Inference: Reish Lakish and Rav Yemar both forbid warning.

Question: According to the opinion that permits warning, what does Kinuy mean?

Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): It is an expression of warning - "Hash-m warned about his land."

(Beraisa - R. Meir): If one does a sin in private, Hash-m publicizes it;

"V'Avar (will pass) on him a spirit of Kin'ah" is an expression of announcing - "va'Ya'aviru (they passed) a proclamation in the camp."

(Reish Lakish): One sins only if a spirit of lunacy enters him - "a man whose wife Sishteh (will stray)" - it is written Sishteh (like the word Shotah, a lunatic, and not 'Sateh' or 'Sisteh' ).

(Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): The Torah believed one witness about a Sotah because there are grounds to believe him. She was warned, she was secluded, and one witness says that she became Temei'ah.

Question (Rav Papa): The Torah mentions warning after seclusion and Tum'ah

Answer (Abaye): "V'Avar (passed) on him a spirit of Kin'ah" - the spirit already passed (before seclusion and Tum'ah).

Question: If V'Avar means 'already passed', we should say the same about "V'Avar every armed soldier" (but this was before Bnei Gad and Bnei Reuven crossed the Yarden)!

Answer: There, it says "You will conquer... later, you will return." This shows that "V'Avar" means 'will pass,'

Here, "V'Avar" cannot mean 'passed (afterwards)', if seclusion and Tum'ah already occurred, there is no reason for warning!

(Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): A man does not warn his wife until a spirit enters him - "passed on him a spirit of Kin'ah, and he warned his wife."

Question: What kind of spirit passed on him?

Answer #1 (Rabanan): It was a spirit of Tum'ah.

Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): It was a spirit of Taharah.

Support (for Rav Ashi - Beraisa - R. Yishmael): "He warned his wife" - this is optional (if he sees her acting improperly);

R. Akiva says, it is an obligation.

This is like the opinion that it was a spirit of Taharah.

It would not be optional or an obligation to put a spirit of Tum'ah on oneself!

(Beraisa - R. Yishmael): "He warned his wife" is optional;

R. Akiva says, it is an obligation.

R. Yishmael says, "he (a Kohen) will become Tamei for her (his deceased sister)" is optional;

R. Akiva says, it is an obligation.

R. Yishmael says, "(Kena'ani slaves) will work for you forever" is optional;

R. Akiva says, it is an obligation (i.e. one may not needlessly free them).

Question (Rav Papa): Does R. Yishmael say that all positive Mitzvos are optional, and R. Akiva say they are all obligatory?

Answer (Abaye): No. Only in these three cases, they argue about how to interpret the verses.

Regarding "he warned his wife", R. Yishmael holds like the following Tana:

(Beraisa - R. Eliezer ben Yakov) Suggestion: Perhaps "do not hate your brother in your heart" applies even to a wife who deviates from the modest ways of Benos Yisrael!

Rejection: "Passed on him a spirit of Kin'ah, and he warned his wife" (it is permitted).

R. Akiva holds that another verse says "he warned", to make this obligatory.

R. Yishmael holds that since the Torah needed to write the cases when she is innocent and guilty, it said "he warned" in both cases. We do not expound the repetition;

(Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): If a Parshah was repeated in the Torah, it was repeated only for the new law taught. (We need not expound everything repeated.)

(Beraisa - R. Yishmael): "He will become Tamei for her" is optional (a Kohen may become Tamei to engage in burial of his deceased sister);

R. Akiva says, it is obligatory.

R. Yishmael holds that since Kohanim are normally forbidden to become Tamei, the Torah needed to permit a Kohen to become Tamei to his close relatives;

R. Akiva holds that "to his close kin" permits. "He will become Tamei to her" obligates.

R. Yishmael agrees that "to his close kin" permits. "He will become Tamei for her" forbids Tum'ah for her limbs (Rashi - that fell off in her lifetime; Tosfos - if the corpse is incomplete).

R. Akiva holds that we could have learned that from just "for her." "He will become Tamei" makes it mandatory.

R. Yishmael holds that since the Torah needed to write "to her", it also said "he will become Tamei." We do not learn from the other repeated words.

(Beraisa - R. Yishmael): "You will indenture ba'Hem (them, i.e. Kena'ani slaves) forever" is optional;

R. Akiva says, it is obligatory.

R. Yishmael holds that since it says "do not leave any soul (of the seven Kena'ani nations) alive", "you will indenture ba'Hem forever" is needed to permit (keeping alive and) buying for a slave someone whose mother is a Kena'ani, but his father is not.

(Beraisa): "Also from the children of the settlers who live with you, you may buy slaves" - you may (keep him alive and) buy for a slave the child of a Kena'anis mother if the father is not a Kena'ani.

Suggestion: Perhaps one may buy the child of a Kena'ani if the mother is not a Kena'anis!

Rejection: "Who were born in your land", but (their fathers) do not live (permanently) in your land.

R. Akiva holds that "also from the children... you may buy" permits. "You will indenture them forever" makes it obligatory.

R. Yishmael holds that "ba'Hem" excludes your brethren (you may not indenture a Yisrael like a Kena'ani slave).

R. Akiva learns this from "you will not make your brethren, Bnei Yisrael, work rigorously."

R. Yishmael holds that it says "ba'Hem" for parallel structure with "one will not force to work rigorously Bo (with) his brother." We do not expound "ba'Hem."

(Rav Chisda): Adultery in the house (consumes the money) like a worm consumes sesame. The same applies to anger in the house.

Both of these apply to the wife. They are not problems in the husband.

(Rav Chisda): Before Yisrael sinned, the Divine Presence dwelled with each person - "Hash-m goes amidst your camp";

After they sinned, the Divine Presence departed from them - "(Hash-m) will not see in you an immoral matter, and go away from you."

(Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani): Whoever does one Mitzvah in this world, it goes before him in the world to come - "your righteousness will go before you."

Whoever does a sin in this world, it envelops him and goes before him in the world to come - "they are gripped in their ways, they achieve nothing and perish."

(R. Elazar): It clings to him like a dog - "he (Yosef) did not listen to her (Potifar's wife) to lie with her, to be with her";

"To lie with her" - in this world. "To be with her" - in the world to come.

(Mishnah) Suggestion: If we require two witnesses for the first testimony (seclusion), which does not permanently forbid her, all the more so, the latter testimony (Tum'ah), which permanently forbids her, should require two witnesses!

Rejection: "V'Ed Ein Bah" - any testimony (of Tum'ah) against her (permanently forbids her).

Suggestion: The latter testimony, which permanently forbids her, needs only one witness. All the more one witness should suffice for the first testimony, which does not permanently forbid her!

Rejection: It says regarding adultery "Ki Matza Vah Ervas Davar", and regarding monetary cases it says "According to two or three witnesses a Davar will be established";

Just like two witnesses are needed there, also regarding seclusion.

Question: We learn that seclusion needs two witnesses from elsewhere, "V'Ed Ein Bah"!

One witness suffices "Bah" (for Tum'ah), but not for warning or seclusion!

Answer: Indeed, this is what the Mishnah means!

"V'Ed Ein Bah" - one witness suffices for Tum'ah, but not for warning or seclusion;

Question: What is the source to require two witnesses about adultery if there was no warning and seclusion?

Answer: It says "Ki Matza Vah Ervas Davar", and "According to two..."