תוס' ד"ה 'פסלינא לך'.

מרחיק היה עצמו מן הדין אבל מדינא לא מיפסל; וכן ההוא דשני דייני גזירות (כתובות קה:) 'דאייתי ליה צנא דפירי'.


Clarification: He distanced himself from ruling, though striuctly speaking, he was not disqualified; Likewise the case in 'Sh'nei Daynei' Gezeiros, where 'R. Yishmael b'R. Yossi's sharecropper brought him a basket of fruit a day earlier.



תוס' ד"ה 'מפיקנא לך רבא מאונך!'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos reconciles this Gemara with the Gemara in Mo'ed Katan, which rules that someone who is Menudeh by the Talmid is not automatically Medudeh by the Rav).

משמתינא לך.


Clarification: In other words, he threatened to place him in Niduy (Cherem).

והא דקאמר במו"ק (דף יז.) מנודה לתלמיד אינו מנודה לרב?


Implied Question: How do we understand this in light of the Gemara in Mo'ed Katan, which rules 'Menudeh le'Talmid Eino Menudeh le'Rav'?

הני מילי כשמנדה אותו לכבוד עצמו אבל לכבוד שמים לא.


Answer: That is only where the Talmid places him in Cherem to protect his own Kavod, but not where he does so on account of Kavod Shamayim (as was the case here).



תוס' ד"ה 'מוציא שם רע'.

(SUMMARY: Rashi explains 'Motzi Shem Ra with regard to 'Pesach Pasu'ach Matzasi', to make his wife lose her Kesubah. Tosfos asks on this nine Kashyos, many of them from the Lashon itself, which is inapproprioate according to the context. They therefore ascribe it to the hundred Sela which the father claims from the husband).

פי' בקונטרס, שהבעל טוען 'פתח פתוח מצאתי' להפסידה כתובתה.


Explanation #1: Rashi explains this with regard to the husband's claim 'Pesach Pasu'ach Matzasi' (that he discovered that she was not a virgin), with the intention of causing her to lose her Kesubah.

וקשה לר"ת, חדא דגבי אונס ומפתה קתני לה שהן קנסות?


Question #1: Rabeinu however queries this from many angles; Firstly, inasmuch as the Mishnah (also) mentions Motzi Shem Ra in connection with Oneis and Mefateh, which are Kenasos?

ועוד, דבכל דוכתא שמזכיר מוציא שם רע הוי לענין ק' סלעים?


Question #2: Moreover, wherever Motzi Shem Ra is mentioned (in connection with a husband and wife), it is with reference to the hundred Sela'im that he is obligated to pay?

ועוד, דג' דמתניתין מומחין הן; ובכמה דוכתי אשכחן שדנין דיני כתובה בבבל, וכן נוהגין עכשיו?


Question #3: In addition, the three judges mentioned in the Mishnah means three Mumchin, whereas we find in many places that they judged the Dinim of Kesubah in Bavel (where there were no Mumchin), as was indeed customarily in the time of Tosfos?

ועוד, מה שמפרש נמי 'חוששין ללעז' - מתוך שיטעון 'פתח פתוח מצאתי' - 'חיישינן שמא ישמעו עדים ויבואו ויעידו שזינתה'; אין לשון 'לעז' נופל על זה, אלא על דבר שהוא שקר כמו (גיטין דף ה:) 'נמצאת אתה מוציא לעז על גיטין הראשונים'?


Question #4: What's more, when Rashi explains 'Chosheshin le'La'az' to mean that since the husband claimed 'Pesach Pasu'ach Matzasi', we suspect that witnesses might get to hear about it and come and testify that she committed adultery; the expression 'La'az' does imply this, but rather something that is untrue, such as the Gemara in Gitin, which states 'It transpires that you are producing a stigma on the early Gitin'?

ועוד, דקאמר 'דונו לי מיהא דיני ממונות' - מי דוחקו, כל זמן שאין האשה תובעת אותו כתובתה?


Question #5: Furthermore, when, as the Gemara will shortly explain, the husband claims 'Dunu li Miyha Dinei Mamonos', what pushes him to say that, as long as his wife is not claiming her Kesubah?

ועוד, דקאמר 'תבעו ממון בשלשה'. 'תבעה' מיבעיא ליה?


Question #6: And why does the Beraisa say 'Tav'o Mamon (if he claimed from him) bi'Sheloshah'? It ought to have said 'Tav'ah ... (if he claimed from her)?

ועוד, מה שייך תביעה כיון שאינו בא אלא לפטור את עצמו מכתובתה?


