Clarification: Rabeinu Chananel explains that this refers to people who spread rumors about her that she committed adultery.

Source: As we find in the text in Yevamos (Daf 25a), where Abaye, quoting his nanny, pointed out that 'the rumors of the town last one and a half days, which is as long as the Muzaros ba'Levanah (the women who spin flax by the moonlight) talk about it (as the Yerushalmi explains).

Comment: What Rabeinu Chananel cites 'Dumi de'Masa lasts one and a half days', he only cites to explain that the Lashon 'Domeh' is one of spreading false rumors.

Comment (cont.): But in fact here the Gemara is not talking about a Domeh of this nature, because if it was, then even if he married, he would have to send her away, since the Gemara there on Daf 25a) Paskens like Rebbi , who says that if a rumor does not fade away - i.e. a town rumor that lasts for one and a half days, since it is ugly, she must go.

Comment (concl.): Whereas even Rebbi Yochanan concedes here that, if he married her, he need not send her away, because it is speaking by a rumor that fades away, in which case we Pasken like Rav, that she does not go out.

Clarification: It only speaks about a rumor that fades away. Where the Gemara in Yevamos (Daf 25a) Paskens like Rav, that she does not go out, seeing as 'The majority of Be'ilos go after the husband'.

Implied Question: And even though Rav says, at the end of Perek Almanah, in Yevamos (Daf 69b) that 'Someone who is intimate with his betrothed in the house of his father-in-law the baby is a Mamzer', and the Gemara establishes the case where there are rumors regarding both him and others, why do we not attribute her pregnancy to him?

Answer: That speaks specifically by a betrothed who is not with her constantly, but in the case of a husband, who is married to her, he will concede.

Clarification: Whereas according to Shmuel, there is no difference, and the child will always be a Shesuki; and this speaks where the 'suspect' is not in front of us that we can ask her whether it is him, but there where he is, and she claims that she was intimate with a Kasher, she is believed.

Source: As we say in Perek Asarah Yuchsin (Kidushin, Daf 75a) with regard to an Arusah who became pregnant, even though we establish it in Perek Almanah le'Kohen Gadol (Yevamos, Daf 69b) where she was suspected of having relations with others.

Source (cont.): And the Shesuki of which Shmuel is speaking means 'Beduki' - i.e. that we ask her mother, who says that she had relations with a Kasher.

Source (cont.): Because Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rules like Raban Gamleil, who says that she is believed, even there where the majority of people are forbidden to her.

Conclusion: And in our Sugya too, where where it says that 'One may not marry the daughter of a Domah', it is speaking where the Domah is not in front of us to ask.

Question: The question arises however, according to the second Lashon in Perek Almanah, where he (the Arus) has relations with her, everyone agrees that we attribute the pregnancy to him ...

Question (cont.): Seeing as here, her husband is with her all the time, yet Shmuel does not attribute the pregnancy to him, how much more so should he not attribute it to the Arus?

Refuted Answer: And even if we say that there it is different since we know for sure that the Arus was intimate with her, whereas here we do not know that the husband definitely was ...

Refutation: Nevertheless, one can ask according to Rava who says even in the case of an Arusah who became pregnant, we can presume that there were no rumors that she was intimate with him, there Rav declares the child a Mamzer and Shmuel, a Shesuki ...

Refutation (cont.): But if there were, then we would attribute the pregnancy to him, even according to Rav, and certainly according to Shmuel?

Conclusion: Yet here, even though she has a fixed husband, where we ought to have attributed the majority of Be'ilos after the husband, yet we don't, how much more so there?

Clarification: And it speaks where she did not have a fixed Veses.

Implied Question: The Gemara could also have said 'that where there is no fixed Veses there is no She'eilah, only where there is.

Answer: Only it preferred to deal with a fixed case.

Question: Tosfos' Rebbe asks from a case in Perek ha'Mapeles (Nidah, Daf 25b) where a fetus was brought before Mar Shmuel, which he declared to be forty-one days old ...

Question (cont.): And when they counted from the time that she went to Tovel up to that day, and discovered that it was only forty days, he pronounced that her husband had been Bo'el her when she was a Nidah. They bound him to the Amud to give him Malkos and he admitted that he had.

