1)

(a)When a husband discovers his wife in seclusion with the man whom he warned her about - he takes her to the local Beis-Din.

(b)The local Beis-Din gives her two Talmidei-Chachamim to accompany them to Yerushalayim, according to the Tana Kama - to be on hand to testify should they be intimate with her on the way.

(c)According to Rebbi Yehudah - that the husband is believed to say that he was not.

2)

(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Rav draws a distinction between someone who is in town - where two people will suffice to remove the Isur Yichud, and someone who is traveling, where three are required.

(b)There is no proof for Rav from our Mishnah, which requires two Talmidei-Chachamim to accompany the woman to Yerushalayim, which together with the husband, makes three - because the reason that the Tana requires two Talmidei-Chachamim is not because of the Isur Yichud, but in order that there should be two witnesses on hand should the need arise.

(c)Rav Yehudah Amar Rav also rules - that only 'Kasher' people are eligible to remove the Isur Yichud, but as far as people with loose morals is concerned, even ten men are forbidden to travel in the company of a woman.

(d)We cannot prove this from our Mishnah, which requires specifically two Talmidei-Chachamim - because the reason for that is because Talmidei-Chachamim are able to warn him more effectively than others.

3)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that the husband himself is believed to say that he was not intimate with his wife on the way - 'Kal va'Chomer' from Nidah, where his wife is believed even though there is a Chiyuv Kareis (whereas on a Sotah there is only a La'av).

(b)We learn from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "Lo Yuchal Ba'alah ha'Rishon ... Acharei Asher Hutama'ah" - that someone (including her husband) who is intimate with a Sotah transgresses a La'av.

(c)The Rabbanan counter Rebbi Yehudah's 'Kal va'Chomer' - by arguing that, to the contrary, it is precisely because of the stringency of Kareis that a Nidah is believed (seeing as the harsh penalty will serve as a deterrent).

4)

(a)In a Beraisa, it is Rebbi Yossi who argues with the Tana Kama, and who believes the husband with a 'Kal va'Chomer'. The Rabbanan there counter the 'Kal va'Chomer' - by arguing that the reason the Torah permits a Nidah on her word alone is only because it is only a matter of time before she will become permitted, whereas in the case of a Sotah the prohibition may be permanent.

(b)The Pasuk they quote in support of their argument - is "Mayim Genuvim Yimtaku" (Mishlei - which teaches us that the more something is forbidden, the more a person wants it).

(c)Rebbi Yehudah there learns that the husband is believed min ha'Torah from the Pasuk "ve'Heivi ha'Ish es Ishto". In the previous Beraisa, he himself based his opinion on a 'Kal va'Chomer'. In fact - after he presented the 'Kal va'Chomer' and the Rabbanan countered it (as we saw earlier), he quoted the Pasuk as his new source.

(d)Rebbi Yehudah argues with the Chachamim - inasmuch as they conclude 'Aval Amru Chachamim Mosrin Lo Sh'nei Talmidei-Chachamim ... ', whereas in his opinion, the Chachamim made no such Takanah.

5)

(a)Our Mishnah describes the procedure from the time they leave the local Beis-Din to go to Yerushalayim. On the way, they would frighten her (like they did to the witnesses in matters of life and death) - to induce her to confess, to avoid the need to blot out Hash-m's Holy Name in the water.

(b)They finally implored her to confess for the sake of Hash-m's great Name, after first pointing out to her - that wine, youth and bad neighbors tend to have a bad effect on a person (deflecting some of the blame from her to make a confession less painful).

(c)When the Tana adds 've'Omer Lefanehah Devarim she'Einah K'dai le'Shom'an' - he means that they spoke to her in a respectable manner, which neither she nor her father's family, deserved.

(d)In the event that she persisted that she was innocent - they took her to the Sha'ar ha'Mizrach (which led into the Har ha'Bayis), and from there to Sha'ar Nikanor.

6)

(a)Sha'ar Nikanor was - the gate leading from the Ezras Nashim to the Ezras Yisrael.

(b)The two people listed by the Tana as having been stood at the Sha'ar Nikanor for their purification ceremony were - a Yoledes (a woman who had just given birth) and a Metzora.

(c)Nikanor was the man who, with much self-sacrifice, transported these copper gates from Alexandria to Yerushayim (largely by water, where miracles occurred during their transportation).

(d)They made the Sotah drink particularly at that spot - because, on the one hand, it was still considered "Lifnei Hash-m" (which the Sotah's required), and on the other, for the benefit of the Metzora, who was still a Mechusar Kipurim and could not enter the Ezras Yisrael, the portals of the gate were not sanctified with the Kedushah of the Azarah, and it was not befitting for what would now transpire there to take place in a place that was.

7)

(a)If she admitted that she was guilty - she was sent away with a Get and a receipt which she had to sign, stating that she forfeited her Kesuvah due to the fact that she had committed adultery.

(b)She was not sentenced to death - because there had not been two witnesses present when she sinned.

8)

(a)The Kohen then had to grab her clothes by the neck and pull them down until her breasts were exposed (if they tore, he was not responsible), and uncover her hair.

