Question #1: In Perek Eglah Arufah we Darshen "Ki Yimatzei Chalal", 'to preclude what is Matzuy'. Consequently, we exempt a city the majority of whose residents are Nochrim.

Answer: There, we learn this from "ba'Adamah", which is similar to "be'Yado" in our Sugya.

Question #2: The Kashya remains however, on the D'rashah in the last Perek of Erchin, where, regarding Batei Arei Chomah we Darshen "u'Matza", 'to preclude Matzuy', that one is not permitted to sell a distant property in order to redeem one that is close?

Answer: Like Rashi, who explains that the D'rashah in our Sugya is from the fact that the word is superfluous (and not from its inference).

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that 'an Eved does not have Achvah' even with his biological paternal brother., seeing as the Torah writes "Im ha'Chamor", 'Am ha'Domeh la'Chamor'.

Question: In that case, the same ought to apply to a Ger and an Eved Meshuchrar (who has been set free)?

Explanation #2: The correct explanation must therefore be that 'he has no Achavah' due to the fact that his offspring are not called brothers, which is not the case regarding a Ger.

Clarification: But an Eved who is fully set-free and a Ger we do not exclude from "B'nei Yisrael".

Precedent #1: Similarly in Perek B'nos Kutim, we Darshen 'B'nei Yisrael are subject to Tum'as Zivah ... ', though we do not preclude Geirim and Meshuchrarim'.

Precedent #2: Likewise, in Menachos, with regard to Semichah, where we Darshen 'B'nei Yisrael Somchin ve'Ein ha'Akum Somchin', and we do not preclude 'Geirim and Meshuchrarim.

Precedent #3: And similarly in the first Perek of Erchin, where we Darshen 'B'nei Yisrael Ma'arichin (can declare Erchin) and not Nochrim, but we do not preclude Geirim and Avadim Meshuchrarin.

Question #1: In Perek Kol ha'Menachos Ba'os Matzah, after learning that B'nei Yisrael Menifin ve'Ein ha'Ovdei-Kochavim Manifin the Gemara includes Geirim and Avadim Meshuchrarim from "ha'Makriv"?

Question #2: Likewise, in Perek ha'Areil and in the first Perek of K'risus, the Gemara learns "Ishah ki Sazri'a", 'We only know B'nei Yisrael; from where do we know a Giyores, from the word "Ishah"?

Answer: Perhaps in all the above cases (in a b c &d) there is a Ribuy that comes to include Geirim and Meshuchrarim.

Question: We say later that if the Madi'ach upheld part and negated part of other Mitzvos (apart from Avodah-Zarah) everyone agrees that he is Patur. And Rashi attributes this to the Pasuk "Ach ha'Navi asher Yazid Ledaber Davar". "Davar", 've'Lo Chatzi Davar"?

Answer: The Rabbanan also agree with Rebbi Akiva on principle that we Darshen "Davar", 've'Lo Chatzi Davar'; and the reason that they argue with Rebbi Akiva is because they consider it a Davar Shalem, as is evident in Perek Merubeh and in Chezkas ha'Batim.

Question (Part 1): We need to find a reason to explain why in some places the Gemara learns like it does in the latter cases, such as Perek Arba'ah va'Chamishah "Kofer Shalem" 'Amar Rachmana, ve'Lo Chatzi Kofer'; And in Perek Yesh B'chor, where it Darshens "Chomesh", 've'Lo Chatzi Chomesh - whereas in Perek Merubeh, it Darshens "Chamishah Bakar" 'Amar Rachmana, va'Afilu Chamishah Chatza'ei Bakar'.

Question (Part 2): Then in Perek Oso ve'es B'no, Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan argue over "Seh", 'va'Afilu Miktzas Seh', and regarding 'Kisuy ha'Dam', whether we Darshen "Tzvi", 'va'Afilu Miktzas Tzvi'; And in Perek ha'Ba al Yevimto "bi'Vesulah", 'va'Afilu Miktzas Besulim'; in Perek Almanah 'be'Miktzas kesef ke'Chol Kesef', and in Perek Kisuy ha'Dam "Dam" va'Afilu Miktzas Dam, and at the beginning of Bechoros "B'chor", 'va'Afilu Miktzas B'chor'.

Clarification: The criterion is not a matter of what they said but rather the fact that the initial set of Eidei Geneivah do not need the second set of Eidei Geneivah.

Source: And we leaned in Perek Merubeh that Rebbi Akiva concedes that if two witnesses testify that he betrothed and two, that he was intimate, even though the second witnesses need the first ones, since the first ones do not need the second ones, it is considered 'Davar'.

Question: Why are they sentenced to death, seeing as they can claim that they came to disqualifying him (the kidnapper) from witnessing?

Suggested Answer: If we answer that he needs to be warned, and since they say that they warned them that he is Chayav Misah, we see that they came to have him killed?

Refutation: In that case, according to Chizkiyah too, they ought to be Chayav Misah, despite the fact that they also came to sentence him to Malkos, like we find in the second Perek of Bava Kama, where the witnesses of the first and the second goring, even though they come to make him Chayav Chatzi Nezek, nevertheless, since they also come to declare the ox a Mu'ad, they must share the half Nezek of Ha'ada'ah together with the the third set of witnesses, should all three sets become Zomemin.

Answer: Chizkiyah considers Geneivah a separate entity, just like Eidei Kidushin vis-a-vis Eidei Bi'ah.

Implied Question: Even though it is speaking where they warned him that he will be Chayav Misah ...

Answer #1: Nevertheless, they are not Chayav Misah.

Answer #2: It is also possible that according to Chizkiyah, he does not require Hasra'ah, even though according to Rebbi Yochanan, he does.

Answer 3: Alternatively, the Gemara does not contend with the claim that they came to disqualify him from testifying, seeing as it needed to say earlier that they came to have him sentenced to Malkos.

Explanation: Perhaps we only need it there where he was Pasul to begin with.

Question: If the witnesses who testify that it was not his Eved that he sold, did not come to have the seller sentenced to death, in the event that witnesses testify that he is not his Eved, then what did they come for?

Answer: They came to substantiate the sale.

Question: If they did not warn him, then why do we need the reason of 'Avdi Macharti'? And seeing as it must therefore be speaking where they warned him, they must have come to have him sentenced to death?

Answer: It speaks where he was warned by others, and they were not aware of it.

Precedent: The Gemara could have given the same answer earlier at the beginning of Perek Hayu Bodkin.

Clarification (Part 1): Rav Yosef thought that Rav Asi is speaking where the Eidei Geneivah had already come, and what he means is that since he could claim that it was his Eved that he sold, if the Eidei Geneivah had not come, this diminishes the significance of their testimony, rendering it Chatzi Davar.

Clarification (Part 2):But Abaye queries this in that the word 'Mitoch' (used by Rav Asi) implies that even after Eidei Geneivah arrive, he can claim that (in which case it is not even considered Chatzi Eidus either).

Implied Question: When, in the second Perek of Bava Kama regarding the Sugya of 'Liye'udi Tura ve'Liye'udi Gavra', the Gemara concludes 'Ela de'ka'Meramzi Remuzi', that is not comparable to the Remizah in our Sugya ...

Answer #1: Because there it is speaking about a more substantial Remizah, where throughout the three days, the two groups came together to Beis-Din, and hinted to each other constantly; whereas here it is speaking about a more vague form of hinting, which we do not take into consideration.

Answer #2: Alternatively, Dinei Nefashos is different (i.e. we are more lenient, and discount the hinting).