Question #7: In any case, the term 'Tava' is inappropriate, seeing as he is coming (not to claim from her but) to absolve himself from having to pay her?

ועוד, 'ובמקום דאיכא נפשות' - משמע דבההיא ממון איירי?


Question #8: When the Gemara says shortly 'And there where it is a case of Nefashos', this implies that it refers to the same case of Mamon (i.e. the money that the father is claiming from the husband - see R. Chiya bar Aba, Amud Beis).

ועוד שמעתי מהר"ף, דלר' מאיר דאית ליה 'כתובה דאורייתא' בפרק אף על פי (כתובות דף נו:) אינו נאמן להפסידה כתובתה - דדוקא למ"ד כתובה דרבנן נאמן. כדמוכח בפ"ק דכתובות (דף י.) 'דאמר רב נחמן "חכמים תיקנו לבנות ישראל לבתולה מאתים ולאלמנה מנה, והם האמינוהו ... " '.


Question #9: And finally, we ask, quoting the Maharap, according to R. Meir, who maintains in Perek Af-al-Pi that Kesubah d'Oraysa, the husband is not believed to cause his wife to lose her Kesubah - only according to those who hold that it is mi'de'Rabbanan ...

כדמוכח בפ"ק דכתובות (דף י.) 'דאמר רב נחמן "חכמים תיקנו לבנות ישראל, לבתולה מאתים ולאלמנה מנה, והם האמינוהו ... " ' ...


Proof: As is evident from the Gemara in the first Perek of Kesuvos, where Rav Nachman states 'the Chachamim instituted for the daughters of Yisrael two Manah for a virgin and one Manah for a widow, and they believed the husband ... '.

ומפר"ת, דכולה שמעתי' איירי לענין ק' סלעים שהאב תובע לבעל.


Explanation #2 (Part 1): Rabeinu Tam therefore ecplains that the entire Sugya is referring to the hundred Sela'im that the father claims from the husband.

ו'חוששים ללעז' - היינו לעז הדיינים, כגון שהביא הבעל עדים שזינתה והוכחשו, דמיחייב הבעל השתא ק' סלעים; דרבנן סברי בעי כ"ג, דאי בג', חיישינן שמא אח"כ יבואו עדים שזינתה, ויצטרכו להוסיף עד כ"ג, ואתי להוציא לעז על הראשונים לומר שלפי שלא ידעו לדון, הוסיפו עליהן.


Explanation #2 (Part 2): And 'Chosheshin le'La'az refers to stigmatizing the Dayanam, where the husband brought witnesses that his wife committed adultery and they were contradicted. The Chachamim therefore hold that this requires twenty-three judges, because if there were only three, we are afraid that perhaps witnesses will turn up who testify that she did in fact, commit adultery, creating the necessity to add Dayanim (to form a Beis-Din of twenty-three). And people will now assume that they needed to add judges because the original Beis-Din erred in their judgement

ודוקא הוכחשו, אבל הוזמו תו לא חיישינן לסהדי אחריני, דמוכחא מילתא דאסהדי שקרי מהדר הבעל; אבל בהוכחשו אי לא כוונו עדותן, אכתי אפשר להיות דקושטא הוה קאמרי, ואיכא למיחש טפי דילמא אתו אחריני. ור' מאיר לא חייש ללעז הדיינין.


Explanation #2 (Part 3): This is confined to witnesses who were contradicted by a conflicting testimony, who may nevertheless have told the truth, and there is good reason to suspect that other witnesses will still come to uphold their testimony; It does not however apply to where the witnesses became Zomemin, where it is clear that the husband is looking for false witnesses, and nobody will suspect that other witnesses may still come to uphold their testimony. Whereas R. Meir is not concerned about the La'az of the Dayanim.

ואין לדמות ליוסיפו הדיינים דלקמן (דף כט.) דלא חיישינן ללעז הדיינין.


Comment: Although the Chachamim here are concerned about 'La'az' of the Dayanim, this cannot be compared to the Mishnah later in the third Perek, where the Tana holds 'Yosifu ha'Dayanim (see Maharam).




תוס' ד"ה 'רבה אמר - דכ"ע ... דאיכניף כ"ג למידן דיני נפשות '.

שהביא האב עדים להזימום לעדי הבעל ולא הספיקו לקבלם עד דאיבדור מחמת אונס או מחמת פחד או להקביל פני המלך או למדידית עגלה ערופה, ונשארו רק שלשה.


