Explanation #1: Initially, we ask from Motzi Shem Ra, because the Gemara thought that we say from reasoning that she is stoned, and we do not say "since the body changed, the Misah changed";

Therefore, we ask that also regarding Na'arah Me'orasah, we should not say that the Misah changed.

Rava answered that Motzi Shem Ra is different, for it is a Chidush. We do not say so (that she is stoned) from reasoning;

Rather, it is because we find that the Torah was Mechadesh like this, that we do not say "since the law changed (if she was Mezanah after Chupah, she is choked, and not stoned), the Misah changed" [if she is judged now for Zenus before Chupah. Therefore, similarly we do not say "since the body changed, the Misah changed."]

Implied question: Why does he discuss one who had Chupah but did not have Bi'ah? (He holds that even if there was Bi'ah, she is stoned!)

Answer: This is not precise. He could have discussed if she had [Chupah] and Bi'ah, according to the opinion that establishes Motzi Shem Ra to be only if he had Bi'ah [with her];

Rather, he discussed according to the opinion that establishes it even if he did not have Bi'ah [with her].

Consequence: According to this, the text does not say "b'Alma" (normally), for if the text says "one who had Chupah but did not have Bi'ah, normally she is choked", this connotes that here, in Motzi Shem Ra, she is stoned, even if she was Mezanah after Chupah;

This is not true. If she was Mezanah after Chupah, even in Motzi Shem Ra she is choked!

Implied question: According to this, why was it taught above "if witnesses came [when she was] in her father-in-law's house that she was Mezanah in her father's house, she is stoned?

Answer: Rava is forced to say that it discusses Motzi Shem Ra. If he was not Motzi Shem Ra, according to Rava she is choked, for since the law changed (if she would be Mezanah now), the Misah changed [if she is judged now for Zenus before Chupah]!

Implied question: [If so,] the Beraisa above should have concluded that if witnesses came [when she was] in her father-in-law's house that she was Mezanah in her father's house, and he was not Motzi Shem Ra, she is choked. This would distinguish within the same case (between whether or not he was Motzi Shem Ra);

Why did the Seifa teach if she was Mezanah and later became a Bogeres?

Answer: The Beraisa primarily teaches the law of [Skilah at] Pesach Beis Av;

Since the middle case discusses a Na'arah Me'orasah about whom witnesses came [when she was] in her father's house, we conclude also with one who was Mezanah and later became a Bogeres in her father's house, [similar to] the case we were discussing now.

Implied question: Why did [Rava] say "whereas Motzi Shem Ra...?" The entire matter discusses Motzi Shem Ra!

Note: Rava's words, "if one had Chupah without Bi'ah, and then she was Mezanah, she is choked, whereas Motzi Shem Ra is stoned", seem to contrast the same case with and without an accusation of Zenus. However, this cannot be. Motzi Shem Ra is stoned only for Zenus before Chupah! Rather, we must say that Rava's entire teaching discusses Motzi Shem Ra, and he emphasizes the Chidush. If one had Chupah even without Bi'ah, the law changed. If she is Mezanah afterwards, she is choked. From reasoning, we should say that also her Misah changed, i.e. if she is judged now for Zenus before Chupah. However, the Chidush of Motzi Shem Ra is that the Misah did not change. She is stoned for Zenus before Chupah.

Answer: He means "whereas Motzi Shem Ra of [Zenus during] Eirusin, which the Torah discusses, she is stoned."

Question: A Beraisa in our Sugya (below, 46a) says that if he did not tell witnesses "come testify for me", and they testified by themselves, we stone her and (i.e. or) the witnesses who plotted against her;

Inference: Even if he was not Motzi Shem Ra (did not accuse her of Zenus), we do not say "since the law changed, the Misah changed!"

Answer: We can say that even though he did not tell witnesses ["come testify for me"], he was Motzi Shem Ra, and the Torah made this Chidush.

Explanation #2 (Rashbam): Motzi Shem Ra is different, for it is a Chidush, for one who had Chupah but did not have Bi'ah, normally, without Motzi Shem Ra, and she was Mezanah after Chupah, she is choked;

Unlike this, if he was Motzi Shem Ra in such a case, that she was Mezanah after Nisu'in, she is stoned.

