Clarification: The Kohen needs to inform her (why they work on her in the reverse order) in order not to give a bad name and to say to her.

Clarification: (cont.): And since the Torah reveals to us that he is examined just like she is, and the Torah inserts the command, the knowledge and the carrying out, it does not need to write it by him as well.

Implied Question: One cannot query this from a bas Yisrael, who is forbidden to eat T'rumah even though she is permitted to marry a Kohen?

Answer #1: Because what the Gemara means is that if already a Gerushah, who is permitted to eat T'rumah, is forbidden to marry a Kohen on account of the deed that was done to her, this woman (the Sotah), should certainly be forbidden to marry a Kohen on account of the Z'nus that was done to her ...

Answer #1 (cont.): Whereas a bas Yisrael, is Pasul from eating T'rumah, but not account of any deed that was done to her.

Answer #2: If a bas Yisrael is permitted to marry a Kohen, she becomes permitted to eat T'rumah, which is not the case with the cases under discussion, who never have a Heter to eat T'rumah.

Answer #3: Whereas the Sifri has the text here 'And if already a Gerushah, who is lenient, in that she is permitted to return to the husband who divorced her, is disqualified from marrying a Kohen, a Sotah who is forbidden to go back to her husband, ought certainly to be forbidden to marry a Kohen.

Establishing Text: This is the text of Rashi, which concludes 'To teach us that one only makes her drink when there is a Safek.

Question: Since when do we need a Pasuk to render a Safek forbidden?

Answer: The Pasuk comes to forbid her before she has drunk as if she was definitely guilty.

Implied Question: And even thought he is not subject to Malkos, as is evident in the first Perek of Yevamos (Daf 11b).

Answer: Nevertheless, he has transgressed a La'av that comes from an Asei ...

Elaboration: And even if she is innocent, he will be punished in the Heavenly Court in the event that he is intimate with her, like one is Chayav for committing an Asei ...

Elaboration (cont.): And not like other cases of Safek, such as someone who eats Safek Cheilev, Safek Shuman, and then discovers that it was Shuman.

Elaboration (concl.): It is not however, as stringent as regular Chayvei Asei.

Refuted Query #1: One cannot answer 'Nazir and Oseh Pesach, where the Torah makes Oneis ke'Ratzon, as we learn from "Ki Yamus alav Meis be'Fesa Pis'om", in the Sifri and in the second Perek of Kerisus (Daf 9a), yet it did not declare Safek Tum'as ha'Tehom like a Vaday?

Refutation: Because Tum'as ha'Tehom is a Halachah (le'Moshe mi'Sinai), and one cannot learn a Kal va'Chomer from a Halachah.

Refuted Query #2: By the same token one cannot learn a Hochi'ach from there and say that just as there that is the Din, so too, here, since, as we just, said, we cannot learn from there (See Maharsha).

Question: What is however difficult is, why the Gemara does not ask that Sotah is different, since there is Raglayim le'Davar (evidence that she sinned), seeing as he warned her and she nevertheless secluded herself, as we ask above, at the beginning of the first Perek (Daf 2b)?

Refuted Answer: We cannot answer that above, where it speaks about Tum'ah after a warning and seclusion, where one witness is believed, there is Raglayim le'Davar ...

Refuted Answer (cont.): Whereas here we are learning from a case of seclusion after warning only, where one cannot ask that 'he warned her!', because warning alone without seclusion is not considered Raglayim le'Davar.

Source: Because at the beginning of Nidah (Daf 2b) the Gemara rules in the case of a Mikvah that is measured and found to be lacking that 'All Taharos that were performed on account of it are Tamei retroactively, both in the R'shus ha'Rabim and in the R'shus ha'Yachid'.

Source (cont.): Rebbi Shimon says there that 'In the R'shus ha'Rabim, they are Tahor, and in the R'shus ha'Yachid, they hang in the balance'.

Source (cont.): Both of them (says the Gemara) learn from Sotah; The Rabbanan hold 'Like Sotah - where the Torah makes a Safek like a Vaday, so too ... '.

Source (cont.): And the Gemara asks 'In that case, we ought to say that just as in the R'shus ha'Yachid, she is Vaday Tamei, so too in the case of Mikvah?

Source (cont.): And it answers 'How can you compare them? There it is a case of Raglayim le'Davar, since he warned her and she secluded herself, but here what Raglayim is there?'

Source (concl.): So we see, that even though it is learning from seclusion after the warning, it nevertheless asks (from Raglayim le'Davar), so why does it not ask here?

Answer: The S'tirah via the Kinuy is comparable to the Safek of having touched the Sheretz ...

Reason: This is because without the Kinuy, there would be no Safek in the S'tirah alone, since (Yisrael) are not suspect on adultery.