Clarification #1: It is speaking where the father gathered witnesses to be Mazim the husband's witnesses, and the Dayanim subsequently scattered before they managed to accept them, either due to some unforeseen circumstances, fear, to greet the king or to measure the distance between the corpse and the nearest town (regarding Eglah Arufah), and only three remained.

ואין לומר שקיבלו ואח"כ איבדור דלא א"ש 'דונו לי מיהת ... '.


Clarification #2: It is not possible to invert the order (that the Dayanim scattered only after they had accepted the witnesses, since then the words 'Dunu li Miha Dinei Mamonos' will not make sense.



תוס' ד"ה ' מיתיבי ... בשלמא לרבה תבעו ממון תחלה'.

כלומר דלא איכניף לדיני נפשות.


Clarification: Meaning that he did not gather them initially for Dinei Nefashos.



תוס' ד"ה 'והביא האב עדים והזימום'.

(SUMMARY: Tosfos establishes before the G'mar Din, so that the witnesses are not subject to the death-sentence, nor does La'az apply, since the first witnesses were Zomemin, they are certainly false, and there is no suspicion that other witnesses might come. Whereas 'Ta'u Nefashos' (which means that he claimed Mamon, but that this could turn into Nefashos, seeing as the witnesses did not become Zomemin. They then explain why, according to Rabeinu Tam's explanation, Abaye needs to state that everyone is concerned about La'az, but that according to Rashi, he might just as well have said that they are not concerned about La'az. He cites Yesh Meforshim, who answer this Kashya. Tosfos now queries Rabeinu Tam, in that, according to his explanation in the Mishnah, it appears that the case of Motzi-Shem-Ra of R. Meir is not the same as that of R. Meir. And they also ask why according to R. Meir, one ought to require a Beis-Din of twenty- three, and not just three. This they answer in two ways. Tosfos now discuss how, based on the Gemara in Kesuvos, which exempts the husband from paying his wife who is a Ketanah, K'nas, according to Rabeinu Tam, Abaye and all the subsequent Amora'im can hold that the husband is Chayav to pay a hundred Sela'im even though his wife is not Chayav Misah. They answer the Kashya, but consider Rabeinu's explanation a Dochek. After extrapolating two rulings from Rabeinu Tam's explanation, both of which they support with logical proofs, they finally connect the initial Machlokes between Rashi and Rabeinu Tam in the Sugya with a Machlokes Amora'im in the Yerushalmi).

קודם גמר הדין - דהשתא ליכא מיתה בזוממין;


Clarification #1: Before the conclusion of the judgement, so that the Zomemin are not subject to the death-sentence.

'בא לגבות ממון, בג' - דליכא למיחש ללעז, שמא יבואו עדים אחרים ויצטרכו להוסיף, דכיון דהוזמו, ודאי סהדי שקרי נינהו.


Clarification #2: If he (the father) comes to claim money from the husband, then three judges will suffice - since there is no need to worry about 'La'az' (in case other witnesses will come and they will need to add judges), because since the first witnesses became Zomemin, they are definitely false witnesses.

'ובמקום דאיכא נפשות', כלומר - שיכול לבא לידי נפשות, שלא הוזמו אלא הוכחשו, בעי כ"ג, ו'תבעו נפשות' ה"פ - תבעו ממון שיכול לבא לידי נפשות.


Clarification #3: Whereas if it is a matter of Nefashos (i.e. it might lead to Nefashos, because the witnesses did not become Zomemin, but were merely contradicted, then twenty-three judges are required. And 'Tav'o Nefashos' means that he claimed Mamon, but that this could turn into Nefashos.

וניחא לפירוש רבינו תם, הא דאיצטריך לאביי למימר 'דכ"ע חוששין ללעז' דכולה סוגיא איירי כשהוכחשו עדי הבעל אי לא כוונו עדותן, ומשום דחוששין ללעז הוי בכ"ג לרבנן דאיכא חששא דלעז כיון דשייכא מיתה בהתראה סתם, שמא יצטרכו להוסיף.


Clarification #4: According to Rabeinu Tam, Abaye is justified in stating that everyone agrees 'Chosheshin le'La'az', seeing as the entire Sugya speaks where the husband's witnesses were contradicted by a conflicting testimony, and it is because they are concerned about La'az, that the Rabbanan require twenty-three judges, since Misah is applicable via a S'tam Hasra'ah, and perhaps they will need to add judges (see Maharam).

