(Gemara) Question: The Mishnah says that the water also checks him. To whom does this refer?

Suggestion: It checks her husband.

Rejection: He did not sin. Why should he be punished?!

Suggestion: Perhaps he is punished if he transgressed (he had Bi'ah with her after seclusion).

Rejection: If so, the water would not check her!

(Beraisa): "The man will be clean from sin, and she will bear her sin" - the water checks her only if her husband is clean from sin.

Answer: Rather, it also checks the Bo'el.

Question: Why didn't the Mishnah say so explicitly, like in the Seifa 'just like she is forbidden to her husband, she is forbidden to the Bo'el'?

Answer: In the Reisha, since it says 'the water checks her', it says 'him' for parallel structure. In the Seifa, since it says 'she is forbidden to her husband', it says 'the Bo'el.'

(Mishnah): It says "and (the water) will come, and will come."

Question: Does the Tana expound only the superfluous 'and', or the entire word "u'Va'u (and will come)"?

Answer #1 (Mishnah): Just like she is forbidden to her husband, she is forbidden to the Bo'el - "she was defiled", "and she was defiled."

Objection: There also, it is not clear. Does the Tana expound the superfluous 'and', or the entire word?

Answer #2 (Mishnah - Rebbi): It says "she was defiled" twice. This teaches that she is forbidden to her husband and the Bo'el;

This implies that R. Akiva expounds the superfluous 'and.'

It says 'and will come' three times. R. Akiva expounds superfluous 'and's, so he learn six things!

Hash-m commands the water to enter the Sotah to test her; also, He commands that it test him (the Bo'el);

The Torah discusses giving the Sotah to drink. It is as if also he drinks;

The Torah informs how she will die. This applies also to him.

Question: Rebbi (does not expound superfluous 'and's, so he) learns only three things. How does Rebbi learn that just like the water checks her, it also checks him?

Answer: "To make the stomach swell and the thigh fall" refers to the stomach and thigh of the Bo'el.

Question: Perhaps it refers to the stomach and thigh of the Sotah!

Answer: The Torah previously said that her stomach and thigh will be stricken.

R. Akiva says, the repetition is to make known the order in which the limbs will be stricken, lest people will not say that the water does not work as predicted in the curse.

Rebbi: If so, the Torah should have said 'her stomach and her thigh.' It said generically "stomach and thigh" to teach that the Bo'el is also tested.

Question: Perhaps this is all that we may learn from the verse!

Answer: If so, the Torah should have said 'his stomach and his thigh.' It said generically "stomach and thigh" to teach both (that the Bo'el is also tested, and the order in which the limbs are stricken).

(Mishnah - R. Yehoshua): Zecharyah ben ha'Katzav also expounded this way...

(Beraisa - R. Akiva): It says three times "if she was defiled", "she was defiled", and "and she was defiled", to teach that she becomes forbidden to her husband, the Bo'el, and Terumah;

R. Yishmael: No verse is needed to forbid her to Kehunah. We may learn a Kal va'Chomer from Terumah!

A divorcee may eat Terumah, but she is forbidden to Kehunah. A Sotah is forbidden to Terumah, all the more so she is forbidden to Kehunah!

Question: Why does it say "she was defiled" and "she was not defiled"?

If she was (surely) defiled, why does she drink?

If she was (surely) not defiled, why does her husband make her drink?

Answer: The Torah teaches that even though it is a Safek, she is forbidden as if she was definitely defiled until she drinks).

From here we learn to Safek Tum'ah, e.g. of a rodent.

The Torah does not forbid a Sotah if she sinned unknowingly or was forced, only if she sinned knowingly and willingly. Still, a Safek is forbidden as if she were surely Temei'ah (defiled);

A rodent is Metamei knowingly or unknowingly, willingly or unwillingly. All the more so, a Safek is forbidden as if it were surely Tamei!

The source of the Kal va'Chomer, Sotah, is a Safek in a Reshus ha'Yachid (less than three people were there). We may learn only to Safek Tum'ah involving a rodent in a Reshus ha'Yachid.

Sotah is a Safek in which an involved party has understanding. We may learn only to Safek Tum'ah involving a rodent in which an involved party has understanding.

Chachamim derived from here that Safek Tum'ah in which an involved party has understanding is Tamei in a Reshus ha'Yachid. In a Reshus ha'Rabim, it is Tahor;

Safek Tum'ah in which no involved party has understanding, whether in a Reshus ha'Yachid or a Reshus ha'Rabim, is Tahor.

Question #1: R. Akiva expounded a verse to teach that she is disqualified from Terumah. Why did R. Yishmael answer that no verse is needed to teach that she is disqualified from Kehunah?

Question #2: How does R. Akiva learn that she is disqualified from Kehunah?

Suggestion: No verse is needed. Regarding her husband, the Torah considers her to be a Vadai (definite) Zonah (adulteress). Also regarding Kehunah, she is considered a Vadai Zonah.

Rejection: If she were a Zonah regarding Kehunah, she would also be a Zonah regarding Terumah. R. Akiva learned Terumah from a verse!