Observation: The Gemara could have asked her what it asks at the end of the Sugya 'According to that, if the man she subsequently married died leaving her childless, she should not be permitted to make Yibum, in order not to destroy his 'house'.

Question: Why does the Tana not mention it in Perek Yesh Mutaros (Yevamos, Daf 84a) in the list of women who are 'forbidden to their husbands and permitted to their Yevamin'.

Answer: The Tana there does indeed mention Chayvei La'avin, and this is a case of Chayvei La'vin, as the Gemara says in Perek ha'Ba al Yevimto (Ibid, Daf 56b) 'Everyone is included in "Acharei asher Hutama'ah".

Support: And this is how the Gemara answers there, when it asks from 'Patzu'a Daka'.

Question: But why does it not ask here from a Yisrael who married a Kasher woman and who then became a P'tzu'a Daka, who has a Kasher brother? What could the Gemara have answered?

Question: If one wants to ask in Maseches Nedarim (Daf 90b) where Rabah and Rav Sheishes argue over a woman who admits that she is guilty, where Rav Sheishes permits her to eat T'rumah?

Answer: One can answer that here it speaks after the Kinuy and S'tirah, where the evidence points to her guilt, and where even Rav Sheishes will therefore concede that she cannot eat.

Support: And that is how the Yerushalmi explains it.

Possibility #1: Tosfos' Rebbe is in a quandary as to whether it mentions specifically two witnesses, but one will not be believed, since the Gemara establishes the case after she has already drunk ...

Possibility #1 (cont.): And it is only before she drinks that the Torah believes one witness.

Possibility #1 (cont.): And when Rav Sheishes says in the Gemara that 'A Sotah who has witnesses overseas, the water does not examine her', he mentions specifically witnesses (in the plural), but not one witness.

Possibility #2: Or perhaps since the Torah believes one witness after Kinuy and S'tirah, there is no longer any difference between one witness and two witnesses.

Conclusion: It is logical however, to say that the same applies to one witness

Source: Like Ula, who says in Perek Mi she'Amar (later, Daf 31b) that 'Wherever the Torah believes one witness, it is as if there were two'.

Question: According to Rav Sheishes, who maintains that is the Sotah is guilty, she deteriorates, according to both Rebbi and the Rabbanan, how will we then understand Rebbi Shimon, who says that this 'weakens the power of the water'?

Question (cont.): Seeing as they will all see how she deteriorates? How can they then go on to stigmatize the innocent women who drank, bearing in mind that they did not deteriorate?

Answer #1: The women who are standing in the Azarah to take Musar, seeing as the deterioration is not immediately noticeable, will give a bad name to the water, when the adulterer tells them that he committed adulterer with her, and they will not know that she will is about to deteriorate.

Answer #2: Neither they nor she, will not attribute her deterioration to the bitter water, but to some other ailment.

Question #1: Seeing as her husband brings the Korban on her behalf, why is it burned?

Precedent: How will this differ from the Mishnah in the fourth Perek of Nazir (Daf 24b) 'A woman who took a Nazarite vow, who designated an animal, and whose husband then annulled her Neder, if the animal was his, then it goes out to the meadow and is 'Ro'eh'.

Precedent (cont.): Whereas if it is her animal, then a Chatas must die'.

Precedent (concl.): Even though at the time that she was Makdish it, the Hekdesh was valid, seeing as a husband only cuts off the Neder from that moment (and not retroactively). Nevertheless, it says that if the animal was his, it is Ro'eh, and goes out to Chulin?

Question #2: We also learned there in the Mishnah (in Perek Beis Shamai, Daf 32a) that 'Someone who takes a Nazarite vow, and when he goes to bring his Korban, he finds that it has been stolen, if he made the Neder before the animal was stolen, then he is a Nazir, but if he made the Neder afterwards, he is not a Nazir?

Question #2 (concl): Here too, there were witnesses in the world before he declared the animal Hekdesh, and he did not sanctify it on that condition?

Question #3: Furthermore, why is it burnt, seeing as we Pasken like Beis Hillel, who says in Perek Yesh Nochlin (Bava Basra, Daf 120b), and in Perek Beis Shamai, in Nazir (Daf 31b) that 'One may annul Hekdesh', why can the husband not annul the Korban, so that it goes out to Chulin?

Refuted Question: One cannot ask from Asham Taluy, which is sanctified erroneously - since, assuming he did not sin, it is not fit to atone.

Refuted Question (cont.): Yet the Mishnah in the last Perek of K'risus (Daf 23b) states 'If someone brings an Asham Taluy, and discovers that he did not sin, it is subject to the Din of 'Ro'eh'?

Refutation: Since, as the Gemara explains there, that is because, due to the fact that he is worried that he may have sinned, he sanctifies the animal with a full heart.

Question: And if you will ask from all the cases, where the Mishnah rules 'Ro'eh', why do we not also decree because people might say that one is taking Kedushas ha'Guf out to Chulin?

Answer: There, it is not at all clear, since there is not distinction drawn between Kedushas Peh to Kedushas ha'Guf, in which case one will say that it was Kadosh Kedushas ha'Peh.

Answer (cont.): Whereas here, there is a distinction between Kedushas Peh and the Kedushah of K'lei Shareis.

Question: One needs to look into the Gemara in Perek Sh'tei Midos (Menachos, Daf 90) and Perek ha'Todah (Ibid, Daf 79b).

Clarification: It would seem that the same will apply if the Kometz has been brought and witnesses then arrive who testify that she sinned,, he will also say that 'it atones for the Safek'.

Proof: Since that is what the Gemara says in the last Perek of K'risus (Daf 26b) in connection with a Chatas ha'Of that is brought on a Safek - 'If, after the Melikah, it becomes known that she did not give birth, it is forbidden, even be'Hana'ah, because, since it initially came on a Safek, 'it atones for the Safek'.

Clarification: It would seem that it refers to 'Kidshah bi'Cheli', before the Kemitzah has been taken.

Proof: Since after the Kemitzah has been taken, it is subject to an Isur de'Rabbanan, and it must be burned.

Support: Because also there (later on Daf 22b) we establish the Mishnah 'Im mi'she'Niml'kah Noda lah, Harei Zu Tikaver', where it becomes known to her that she did not give birth.

Conclusion: In reality, it ought to be Mutar be'Hana'ah, and the reasin that it is Asur, is mi'de'Rabbanan.

Clarification: This implies that she is permitted to her husband immediately, and we do not make him wait for three years, in case it is a merit that stands her in good stead.

Proof: Because if she was forbidden to him, how can we apply to her the Pasuk "ve'Niksah ve'Nizre'ah Zara"?

Support: Likewise, Tosfos' Rebbe showed him a Yerushalmi which states "ve'Niksah ve'Nizre'ah Zara" - 'He does not need to be concerned in case a merit is standing her in good stead'.

Conclusion: And this goes according to the opinion that holds 'A merit stands her in good stead, but it is not visible'.