah' teaches that she is not believed about her friend when there are no witnesses. Her friend is permitted through her own mouth (if she says that she is Tehorah);

'I and my friend am Tehorah' teaches that even though there are witnesses, she is believed about her friend;

[We do not know this from] the very Reisha, for we could establish it when there are no witnesses.

Objection: If there are no witnesses, this is just like the middle case!

Retraction: Rather, there are witnesses. Even so, we need the Seifa to teach that she is believed about her friend, even though she does not disqualify herself;

[One might have thought that] we should be concerned for Gomlim. Even so, she is believed.

Question: Why don't we say here [that we already know this] from the very Reisha, like we ask below?

We learn from the very Reisha that she made herself like a piece of Isur, and her friend is permitted through her mouth. All the more so she is permitted through one witness!

Answer: Here, he prefers to say Stam Reisha, i.e. the previous (second) clause, for also from it we learn that she is permitted through one witness (since her friend is not believed to forbid her. Surely the Mishnah did not need to teach that she is not believed to forbid against two witnesses!)

However, below we can ask only from the very Reisha.

Explanation (R. Chananel): The one who says [that it used to be your father's] is Muchzak in the field, but the witnesses have nothing.

Question (Rashba): We need this regarding witnesses to teach that they are believed through a Migo to disqualify a document!

Even though R. Meir argues in the Seifa, he agrees in the Reisha!