Question (concl.): He queried from there the opinion that holds that she becomes pregnant close to her Veses (and not close to her Tevilah?

Answer: Those who hold 'close to her Veses', only say that most of a woman's pregnancies take place then; he concedes however, that sometimes she falls pregnant close to her Tevilah or during the days between her Tevilah and her Veses.

Conclusion: And the sams is true of those who hold 'close to her Tevilah'.

Clarification: The Pasuk comes mainly to forbid her both on her husband and to the adulterer by means of the Kinuy; but to disqualify her from receiving her Kesubah does not require a Pasuk.

Reason: Because even Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, who holds in the last Perek of Kesuvos (Daf 110b) that 'A woman's Kesubah is d'Oraysa', concedes that it is not really d'Oraysa, only that it has a support from the Torah ...

Source: As the Gemara says there in the first Perek (Daf 10a) 'From here the Chachamim found a support for a woman's Kesubah in the Torah'.

Conclusion: And the reason that the Tana mentions 'Kesubah' is to teach us by the way that a woman who transgresses the law requires a warning before losing her Kesubah.

Question #1: The Ri asks what the difference is between the Gemara here, which precludes from "ve'He'emid" a lame woman; whereas in connection with Erchin, where the Torah writes "ve'He'emid ve'He'erich", the Gemara in Erchin (Daf 4a) only precludes a Goseis?

Question #2: Similarly, when the Torah writes 'Ha'amadah' by Kodshim Ba'alei Mumin - the Gemara says in Perek ha'Shochet (Chulin 30a) that if one Shechts it and it is still shuddering, that it is a bas Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah?

. Question #3: And In connection with a Yavam, where the Torah writes (in Devarim, 25) "ve'Amad ve'Amar", yet a woman may perform Chalitzah on a Yavam whose legs are severed below the knees.

Refuted Question: The question from Chalitzah one cannot ask however ...

Refutation: Since the Gemara in Yevamos gives the real reason for this because the Torah writes "me'al Raglo", whereas the Pasuk "ve'Amad ve'Amar" it Darshens like the Sifri - to teach us that the Yavam must say his words standing.

Answer: And he answers that, since the Torah includes a month-old baby by Erchin, it is clearly not particular about standing.

Answer (cont.): And likewise, regarding a blemished animal, basically it needs to be redeemed, and the Torah does not differentiate between one blemish and another - even if its legs are broken.

Answer (concl.): And it is not any better than a person about whom the Torah is not particular that he stands (when being assessed).

Question: One can ask that here it implies that Rav Ashi holds 'Ba'inan K'ra ke'di'Chesiv' ...

Question (cont.): Whereas in Perek Nigmar ha'Din (Sanhedrin, 45b) When Mar Keshisha the son of Rav Chisda asked Rav Ashi whether we do not hold 'Ba'inan K'ra ke'di'Chesiv', seeing as we learned in the Mishnah that if one of them (the Yavam or the Yevamah) had no arms or no legs ... . Is this not because 'Ba'inan K'ra ke'di'Chesiv'?

Question (cont.): To which Rav Ashi answered 'No! The entire Pasuk is superfluous!'

Question (cont.): Implying that were it not for the extra Pasuk, we would not need to take the Pasuk literally?

Refuted Question #1: It is fine regarding Rav Sheishes, who precludes a blind person from "Einei" ...

Refutation: Since one can say that it is a superfluous Pasuk, seeing as the Torah could have written "ve'Ne'elam me'Iyshah".

Refuted Question #2: And regarding "ve'He'emid" that Rav Ashi Darshens too ...

Refutation: One can say that it is a superfluous Pasuk, since the Torah already says "ve'He'emidah lifnei Hash-m".

Refuted Question #3: And likewise when Mar bar Rav Ashi rules that a woman who cannot speak does not drink, it is ...

Refutation: Because the Torah writes "ve'Amrah".

Refutation (cont.): And even those that hold 'Lo Ba'inan K'ra ke'di'Chesiv', agree with this, since she is unable to accept the oath.

Refuted Question #4: And also with regard to Chalitzah, where reciting the Pasuk is not crucial, a Chalitzah performed by a dumb man and a dumb woman is invalid ...

Refutation: On account of Rebbi Zeira's principle 'Kol ha'Ra'uhy le'Bilah ... (it must be possible to perform it)'.