Reason (cont.): Therefore, the kinuy causes the Safek, and this is what the Gemara means in Nidah - 'that there by Sotah and by Safek Sheretz there is a Re'usa (a fault in the Chazakah) in that the Sheretz and the Bo'el are both in front of us, next to the Taharos and next to the woman ...

Reason (concl.): Whereas by Mikveh before the Tevilah there was no visible Re'usa to create a Safek.

Conclusion: And above in the first Perek, even before the witnesses testified, there was a Re'usa.

Clarification: The Gemara in the first Perek in Chulin (Daf 9b) and in Perek Ein Ma'amidin (Avodah Zarah, Daf 37b) says that 'Safek Tum 'ah in the R'shus ha'Rabim we learn via a Halachah le'Mosheh mi'Sinai' from Sotah.

Clarification (cont.): Since it implies that it implies that it is specifically in a discreet location that they are Tamei, but that in a location that is not discreet, the Halachah ... teaches us that they are Vaday Tahor.

Question: Why do we need the Halachah ... ? Why can we not simply 'Place the Tahor on his Chazakah and say that they did not become Tamei.

Precedent: Like we specifically say at the beginning of Maseches Nidah (Daf 3a), where Rebbi Shimon learns from Safek Tum'ah in the R'shus ha'Rabim, and where the Rabbanan counter 'How can one compare them? There the man has a Chezkas Taharah, where there is a Safek, Tum'ah does not descend on him'?

Answer: Had the Halachah ... not taught us that Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Rabim is Tahor, we would have thought that the Torah only mentions a discreet place in the case of Sotah cause it is the norm, but it is not essential to render them Tamei, and that it incorporates Safek Tum'ah, wherever it occurs ... .

Reason (cont.): Since logically, there is no reason to render one Tahor more than the other, and it is a Divine Decree that applies to all cases of Safek Tum'ah.

Answer (concl.): Consequently, we need the Halachah to place Safek Tum'ah in the R'shus ha'Rabim on its Chazakah, that Tum'ah does not descend from a Safek.

Raglayim le'Davar: The Yerushalmi in the first Perek (Halachah 2) states that in any event (in a Beis ha'Keneses) there is Raglayim le'Davar (grounds for suspicion); And the same applies in a main street during the night; in a ruin, even during the day, and in dark alleyways even during the day.

Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Yachid: They asked ben Zoma why Safek (Tum'ah bi')Reshus ha'Yachid is Tamei?

Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Yachid (cont.): When he asked them whether a Sotah who is forbidden to her husband is Vaday Tamei or Safek Tamei, they replied that she is a Safek.

Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Yachid (cont.): So he pointed out to them that she is nevertheless forbidden to her husband - from which we can extrapolate the Din of a Sheretz ...

Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Yachid (concl.): In that even in the R'shus ha'Yachid it is only someone who has intelligence and whom one is able to ask who is Tamei in the case of a Safek.

Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Yachid (concl.): From here they said that 'Whomever one is able to ask, is Tamei' (but not a Sheretz).

Rebbi Yochanan Disagrees: The Rabbanan disagree (with the Beraisa of ben Zoma) - For Rebbi Ze'ira and Rebbi Yossi citing Rebbi Yochanan said - that a Ketanah who committed adultery has no intention of sinning and is therefore not forbidden to her husband.

Rebbi Yochanan Disagrees (cont.): In spite of the Mishnah that whomever can be asked, is forbidden be'Safek? But here (in the case of a Ketanah) she can be asked, yet her Safek is Tahor? (So we see that Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Yachid is not leaned from Sotah [Korban Eidah]).

Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Rabim: 'And why' (they asked ben Zoma further) 'is Safek (Tum'ah) bi'Reshus ha'Rabim Tahor'?

Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Rabim (cont.): To which he replied that the Tzibur can bring the Korban Pesach be'Tum'ah when the majority of them are Tamei. And if Vaday Tum'ah is permitted be'Tzibur, how much more so Safek Tum'ah!

Another Opinion: The Tosefta in Maseches Taharos. Perek ha'Neveilos ve'ha'Shechutos concludes with a statement by Raban Shimon ben Gamliel 'On what grounds is Safek (Tum'ah) bi'Reshus ha'Yachid Tamei and Safek (Tum'ah) bi'Reshus ha'Rabim Tahor?

Another Opinion (concl.): Because it is possible to ask an individual, but not many people'.

Clarification: The Mishnah in Perek Sh'nei Nezirin (Nazir, Daf 57a) states that if someone informs two Nezirin that he saw one of them became Tamei (Meis) but he doesn't know which one, that both of them are obligated to bring a Korban Tum'ah.

