Another Proof: And in the first Perek of Kesuvos (Daf 7b) he (Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili) learns that Birchas Chasanim requires ten people, since the Torah could have written "mi'Beten Yisrael", and it wrote "mi'Mekor (Yisrael)" (Otherwise, he learns the basic D'rashah like Rebbi Meir).

Tosefta: The Tosefta concludes that Hakadosh-Baruch-Hu said to the angels who claimed "What is man that You should remember him?" 'Come and see (how Yisrael are saying) the Shirah''

Tosefta (cont.): When they saw Yisrael, they too began to sing, as the Pasuk says "Hash-m our Master, how powerful is Your Name in the entire land!"

Tosefta (concl.): Rebbi Shimon ben Menasyah however, says that this 'Parshah' (the dialogue with the angels) is said in connection with the Akeidah (See Minchas Bikurim).

Yerushalmi: The Yerushalmi in B'rachos (Perek 9) relates how Rebbi Akiva was being judged by Turnusrufus ha'Rasha. The time to recite the Sh'ma arrived and he recited it and laughed.

Yerushalmi (cont.): When Turnusrufus asked him whether he was a sorcerer or whether he just made nothing of suffering, he replied boldly that he was neither deaf nor did he make light of suffering.

Yerushalmi (cont.): But that throughout his life he had recited the Pasuk "ve'Ahavta es Hash-m Elokecha ... ", that he had loved him with all of his heart, with all of his soul and with all of his money, but that until now he had never been tested on loving Hash-m with all his soul (Note that I have translated the Yerushalmi according to the text there, which is slightly different than the text cited by Tosfos).

Yerushalmi (cont.): And now that the opportunity had arrived, and it was time to recite the Sh'ma, should he not take his mind off other things. That was why he was reading and laughing.

Question: This Perek would have fitted better into the first Perek, after the Sugya of 'The following are forbidden to eat T'rumah'. It ought to have then continued ''What does one do to her' and the rest of the procedure.

Qurstion (cont.): But it is hard to understand as to why, after having learned that the water examines her, it goes back to the Din of Kinuy?

Correct Text: The correct text of the Mishnah is 'mi'she'Kina lah, Afilu Shama me'Of ha'Pore'ach ... ' - and that is logical.

Explanation of Sugya: This is the correct explanation: After he has warned her, even before the S'tirah, if he hears of her indecent behavior, since there is now strong grounds for suspicion, it is disgusting, and he should divorce her - with a Kesubah however, seeing as she did not seclude herself and she is therefore not forbidden to him.

Explanation of Sugya (cont.): In such a case it is a Mitzvah to divorce her, since, even according to Beis Hillel who maintains that, even if she merely burned his food, he is permitted to do so, there is no Mitzvah to, except under the current circumstances.

Explanation of Sugya (cont.): And if, on the other hand, he retains her, he can be compared to someone into whose dish a fly falls, which he sucks and eats.

Explanation of Sugya (cont.): And even according to Beis Shamai, since he warned her, there are strong grounds for suspicion. Nevertheless, she receive her Kesubah, seeing as she did not seclude herself.

Conclusion: According to this explanation, Rebbi Yehoshua's ruling makes good sense.

Refutation: But according to Rashi, who explains that, once he warns her, even if he hears from a passing bird (i.e. a slave or a Shifchah) that she secluded herself, they are believed just like two witnesses, and if he does not subsequently wish to make her drink, he should divorce her and give her her Kesubah ...

Refutation (cont.): Would Rebbi Yehoshua obligate him to pay her Kesubah now that 'women who spin by moonlight' testify against her, as the Gemara stated in the first Perek (above, Daf 6b)?

Refutation (cont.): And since she brought the Isur on herself and is therefore unable to drink, she is like an Arusah and a Shomeres Yavam, who do not drink and who do not receive their Kesubah?

Reinstating Rashi: It is however possible to explain that when the Gemara said there that 'the water will no longer examine her, once the women who spin by moonlight' testify against her', according to Rebbi Yehoshua it refers specifically to after the Kinuy and the Eidei S'tirah

Reinstating Rashi: Whereas here there are no Eidei S'tirah, just 'women who testify concerning her indecent behavior.