The verses connotes like this. It says v'Im Emes Hayah... v'Lo Nimtze'u Besulim l'Na'arah u'Skaluha";

Inference: Whenever we find that she was not a Besulah, she is stoned, even if she was Mezanah Tachtav (while married to him, i.e. after Chupah).

Implied question: It is written Pesach Beis Aviha, and if she was Mezanah after Chupah there is no [law of stoning at] Pesach Beis Aviha!

Answer: That is because it is not applicable to say "see [the evil daughter] that you raised!"

This is like one who has a father, but no Pesach Beis Av, or she has no father. She is stoned, even though there is no Pesach Beis Aviha.

This is the Chidush. Normally, without Motzi Shem Ra, if she was Mezanah after Chupah, she is choked, like we expound below;

"Me'orasah" excludes Nesu'ah, i.e. one who had Chupah but did not have Bi'ah (so we do not exclude her from Besulah). [However,] if he was Motzi Shem Ra, she is stoned.

Support: This excludes why the Beraisa did not teach that if witnesses came [when she was] in her father-in-law's house that she was Mezanah in her father's house without Motzi Shem Ra, she is choked;

This is because Rava agrees that we do not say "since the law changed, the Misah changed."

Objection (R. Yitzchak): His Perush is difficult, for below (48b) we expound "Liznos Beis Aviha" to exclude when the father handed over [his daughter] to the husband's Sheluchim, and all the more so if she entered Chupah;

That verse "Liznos Beis Aviha" is explicitly written regarding Motzi Shem Ra!

Implied question: Above (38b), we call [becoming] Be'ulah Ishtani Gufa;

Here this is not considered Ishtani Gufa, even according to the opinion that obligates Motzi Shem Ra only if he had Bi'ah [with her]!

Answer: She already became Be'ulah through the adulterer. (Bi'ah with her husband did not change her body.)

Implied question: Bi'ah with the adulterer should be considered Ishtani Gufa!

Answer: We consider only a change in the body that occurred after the Aveirah.

Question: Here there is only change of law. How can we bring from here to [show that Tana'im argue about] change of body above?

Answer #1: Above, the only one who distinguishes above between change of law and change of body above is Rava, who says that Motzi Shem Ra is a Chidush;

Therefore, we challenged him. Since you say that it is a Chidush, and it is not logical, you should establish [the Chidush] in the most limited case possible, i.e. Lo Ishtani Gufa;

However, Rav Nachman holds from logic that the Misah does not change. This is not a Chidush;

According to him, we do not distinguish between change of law and change of body. Therefore, it is a proper proof that Tana'im argue about this.

Answer #2: He brings a proof only from R. Shimon. Since he holds that since the law changed, the Korban changed, all the more so when the body changed!

He is concerned only to bring a Tana who holds like Shila's Beraisa, lest we say that Shila's Beraisa is mistaken, due to the other Beraisa [that opposes it];

[One might have thought to say so, for] Shila's Beraisa was not taught in the academy of R. Chiya and R. Oshaya. (We cannot challenge from such a Beraisa, lest it is mistaken. Similarly, if it contradicts a reliable Beraisa, it is probably mistaken!)

For the other Beraisa (which says that even after Bagrus, she is stoned) he does not bring any proof from Rabanan of R. Shimon. (He did not need to, for there was no concern lest it is mistaken.)

Proof: In the conclusion, we say that Shila's Beraisa is mistaken.

Question (Rashba): In any case, he brings a proper proof from R. Shimon that at least she is choked, since at the time she sinned she was obligated Skilah, and in Bagrus she would be liable choking!

This is like people sentenced to choking who became mixed with people sentenced to stoning. [Every person in the mixture] is choked, because we cannot stone him (for it is more severe, and perhaps he is liable only choking).

This is unlike a Korban. Since he does not know which Korban to bring, he is exempt!

We cannot say that he brings the smaller Korban, for even if he brings the bigger one, it does not atone if he was obligated the smaller [and all the more so if he brings the smaller, it does not atone if he was obligated the bigger]!