(b)Rebbi Yehudah objects - in the case of a woman who is beautiful and who is therefore bound to arouse immoral thoughts among those present.

(c)If the Sotah was wearing ...

1. ... white clothes (which were considered more beautiful in former times) - he would exchange them for black ones.

2. ... ornaments - he removed them.

3. ... Katli'os (a type of tight necklace that also held the two sides of the top of her dress together) - he removed them too.

(d)He had to do all this - in order to make her look ugly.

9)

(a)The Kohen then tied a Chevel ha'Metzari above her breasts - to prevent her clothes from falling to the ground.

(b)A 'Chevel ha'Metzari' - is a rope fashioned from a creeper that grows round the date-palm.

(c)Whoever wanted to come and see her was permitted to do so, except for her slaves - whose presence would fortify her, and encourage her to persist that she was innocent.

10)

(a)'Torah' ("ve'Asah Lah ha'Kohen es Kol ha'Torah ha'Zos" [Naso]) 'Torah' ("al-Pi ha'Torah Asher Yorucha" (with regard to a Zakein Mamrei [in Shoftim]) - that not only must a Sotah drink the Mei Sotah in Yerushalayim, but that she must do so under the auspices of the Beis-Din ha'Gadol of seventy-one (rather than under the auspices of one of the two Batei-Din of twenty-three that sat in the Beis-Hamikdash).

(b)Our Mishnah, which describes how they would frighten the Sotah into confessing (to avoid drinking the Mei Sotah), speaks before they had blotted out Hash-m's Name - whereas the Beraisa, which describes how they would induce her to drink it, speaks afterwards.

(c)They would induce her to drink the Mei Sotah - by comparing it to a balm, which takes effect as long as there is a wound, but does no harm if there is not. Likewise, the Mei Sotah would only be activated if she sinned, but it would do her no harm if she was innocent.

(d)They needed to induce her to drink, because they were afraid - that she might confess (at that late stage) that she sinned (even if she didn't) for fear of what the water might do to her.

11)

(a)The two famous brothers cited by the Sanhedrin (before the Name of Hash-m had been blotted out in the water) as examples of people who confessed and went on to receive a rich reward in both worlds - were Yehudah and Reuven.

(b)Yehudah's reward in this world - was the kingship, Reuven's - that he was the first to receive his portion of land in Eretz Yisrael (in Eiver ha'Yarden).

(c)When the Sanhedrin added the Pasuk in Iyov "ve'Lo Avar Zar be'Socham", they were referring to - Moshe's B'rachah, where he blessed them in close succession (see also Tosfos DH 'Lo Avar').

(d)Yehudah's bones did not come together during the forty years in the desert, until Moshe Davened on his behalf - because Yehudah cursed himself in both worlds should he fail to return Binyamin to his father, and we have a principle 'Kil'las Chacham Afilu al T'nai Hu Ba'.

12)

(a)Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeini Amar Rebbi Yonasan learns from the Pasuk in ve'Zos ha'Berachah ...

1. ... "Y'chi Reuven ve'Al Yamos ... ve'Zos li'Yehudah" - that Moshe prayed to Hash-m to bring Yehudah's bones together, on the grounds that it was due to Yehudah's confession that Reuven confessed (and his bones were intact).

2. ... "Sh'ma Hash-m Kol Yehudah" - that Hash-m responded to Moshe's request and brought Yehudah's bones together.

3. ... "ve'el Amo Tevi'enu" - that He then brought him to the Yeshivah shel Ma'alah.

4. ... "Yadav Rav Lo" - that he was able to join in the battle of Torah with the other Talmidei-Chachamim.

5. ... "ve'Eizer mi'Tzarav Tih'yeh" - that his opinion was accepted as Halachah.

(b)Yehudah confessed - to save Tamar from burning.

(c)We initially query Reuven's confession, on the grounds - that it is considered a Chutzpah to publicize one's sins unnecessarily (since it gives the impression that one is unashamed of having performed them).

(d)We justify it however - by pointing out that he did so in order to remove the blame from his brothers.

13)

(a)We try to prove from the Lashon used by our (S'tam) Mishnah 'Shoveres Kesuvasah' a S'tam Mishnah - that the Halachah is like Rebbi Yossi, who maintains (in Bava Basra) that one writes a receipt (in favor of relying on tearing up the original document).

(b)Rava rejects Abaye's answer (to amend 'Shoveres Kesuvasah' to 'Mekar'in Kesuvasah') - because one cannot amend a Mishnah or Beraisa at will, unless there is some indication that it needs to be amended.

(c)There is in fact, no proof from our Mishnah that Kosvin Shover - because the Tana could be speaking in a town where they did not write a Kesuvah (in which case even Rebbi Yehudah will agree that, for lack of an alternative, one writes a receipt.

(d)Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Ein Kosvin Shover' - because it obligates the creditor (who, due to the principle 'Eved Loveh le'Ish Malveh', ought to have the upper hand) to guard the receipt against mice.