אבל לפירוש הקונטרס, הכי נמי הוה מצי למימר 'דכ"ע אין חוששין ללעז', אפ"ה הוי לרבנן בעשרים ושלשה?


Implied Question: According to Rashi however, Abaye might just as well have said that everyone holds 'Ein Chosheshin le'La'az' (see Maharam); nevertheless the Rabbanan will require twenty-three?

וי"מ לפי' הקונטרס דלהכי נקט 'דכ"ע חוששין ללעז' - משום רבותא דר' מאיר, דאע"ג דחוששין ללעז, הוי לר' מאיר בשלשה, כיון דליכא למיחש לסהדי אחריני.


Answer: Some commentaries explain that, even according to Rashi, Abaye needs to say 'de'Kuli Alma Chosheshin le'La'az', to teach us that R. Meir requires only three judges (despite the fact that he is worried about La'az), since there is no need to worry about other witnesses turning up.

ומיהו קשה לפר"ת, למאי דמסיק פלוגתא דמתניתין בפלוגתא דבן זכאי; דהשתא מוציא שם רע דרבי מאיר דאמר בשלשה, הוי תביעת מאה כסף דקתבע אב, ומוציא שם רע בעשרים ושלשה דרבנן היינו בחיוב מיתת האשה ולא בתביעת ממון, דאין עדותן בטלה בהכחשת בדיק' לרבנן.


Question #1: There is however a Kashya on Rabeinu Tam, according to the Gemara's final interpretation linking the Machlokes in our Mishnah to the Machlokes between ben Azai and the Rabbanan; Because it transpires that Motzi-Shem-Ra of R. Meir, who requires three judges - refers to the claim of a hundred Sela'im which the father is claiming, whereas the Motzi-Shem-Ra of the Rabbanan, who require twenty-three judges - refers to the Chiyuv Misah of the woman, and not to the monetary claim, seeing as their testimony is not negated through the Hakchashah of the Bedikah according to the Rabbanan?

ועוד, דמשמע דקאי אהא דאמר 'דכולי עלמא חוששין ללעז' - ואי חוששין ללעז, כי איתכחוש נמי ליהוי בכ"ג לרבי מאיר, שמא יבואו עדים אחרים . ויצטרכו להוסיף ויהיה לעז?


Question #2: Furthermore, it seems that this answer refers to the statement of Abaye (see Tosfos 9b DH 'P'lugta de'ben Azai ... ') 'that everybody is concerned about La'az', in which case, even if the witnesses are contradicted, even R. Meir ought to require twenty-three judges, in case other witnesses arrive, necessitating more judges, creating a La'az?

ומיהו יש ליישב, כדמוקי כגון דאיתכחיש בבדיקות, איירי נמי שהכחישו אח"כ עדי האב לעדי הבעל הכחשה גמורה, דהשתא לא מקטלא נמי לרבנן ואפ"ה הוי בכ"ג, אע"ג דליכא למיחש לסהדי אחריני, מ"מ איכא למיחש שמא יביא עדי הזמה ויזימו לעדי האב שהכחישו לעדי הבעל.


Answer #1: Is is however possible to resolve the problem that when the Gemara establishes that the witnesses were contradicted by the Bedikos, it speaks that after that, the father's witnesses contradicted those of the husband completely, in which case the woman will not be killed even according to the Rabbanan, in spite of which it will require twenty-three, because, even though there is no suspicion that the father will bring other witnesses, there is room to suspect that the husband will bring Eidei Hazamah, who will be Mazim the witnesses who contradicted his witnesses.

א"נ דיש לבעל ב' כתי עדים המכחישות זא"ז בבדיקות, דאז שפיר איכא למיחש לסהדי אחריני.


Answer #2: Alternatively, it speaks where the husband has two pairs of witnesses who contradict each other by the Bedikos, in which case it is possible that there are other witnesses.

ואע"ג דהני אחריני נמי יהיו מוכחשין בבדיקות?


Implied Question: But surely those witnesses too will be contradicted by the Bedikos of one of the previous sets?

מ"מ מיקטלא לרבנן, דהכחשה דבדיקות לאו הכחשה היא; ולר"מ הוה הכחשה.


Answer: Nevertheless, she will be killed, according to the Rabbanan, since 'Hakchashah' by the Bedikos is not considered Hakchashah, whereas according to R. Meir, it is.

ואין להקשות לפר"ת, לאביי ולכולהו אמוראי דלקמן, דלא מיחייב מיתה לר"מ, היכי מיחייב ק' כסף, הא קיי"ל בכתובות דלא מיחייב ק' סלע היכא דלא מצי למייתי לידי חיוב סקילה?


