Question: Tosfos Rebbe asks whether these Tana'im do not hold of the Gemara in Makos (Daf 23b) that six hundred and thirteen Mitzvos were said to Moshe on Har Sinai?

Question (cont.): Will there be less according to Rebbi Yishmael, who says that it is 'R'shus', or more according to Rebbi Akiva, who says 'Chovah'?

Answer: One therefore needs to say that other Mitzvos, which Rebbi Yishmael learns from a Pasuk, Rebbi Akiva will consider an Asmachta, and he will Darshen something else from that Pasuk.

Yerushalmi: The Yerushalmi says that Rebbi Eliezer holds Chovah.

Refuted Question: We cannot query this from what we learned earlier 'ha'Mekanei' - Bedi'eved, indicating that it is forbidden to warn one's wife?

Answer: Since it is our Tana exclusively who uses this Lashon 9;ha'Mekanei') who holds like that, but not Rebbi Eliezer.

Precedent #1: In similar vein we learned in the first Perek of Kidushin (Daf 21a) "And he shall redeem what his brother sold" - 'Rebbi Eliezer says 'Chovah'.

Precedent #2: And also the Gemara in 'ha'Shole'ach' (Gitin, Daf 38b), commenting on the Pasuk "Le'olam bahem Ta'avodu", says 'Chovah'.

Refuted Question: One cannot query this from the second Perek of Makos (Daf 12a), where Rebbi Akiva says "ve'Ratzach Go'e ha'Dam" 'R'shus'?

Answer: Since the case here is different, seeing as the Pasuk mentions two Kinuyin.

Question #1 on the Yerushalmi: Rebbi Yehoshua says there 'R'shus', and the Gemara ascribes this to the fact that he conforms with Beis Hillel, who holds that 'Even if a woman burns her husband's food, (he is permitted to divorce her).

Question #1 (cont.): Therefore he holds 'R'shus' - If he wants to warn her, he may warn her, and if he wants to divorce her, he may divorce her.

Question #1 (concl.): But Rebbi Akiva there, who is even more lenient than Beis Hillel - permits the husband to divorce his wife, even if he merely found a nicer woman than her', yet he says 'Chovah'?

Yerushalmi Asks: There in the Yerushalmi, Rebbi Eliezer argues with Rebbi Yehohua, and says 'Chovah', because he holds like Beis Shamai, who in turn, say that 'One may divorce one's wife unless she has committed adultery.

Yerushalmi Asks (cont.): If he found in her immoral behavior, he cannot divorce her, since she did not commit adultery; on the other hand, he cannot retain her, since he found in her immoral behavior. Hence he says 'Chovah'.

Yerushalmi Asks (cont.): But did we not learn in a Beraisa in the name of Beis Shamai - 'I only know that she goes out on account of adultery; From where do we know that she also goes out because she goes with her hair uncovered, with her clothes cut at the side and with her arms uncovered?

Yerushalmi Asks (concl.): Therefore the Torah writes "Because he found in her 'Ervas Davar".

Answer: Rebbi Mana therefore establishes the Beraisa where there are witnesses, and the initial ruling where there are not.

Question: Since, according to the Yerushalmi, Kinuy is linked to Gerushin, Rebbi ought to have learned Sotah after Gitin, Nazir after Sotah - in the order of the Parshiyos in the Torah, Nedarim after Nazir and Kesuvos after Nedarim (in the reverse order to the way he does learn them)?

Question: Tosfos' Rebbe asks, that where it is possible to Darshen like it is here, why does the Gemara not do so?

Support #1: Like the Gemara says with regard to a Kal va'Chomer - 'Even though one can learn something from a Kal va'Chomer, the Torah will (sometimes) take the trouble to present it. Yet where it possible to Darshen, we do.

Support #2: Likewise, the Gemara says in Perek Kol Sha'ah (Pesachim, Daf 24b) 'Wherever it is possible to Darshen, we do not establish additional La'vin.

Ramification #1: The difference will be with regard to the principle 'Someone who is busy with one Mitzvah is Patur from performing another Mitzvah ...

Source: As the Gemara says at the end of Perek Mashu'ach Milchamah (later, Daf 44a).

Ramification #2: And with regard to forcing him to render himself Tamei against his will, should he refuse ...

Source: As the Gemara says in Perek T'vul Yom (Zevachim, Daf 100a) in the episode cited there regarding Yosef ha'Kohen.

Question: According to Rav Chisda, who says in Perek Sheloshah Miynim (Nazir, Daf 43b) "le'Aviv" - 'When he is whole and not when he is cut up into limbs' ...

Question (cont.): We do not need "lah" to teach us but not limbs?

Question (cont.): If so, how will he Darshen "lah Yitama"?

Answer: He will Darshen that it is an obligation, like Rebbi Akiva, and since the Torah has to write "Yitama", it also writes "lah".

Source of Halachah: From here we learn that the Yichus of the nations of the world goes after the father.

Question: We need "Bahem", as the Gemara Darshens in Perek Eizehu Neshech (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 73b) - 'From where do we know that if one sees one's fellow-Jew behaving in an unbefitting manner, one is permitted to put him to work? ... '

Answer: That is a mere Asmachta, a penalty imposed by the Chachamim, in order to chastise him.

Question: One could answer that by Eidus Achronah the evidence points to her guilt, seeing as he warned her and she secluded herself.

Question: Seeing as the he warned her and she secluded herself, and now a witness arrives that she sinned, one can assume that the husband was silent and did not contradict him.

Question (cont.): Why does he need a Pasuk that one witness is believed, since, even in the same case where there was no warning and seclusion, he would be believed?

Source: As the Gemara says in Perek ha'Omer (Kidushin, Daf 66a) - 'If one's wife committed adultery with one witness ... That is fine according to Rava, who says that this is a matter of Ervah, which requires two witnesses. But according to Abaye, who holds that he is believed, what will one say?'

Conclusion: So we are forced to say that Abaye only requires a Pasuk there where the husband contradicts the witness, even though he warned her.

Question: Why do we need a Gezeirah-Shavah? Even without one, why would we think that one witness is believed?

Refuted Answer: Nor can we learn it from 'Eidus Acharonah', since there is a Pircha (because there, it forbids him forever [See Tosfos earlier DH 'Mah Eidus Achronah').