Clarification (cont.): The Gemara there asks why that is, seeing as we learn Safek Tum'ah from Sotah, where there are only two people - the adulterer and the Sotah, for which reason every case of Safek Sotah in the R'shus ha'Yachid where there are two people, is Tamei ...

Clarification (concl.): Whereas here, where there are three - the two Nezirim and the one who was standing next to them, it is a case of Safek Tum'ah in the R'shus ha'Rabim? So we see that wherever there are three people, it is considered a R'shus ha'Rabim.

Question: In that case, why does the Mishnah say in Perek ha'Ishah she'Hi Osah Tzarchehah (Nidah, Daf 60b) that if three women are sleeping in the same bed and blood is discovered underneath one of them, all three are Tamei?'

Question (cont.): Seeing as there are three of them, why is it not like a R'shus ha'Rabim?

Answer: That is not a Kashya however, since it cannot be compared to a Sheretz - which may or may not have touched the Tahor, which therefore remains Tahor; whereas there, where one of the women, from whose body the blood must have come, is definitely Tamei.

Conclusion: Consequently, it can only be compared to the case of two paths, in Taharos (Perek 5. Mishnah 5).

Question: There is however a Kashya from the first Perek of Nidah (Daf 2a) where the Mishnah asks what is the case of 'Dayah Sha'atah' (that she is only Tamei from the time that she actually saw)?

Question (cont.): And the Gemara extrapolates (on Daf 5b) that if the woman would be Tamei from Me'eis le'Eis (twenty-four hours retroactively, then the bed too would be Tamei.

Question (cont.): And in answer to the question 'Why, seeing as the bed cannot be asked, its Safek ought to be Tahor?', it establishes the case where her friends are carrying her on the bed, and they can be asked.

Question (concl.): But why is that, seeing as her friends plus herself make three, it is a case of Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Rabim, so why does the Gemara declare it Tamei?

Answer: It therefore seems that we only consider it Tim'ah in the R'shus ha'Rabim where the Safek could be openly revealed ...

Example: Such as the case in Kesuvos (Daf 15a) of a Nazir and nine frogs and one Sheretz among them.

Answer (cont.): But in the case of Nidah, whoever touched the bed certainly touched it and the Safek is only whether she saw blood or not - and the source of the blood is in a discreet location, which one cannot call a R'shus ha'Rabim, despite the fact that the Safek sighting took place in a R'shus ha'Rabim.

Question #1: What is difficult however, is why the Gemara considers the case of bed like Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Yachid ...

Question #1 (cont.): Seeing as it is not similar to Sotah - since Sotah is like a Vaday Sheretz and Safek whether it touched, in that the Bo'el is the Sheretz and it is a Safek as to whether he was Bo'el or not ...

Question (cont.): Whereas there, although she definitely touched, the Safek Me'eis le'Eis is a case of Safek Sheretz, since perhaps she did not see, and we learn from Sotah only what is similar to Sotah ...

Source: As we see from something that cannot be asked, which we preclude, since it is not similar to a Sotah?

Question (cont.): Moreover, the Tosefta in Taharos (Perek ha'Neveilos u'Shechutos [Perek 6]) specifically states that if one touches someone in the night, not knowing whether he is alive or dead, and then in the morning one discovers that he is dead, Rebbi Meir renders him Tahor - since it is Safek (Tum'ah) bi'Reshus ha'Rabim.

Question (cont.): So we see that we learn from Sotah, even in a case where one touched Vaday and the Sheretz is a Safek.

Question (concl.): So why is it that we render Tahor something that cannot be asked, because it is not similar to Sotah, yet in our case we do not compare it to Sotah?

Answer #1: That is how the Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai was taught.

Answer #2: Alternatively, the basic Din of 'Ein bo Da'as Lisha'el' we learn from the Pasuk "ve'ha'Basar asher Yiga be'Chol Tamei Lo Ye'achel", as the Gemara will explains later.

Answer #2 (cont.): And one the Pasuk indicates that there is a difference between something that can be asked and something that cannot, that the Safek in the case of the former is Tamei, only it did not specify the location ...

Answer #2 (concl.): We learn what the Torah conceals from from it reveals by Sotah - which is confined to a concealed location.

Implied Question: Even though the Gemara concludes that had we learned from Sotah , we would have thought that one requires the knowledge of both the one that touches and the one that is touched?

Answer #1: The Gemara says that on impulse (it is La'av Davka).

Answer #2: Alternatively, what the Gemara means to say is that had the Torah revealed by Sotah that one requires the ability to be asked, then we would have thought that one requires the knowledge of both the one that touches and the one that is touched.

Conclusion of Beraisa: The conclusion of the Beraisa regarding 'Someone who touched a someone in the night ... ' - 'And the Chachamim declare him Tamei, since all Tum'os go after the way they are when they are found.