Implied Question: Why can we not query Rabeinu Tam's explanation that, according to Abaye and all the Amora'im later, who hold that, according to R. Meir, the woman is not Chayav Misah, how can her husband be Chayav a hundred Sela'im, seeing as the Gemara in Kesuvos rules that wherever there is no possibility of Misah, there can be no K'nas.

דאמר בפרק נערה (כתובות דף מד:) 'המוציא שם רע על הקטנה פטור, כיון דלא מצי למיקיימא "אם אמת היה הדבר... וסקלוה"?


Source: This is based on the Gemara in 'Na'arah', which rules that someone who is Motzi-Shem-Ra on his wife who is a Ketanah, is Patur, since it is not possible to fulfill the Pasuk "ve'Im Emes ha'Davar, u'Sekaluhah".

ויש לומר, דמהאי טעמא לא ממעטינן אלא קטנה דלאו בת עונשין כלל.


Answer: The answer is because from that D'rashah we only preclude a Ketanah, who is punishable at all.

אבל נראה דוחק מה שפירש ר"ת - דהכחשה בלא הזמה מחייב ק' סלעים?


Refutation: Nevertheless, Rabeinu Tam's explanation, that obligates a hundred Sela'im even where there is Hakchashah but no Hazamah is a Dochek.

וצ"ל לפר"ת, שהיא מותרת לבעלה, כשלא כוונו עדותן או כשהוכחשו.


Ruling #1: In any event, we will have to say that, according to Rabeinu Tam, where the testimony is not accurate or where it is contradicted, she is permitted to her husband

. דאי לאו הכי, היכי מחייב ק' סלעים - הא לא קרינן ביה (דברים כב) "ולו תהיה לאשה"?


Proof: Because otherwise, how can her husband be Chayav a hundred Sela'im, seeing as we cannot fulfill the continuation of the Pasuk "And she shall be his wife!"

ויש ללמוד מכאן, דאי אתו עדים ואמרו 'אשת פלוני זנתה', דבעי דרישה וחקירה לאוסרה על בעלה.


Ruling #2: And we can learn from here that if witnesses came and claim that so-and-so's wife committed adultery, D'rishah and Chakirah are needed to forbid her on her husband.

וסברא הוא, דלא גרע מגזלות וחבלות.


Proof: In any event it is logical to say that, seeing as it is not worse than cases of theft and wounds, which do.

ובירושלמי מצא רשב"א פלוגתא דאמוראי; דאיכא דמפרש פלוגתא לענין כתובה כדמפרש בקונטרס, ואיכא דמפרש לענין ק' סלע כדמפרש רבינו תם.


Machlokes Amora'im: The Rashba found in the Yerushalmi a Machlokes as to whether the Machlokes in the Mishnah pertains to the woman's Kesuvah (like Rashi) or to the hundred Sela (like Rabeinu Tam).



תוס' ד"ה 'חוששין ללעז, וחוששין לכבודן של ראשונים'.

(SUMMARY: First Tosfos clarify what Abaye gains by adding 'Chosheshin li'Chevodan shel Resha'im'. Indeed, they conclude, he may as well have said the opposite, and they reject, on two scores, the suggestion that it a 'Kal va'Chomer from 'Choshesin le'La'az'. Finally, they deal with the question as to how Abaye and the other Amora'im later, establish 'she'Tav'o Mamon bi'Shelashoh', bearing in mind that they hold 'Chosheshin li'Chevodan shel Resha'im', to which they present two answers).

אע"ג ד'חוששין ללעז'?


Implied Question: Seeing as Abaye holds 'Chosheshin le'La'az', what difference will it make whether he holds 'Chosheshin li'Chevodan shel Rishonim' or not?

אכתי נפקא לן במאי ד'חוששין לכבודן של ראשונים', כשהביא הבעל עדים שזינתה והביא האב עדים והזימום.


Answer: The difference will manifest itself in a case where the husband brought witnesses that she committed adultery, and the father's witnesses subsequently rendered them Zomemin (where La'az does not apply, as we explained earlier).

וה"ה דהוה מצי למימר 'אין חוששין לכבודן של ראשונים'.


Comment: The truth of the matter is that Abaye might just as well have said that everybody holds 'Ein Chosheshin li'Chevodan shel Resha'im'.

אבל אין לפרש, מדחוששין ללעז, כ"ש דחוששין לכבוד של ראשונים, כדמוכח מדרבה.


