Explanation: Since she is single, it is easy for him to transgress.

Distinction: However, if she married, he needs to distance only a Shechunah. This is three houses, like we say in Avodah Zarah (21a);

Since she married, it is severe to him, even to a Kohen.

Explanation: This is because people are not common there, and he goes to her more regularly.

Distinction: This is only for a small village, but not for an intermediate village.

Assertion (R. Tam): Rav Huna holds that we also excommunicate them. Each Amora is more stringent than the previous one;

If he would say that we lash him without excommunication, he is more lenient;

Source: We say in Mo'ed Katan (17a) and Pesachim (52a) that in Eretz Yisrael when a Chacham is liable, they vote about whether to lash him, but not to excommunicate him [for Niduy is harsher].

Inference: When he is a minor, he is not believed even about mid'Rabanan laws, for the Gemara establishes this to discuss Terumah mid'Rabanan.

Question (Riva): It says in Pesachim (4b) that [all] are believed about Bedikas Chametz, even women, slaves and children.

The Gemara asks that [their testimony] means nothing, and answered that since Bedikas Chametz is mid'Rabanan, Rabanan believed them about a law mid'Rabanan.

Answer: There, the reason is since Bedikas Chametz is b'Yado, they believed even a minor for a mid'Rabanan law.

Question: When it is b'Yado, a woman is believed even for a Torah law! (We said that they are believed only because Bedikas Chametz is mid'Rabanan.)

Below (72a), a Mishnah says that a woman separates Chalah [and we rely on her]. We regularly rely on women to remove [Chelev and Gid ha'Nasheh from animals]!

Answer: The Yerushalmi explains that Bedikas Chametz is an exertion, and women are lazy. Therefore, if Bedikas Chametz were not mid'Rabanan, they would not be believed.

Explanation: This does not refer to Terumah, for one witness suffices for Terumah, since Ein Mailin from Terumah to lineage;

Therefore, we establish it to discuss Terumah mid'Rabanan. For Terumah mid'Oraisa, since our Tana holds that Mailin from it to lineage, like we say below, he is not believed even with an adult.

Therefore, for Terumah he himself suffices. Whenever we require two mid'Rabanan, he and another suffice.

Question: Since mid'Oraisa even without witnesses who recognize the witnesses' signatures, the document is Kosher, anyone who wants could forge, write and sign what he wants and collect!

Answer #1 (Ri): Here, we can say that the case is that the borrower admits that he wrote the document (i.e. authorized it), and claims that he paid;

The Tana holds that [even] if one admits that he wrote a document, [the claimant] must validate it. Surely, this Kiyum is mid'Rabanan.

Answer #2: Or, it was validated from document(s) of one or two fields, and he (the bearer of the document) has the document(s) of the field(s). We said above (20a) that we are concerned lest he forged.

Question: However, in Gitin (3a) it is proven that even when we do not recognize the signatures at all, mid'Oraisa it is as if the testimony was investigated (and accepted) in Beis Din!

Note: R. Avigdor (brought in Mordechai Kidushin 569) says that when the litigant claims that it was forged, then mid'Oraisa it needs Kiyum. The Shach (CM 46:9) brought proofs against this.

Explanation: And now he was freed and he receives Terumah improperly.

Question (R. Yitzchak): In Yevamos (99b) the Gemara explains that we do not give Terumah to a slave, lest people be Maileh him for lineage;

Why do we need this reason? We should say that we do not give even if Ein Mailin, lest he request Terumah after he is freed, like the Gemara asks here!

The Gemara there explains like this that we do not give Terumah to a woman without her husband, due to [concern lest she take Terumah when she is] a divorcee.

Question #2: What is the reason for the opinion that we give [Terumah to a slave without his master]?

Answer: It is not so common that he request Terumah after he is freed, not due to a claim that he is a slave or a Kohen, for he fears lest they check him and it will be clarified that he is a [freed] slave, and there will be rumors that he is [still] a slave.

Implied question: We should be concerned lest his master sell him to a Yisrael, and he will request Terumah!

Answer: We are not concerned, since his master must feed him. One does not sin unless he himself will profit from it;

We are not concerned lest his [master sell him to a Yisrael, and his new] master tell him "feed yourself from your earnings" [and he will request Terumah], for this is a far-fetched concern.

Question: R. Yehudah said that only regarding Terumah mid'Oraisa we do not give, for we are Mailin from it to lineage;

However, we established our Mishnah to discuss Terumah mid'Rabanan, which Ein Mailin from it to lineage. He agrees that we give it to a slave without his master;

If so, it is still difficult. Perhaps he is a Kohen's slave!

Answer: This is wrong. Our Mishnah properly discusses one who testifies that he gave to him Terumah mid'Oraisa. However, he is believed to feed him only Terumah mid'Rabanan.

Reference: This is explained elsewhere (Gitin 7a).

Explanation: [He says that the Beis ha'Peras extends until here,] but no further. He comes to be Metaher.

Explanation: B'Di'eved, if he already made Taharos, he checks through blowing;

The Mishnah (Ohalos 18:4) explains how we check l'Chatchilah. (We take all the dirt he could move, and sift it, and see if there is a bone the size of a barley seed.)

Assertion: Even in the place of the grave (that was plowed) we are lenient like in the rest of the field. We do not say that the place of the grave has Tum'as Ohel.

Proof (R. Yitzchak): A Beraisa (Mo'ed Katan 5b) says that if one found a marked field and he does not know its status:

If there are trees, he knows that a grave was plowed. If there are no trees, he knows that a grave was lost there.

Question: What difference does it make? Since now he does not know the place of the grave, whether it was plowed or lost [the entire field is Tamei due to Safek]!

Answer: This teaches that the place of the grave is Tahor when it was plowed. A Beis ha'Peras is mid'Rabanan because it is Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Rabim [which is Tahor mid'Oraisa].

Implied question: Normally, Chachamim were Metaher Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Rabim [even mid'Rabanan]!

Answer: This is when the Tum'ah is clarified, and the Safek just happened to arise, and another time it will not be Metamei, since the place of the Tum'ah is known;

However, here the field is always in Safek. Chachamim did not want to be Metaher, even though mid'Oraisa it is Tahor.