Explanation #1: Here it is implied that as soon as the first witness's testimony has been accepted, even though it has not yet been implemented, nor even has a P'sak been issued on account of it, provided the second witness's testimony did not take place within 'Toch K'dei Dibur' of the first man's ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): The words of the second witness in face of the first one's are considered as the words of one in face of two. This is how Rashi explains it.

Question: But in Perek ha'Ishah she'Halchah (Yevamos, Daf 117b) the Mishnah says that 'If one witness says that the man died, and after she got married, another witness came and said that he did not die, she does go out.

Question (cont.): And the Gemara extrapolates that it is only because she got married (that she remains), but that Lechatchilah, she is not permitted to marry. But did Ula not say ... ?'

Question (cont.): And the Gemara answers that what the Tana means is that after one witness testifies that he died and they permitted her to get married, another witness comes and testifies that he did not die, she does not 'go out' from her initial Heter.

Question (cont.): Now there, it speaks in a case of 'one after the other' - since she got married in the meantime; yet even in such a case, if she is not already maried, she is not permitted to marry unless Beis-Din permitted her to do so, since the Gemara says that 'she does not go out from her initial Heter'?

Question (concl.): And there too, Rashi explains that it speaks specifically where they permitted her to get married before the second witness, who contradicts the first one, arrives, but that, if he arrives before that, Ula concedes that we do not rely on the testimony of the first witness, since he is not yet considered like two witnesses?

Explanation #2: Therefore one needs to interpret here 'One after the other' to mean that they accepted the testimony of the first one and issued a ruling accordingly.

Question: The question is however, on Ula himself, according to whom the Gemara says here 'Learn - that she does not drink'. What pushes him to learn like that? Seeing as the Mishnah does not insinuate that the second one waited after the first one, until they had issued a ruling and forbade her on him, and that they therefore ruled that she does not drink?

Answer #1: The Mishnah speaks S'tam.

Reinstating Explanation #1: Alternatively, Rebbi Yitzchak and Ula will explain the case of 'ha'Ishah Zuta' as the Gemara explains it according to Rebbi Yochanan in the second Perek of Kesuvos (Daf 22b) on account of what people will say.

Question: And as for the case of 'ha'Ishah Rabah (Yevamos, Daf 88: [See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim]) ...

Answer: It is not comparable to either of them, since the husband actually returned.

Refuted Question: The reason that the Gemara does not refute the Kashya by establishing it where they testified one after the other ...

Refutation: Because at the end of the day, one could still ask on the inference from the Seifa where the Mishnah rules that if 'Two testify that she sinned and one, that she didn't, she does not drink' - implying that when it is one against one, she does. How will we establish that? It must be speaking where they testified in one go.

Refutation (cont.): What is then the Chidush, seeing as that is synonymous with the Reisha?

Refutation (conclusion): Consequently, the Gemara has to answer that the two cases of the Seifa go like Rebbi Nechemyah, according to both Rebbi Yitzchak and Rebbi Chiya.

Question: How will Rebbi Yitzchak explain the Mishnah in Perek Amru lo (Kerisus, Daf 11b) 'If one witness testifies that he ate Cheilev, and another witness testifies that he did not, or if one women testifies that he ate Cheilev, and another woman testifies that he did not, he brings an Asham Taluy'.

Question (cont.): Seeing as the Torah believes one witness, as we learn from "O Hoda eilav Chataso" (Vayikra 4), he ought to bring a Chatas?

Conclusion: There is no problem according to Rebbi Chiya, since he will establish where they testified in one go.

Yerushalmi #1: Gidal bar Binyamin citing Rav, says that wherever the Torah believes one witness, the testimony of a woman is equal to that of a man-whether the man contradicts the woman or the woman contradicts the man,

Question: Why does the Mishnah then not say 'If a man testifies that a woman sinned, and a woman says that she did not, or vice-versa ...

Answer: Tana de'Bei Rebbi has that text in the Mishnah.

Yerushalmi #2: Furthermore the Yerushalmi observes that in a case where one witness testifies that the woman sinned and one, that she did not, Shimon b'Rebbi Aba in the name of Rebbi Yochanan says that whereas here she does not drink, in the case Eglah Arufah, they break its neck'.

Reason: Because here there is sound reason to suspect that she sinned.

Yerushalmi: The Gemara also concludes there that with regard to Eidei Tum'ah we do not apply the principle 'If part of the testimony is nullified, the entire testimony is nullified' ...

Reason: Because there is sound reason to suspect that she sinned.