Conclusion of Beraisa (cont.): And the Chachamim concede to Rebbi Meir that if they saw him alive after night-time began, that he is Tahor, even though they found him dead in the morning - because it is Safek (Tum'ah in the) R'shus ha'Rabim'.

Inferred ruling: So we see that both the Rabbanan and Rebbi Meir agree that a R'shus ha'Rabim retains its status even at night-time.

Question #1: There is a Kashya on this from the Mishnah in Maseches Taharos (Perek 8, Mishnah 3) 'If someone loses something by day and finds it by day, it is Tahor; If he loses it by day and finds it by night or vice-versa, or by day and he finds it the next day, it is Tamei mi'Safek ...

Question #1 (cont.): This is the rule: Wherever a night or part of a night, passes, the Safek is Tamei', from which we see that night-time is always considered like a R'shus ha'Yachid?

Question #2: Earlier, Tosfos cited the Yerushalmi that 'In a Beis ha'Keneses there is Raglayim le'Davar (grounds for suspicion); And the same applies in a main street during the night; in a ruin, even during the day, and in dark alleyways even during the day'. From there too, one sees that at night-time, even a main street is considered a R'shus ha'Yachid?

Tosefta - A Box: The Tosefta in Taharos, Perek 7, Halachah 2, states that there are some things that occur in the R'shus ha'Rabim to which the Chachamim ascribe the Din of a R'shus ha'Yachid - A box containing Tum'ah that is lying in the R'shus ha'Rabim that is ten Tefachim tall and one is not sure as to whether one touched it or not, its Safek is Tahor ...

A Box (cont.): Whereas if one placed one's hand inside it and is not sure whether one touched it or not, its Safek is Tamei ...

A Box (cont.): If it is slung over his shoulders and a loaf of T'rumah bread that is wrapped in a fibrous substance or with paper is placed inside it, and one is again not sure whether one touched it or not, its Safek is Tamei.

A Donkey: If there is a donkey in the street that is ten Tefachim tall, with something Tamei on its back, and one is not sure whether one touched it or not, its Safek is Tamei ...

A Rock: If there is a rock that is ten Tefachim tall in the street with something Tamei atop it and one is not certain as to whether one touched it or not, its Safek is Tamei.

Riding a Donkey: If two people, one of them Tamei, the other Tahor, are riding on their two respective donkeys, and it is not certain whether they touched each other or not, Rebbi Ya'akov (or Rebbi Akiva) declares it Tamei, Rebbi Yossi, Tahor.

Riding on One's Father's Shoulders: If the son of each one is riding on his shoulders, and one of them (the fathers) is Tahor, the other, Tamei, and there is a Safek as to whether they touched each other or not, Rebbi Ya'akov (or Rebbi Akiva) declares him Tamei, Rebbi Yossi, Tahor.

Spit on the Wall: If a person is carrying a packet on his shoulder, and there is spittle stuck to the wall above the height of ten Tefachim, and there is a Safek as to whether he moved it or not, Rebbi Ya'akov declares it (the packet) Tamei, Rebbi Yossi, Tahor ...

Rebbi Ya'akov's Reason: For Rebbi Ya'akov maintains that whatever is above ten Tefachim in the R'shus ha'Rabim is considered the 'R'shus ha'Yachid ...

Rebbi Yossi's Reason: Whereas Rebbi Yossi considers it the R'shus ha'Rabim.

A Valley in Summer and in Winter: Furthermore, commenting on the Din of a valley in the summer and in the winter the Tana defines summer as 'one the produce has been cut', and winter as 'after the second rainfall'.

A Valley in Summer and in Winter (cont.): Whereas in Perek Mi she'Meis (Bava Basra, Daf 153b) commenting on the ruling 'In summer, it is a R'shus ha'Rabim for Tum'ah', the Gemara explains that this is only on condition that a winter season has not passed, but if it has, then it is a R'shus ha'Yachid regarding both (Tum'ah and Shabbos).

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that he cannot learn it from the Kal va'Chomer, since that would then be synonymous with Rebbi Yishmael.

Question #1: If he does not hold of Rebbi Yishmael's Kal va'Chomer, then since she had relations with a man who was definitely forbidden to her, from where does he know that she is forbidden to marry a Kohen ...

Source: Seeing as in Yevamos, Perek Almanah (Daf 68b) the Gemara learns it from that Kal va'Chomer?

Question #2: Moreover, there is no Pircha to ask on the Kal va'Chomer?

Answer: Here he does not hold of the Kal va'Chomer, because had the Torah written only three Pesukim, we would have thought that one comes for the adulterer, one for the husband and one for the Kehunah ...

Answer (cont.): But with regard to Be'ilah of Pesulin, the Torah specifically writes T'rumah.