It would turn out that he brought Chulin b'Azarah!

Explanation: From here we learn that wherever Ishtani Gufa, the Misah did not change, for we follow the initial status.

Explanation: This is not literally at the doorway of Beis Din. Rather, it is outside of Beis Din, lest Beis Din appear to be murderers, like it says in Sanhedrin (42b) about a different matter.

Question (Ri): Since presumably, Beis Din is not outside of three Machanos (even from Machaneh Yisrael; in Eretz Yisrael, inside the wall of walled cities had Kedushas Machaneh Yisrael), how can we say that we stone at Pesach Beis Din?

We learn there from Parim ha'Nisrafim (bulls whose blood is offered in the Heichal, and they are burned outside of three Machanos) that stoning must be outside of three Machanos!

Answer (Ri): Here, we discuss a city that is mostly Nochrim. The Kedushah of the wall surrounding it is Batel, so one need not stone outside the wall, for it is as if there is no wall.

Proof: Metzora'im must leave walled cities, like it says in Kelim (1:7), and if the city is mostly Nochrim, they need not leave, for the Kedushah of the wall is Batel.

Explanation: This refers to the city in which she sinned, like we learn below from idolatry. We stone him and the opening of the city in which he served it.

Explanation: The text says no more. It does not say "whether or not he had Bi'ah", for Version #2 establishes this only when he had Bi'ah.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He is lashed due to "Lo Selech Rachil." Even though it is Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh, [R. Yehudah holds that] one is lashed for it.

Objection #1 (R. Tam): Below, the Gemara asks what is the warning for Motzi Shem Ra, and concludes that it is "Lo Selech Rachil." This connotes it is merely the warning, but one is not lashed due to this!

Objection #2: If so, any man who slanders his wife with [an accusation of] Zenus should be lashed due to "Lo Selech Rachil"!

Objection #3 (Ri): If he is lashed due to "Lo Selech Rachil" according to R. Yehudah, why do we need "v'Yisru Oso"?

Answer (to Objection #3 - Rashba): This is not difficult. Had it not written v'Yisru, we would not establish Lo Selech Rachil to be the warning for Motzi Shem Ra;

However, now that we learn that he is lashed from v'Yisru, we must find a warning. We establish [Lo Selech Rachil] for the warning, for [the Torah] does not punish without a warning.

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): He is lashed, i.e. Makos Mardus (mid'Rabanan), according to everyone.

Implied question: Rav Papa says that "Lokeh" refers to paying money!

Answer: He does not come to argue with this that [Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak] explained that Lokeh refers to Makos Mardus;

Rather, he does not want to establish "if he had Bi'ah, he is lashed. If he did not have Bi'ah, he is not lashed" to discuss real lashes, for [the Tana] should not have taught "he is not lashed", since he is lashed mid'Rabanan.

Also, he holds that it is unreasonable that the Tana would neglect to teach about 100 Sela'im that are explicitly written in the verse, and teach lashes, which are not explicit;

In all the Beraisos above, lashes are never taught alone, only together with 100 Sela'im.

Implied question: In general, R. Yehudah holds that one is lashed for Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh. Why isn't he lashed here if he did not have Bi'ah?

Answer: Here is different, for the Torah revealed that he is lashed only if he had Bi'ah.

Question: According to R. Yehudah, who holds that one is lashed for Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh, why do we need "v'Hayah Im Bin Hakos ha'Rasha" in Sanhedrin (10a, to teach that Edim Zomemim are lashed)?

In Makos (4b), the Gemara asks 'we should already know [that Edim Zomemim are lashed] from "Lo Sa'aneh"', and answers that it is a Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh. (Since R. Yehudah holds that one is lashed for such Lavim, the question remains!)

Answer #1: According to R. Yehudah, we can answer that it (Lo Sa'aneh) is a Lav that warns for Misas Beis Din (one is not lashed for such Lavim).

Answer #2: R. Yehudah learns from here that one is lashed for Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh, in Makos (4b);

We say there that R. Yehudah learns from [a Tzad ha'Shavah of] Motzi Shem Ra and Edim Zomemim.