Suggested Explanation: Perhaps what he means is that whoever holds Chosheshin le'La'az, certainly holds 'Chosheshin li'Chevodan shel Resha'im', as Rabah evidently holds.

חדא, מה ענין זה אצל זה?


Refutation #1: This is incorrect, firstly because what does one have to do with the other.

ועוד, דהא לעולא דחוששין רבנן ללעז, ולכבודן של ראשונים לא חיישינן; דהיכא דהבעל הביא עדים שזינתה והביא האב עדים והזימום, אמרי רבנן 'בא לגבות ממון, בג'. '


Refutation #2: And secondly, because according to Ula, the Rabbanan are Choshesh for La'az, but not for Chevodan shel Rishonim, since there where the husband brought witnesses that she committed adultery, and the father subsequently brought witnesses who were Mazim them, they nevertheless rule 'Ba Lig'vos, Mamon, bi'Sheloshah'.

וא"ת, אביי ושאר אמוראי דלקמן, היכי מוקמי 'שתבעו ממון, בשלשה'?


Question: How will Abaye and the other Amora'im later, establish 'she'Tav'o Mamon bi'Shelashoh'?

דלדידהו ליכא לאוקמי כגון שהביא הבעל עדים שזינתה והביא האב עדים והזימום, כדמוקי לעיל - כיון דסברי דכולי עלמא חוששין לכבודן של ראשונים?


Problem: We cannot establish it there where the husband brought witnesses that she committed adultery ... (like Rava [since they hold 'Chosheshin li'Chevodan shel Resha'im']).

ויש לומר, דלדידהו 'תבעו ממון' היינו שלא התרו בה כלל, דליכא מיתה.


Answer #1: According to them, 'Tav'o Mamon' speaks where they did not warn the woman at all, in which case there is no Misah.

ובקונטרס פירש דמוקי לה כרבה ורבי חייא - שהביא הבעל עדים שזינתה, והאב הביא עדים והזימום. וליכא למיחש לכבודם של ראשונים, דדינא אחרינא הוא דמעיקרא הוה בעל תובע. ונראה דוחק.


Answer #2: Rashi actually establishes it like Rabah and R. Chiya - 'where the husband brought witnesses that she committed adultery ... ', But Abaye and the other Amora'im maintain that, seeing as before it was the husband who was claiming and now it is the father, it looks like a new case, and 'Kevodan she Rishonim' is not applicable.



תוס' ד"ה 'בעדה ועדים ובהתראה'.

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that, basically Meisis too, requires all three things, only the application by him is limited).

ומסית נמי צריך עדה, אלא משום דכתיב (במדבר לה) "והצילו העדה", ומסית אין מהפכין בזכותו - ש'אין טוענין למסית'; אבל לענין עשרים ושלשה דדרשינן מהאי קרא, אין סברא לחלק בין מסית לשאר חייבי מיתות.


Clarification #1: A Meisis too, requires 'Eidah' (twenty-three Dayanim), and it is the Din of "ve'Hitzilu ha'Eidah", which, based on the ruling 'Ein To'anin le'Meisis' (one does not defend a Meisis) does not apply to him. But as regards twenty-three, which we also learn from this Pasuk, there is no reason to differentiate between a Meisis and other Chayvei Misah.

ועדים והתראה נמי צריך במסית, אלא משום שמכמינין לו עדים, וגם אין מתרין בו בפירוש - אלא אומרים לו 'היאך נניח אבינו שבשמים ונעבוד עצים ואבנים', כדתנן פרק ד' מיתות (לקמן דף סז.).


Clarification #2: The truth is that a Meisis also requires 'Eidin ve'Hasra'ah', and the Gemara's distinction is based on the fact that a. one hides the witnesses from him, as the Gemara will explain and that b. one does warn him directly, but merely says to him 'How can we forsake our Father in Heaven and worship wood and stones, as the Mishnah explains in Perek Arba Misos.



תוס' ד"ה 'באשה חבירה'.

וכגון דאמרו 'שבעל וחזר ובעל', דאי לאו הכי, מתוך שאין נהרגין - שיכולין לומר לאסורה על בעלה באנו, אף היא אינה נהרגת, כדאמרינן בריש 'היו בודקין' (לקמן דף מא.)


Clarification: And it is speaking when the witnesses testified that she committed adultery a number of times. Otherwise, they can claim that they came to forbid her on her husband (and not to have her killed), in which case they are not Chayav Misah, and if they are not sentenced to death, neither is she, as we will learn in 'Hayu Bodkin'.