Initial Question (concl.): But ve'Nasan al Kapehah" requires 'K'ra ke'di'Chesiv', even though the Pasuk is not superfluous?

Support #1: And so it is implied in Perek Sheloshah Miynin (in Nazir, Daf 46b) - that according to the opinion that requires 'K'ra ke'di'Chesiv', a bald Nazir (See Gemara there) or one who has no hands cannot has no remedy, since the Torah writes "And he shall place it on the palms of the Nazir"?

Support #2: And the same applies to one who does not have a thimb, since the Torah writes "al Bohen Yado"?

Answer: Rav Ashi is merely answering Mar Keshisha (according to his S'vara) who wants to extrapolate from the Mishnah that 'Ba'inan K'ra ke'di'Chesiv' - in that there is no proof from there, since the Mishnah is based on the extra Pasuk.

Conclusion: But Rav Ashi himself actually agrees that 'Ba'inan K'ra ke'di'Chesiv'.

Yerushalmi: The Yerushalmi (in Halachah Alef of this Perek) points out that the Gematriyah of "ha'Me'or'rim" is equal to the combined Gematriyos of the two hundred and forty-eight limbs of a man and the equivalent number of limbs of a woman (See Hagahos ben Aryeh).

Clarification: Just as the water examines the woman on every Bi'ah that she has with her husband after being intimate with the Bo'el (See Hagahos R. Simchah mi'Desviy), so too does it examine him (the Bo'el).

Clarification (cont.): And just as she is forbidden to the brother of her husband, so too, is she forbidden to the brother of the Bo'el.

Clarification (cont.): She is forbidden, irrespective of whether she committed adultery with the man in question or with another man, whereas he is only examined if she drinks (See P'nei Moshe).

Refuted Explanation #1: If the water examined him but not her, we will say that a merit stood her in good stead.

Refutation: That is fine according to those who say that the merit helps and nothing happens to her. But according to those who say that although the merit helps, she nevertheless deteriorates - it speaks here where she did not deteriorate?

Refuted Explanation #2: We therefore need to say that the Bo'el swelled up because he drank water that was left uncovered (from which a snake subsequently drunk).

Refutation: But that is not the way a snake-bite works?

Refuted Explanation #3: He must therefore have secluded herself with another woman.

Refutation: But did we not say that he is only examined when she drinks (because he sinned specifically with her)?

Final Explanation: We therefore resolve the problem by establishing the case where he was Meizid and she Shogeg, which is why the water examined him but not her.

Refuted Explanation #1: If the water examined her but not him, the Yerushalmi suggests that a merit stood him in good stead.

Refutation: But again that is fine according to those who say that the merit helps and nothing happens to him. But according to those who say that although the merit helps, he nevertheless deteriorates - it speaks here where he did not deteriorate

Refuted Explanation #2: So we suggest that she drank water that was left uncovered (from which a snake subsequently drunk).

Refutation: And here again, that is not the way a snake-bite works.

Refuted Explanation #3: We suggest that it speaks where she secluded herself with another man.

Refutation: In that case however, if her husband divorced her, he (the Bo'el) ought to be permitted to marry her.

Final Explanation: We therefore conclude that the water examined her and not him, because he was Shogeg and she was Meizid,

Halachah: If he was Meizid and she was Shogeg - it is obvious that she is permitted to her husband.

Question: In the event that he divorced her, is the Bo'el permitted to marry her?

Answer: How can one possibly say that he is permitted to her, seeing as he sinned with her be'Meizid?

Halachah: If he was Shogeg and she, Meizid, it is obvious that she is forbidden to her husband.

Question: If he divorced her, is the Bo'el permitted to marry her?

Answer: Now that she is obligated to leave her husband's jurisdiction, how can one suggest that she should be permitted to the Bo'el?

Question: And how do we know that it (whether she is permitted to her husband or not) depends on her?

Answer: Shimon b'Rebbi Aba in the name of Rebbi Shimon cites the Pasuk "ve'El Eishes Amischa lo Siten She'chavt'cha le'Zera le'Tam'ah bah" ...

Conclusion: It all depends on her ("bah") - If she was Meizid, she is forbidden, Shogeg, she is permitted'.