1)

(a)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak interprets 'Kinuy' according to those who permit it even Lechatchilah, like the Pasuk in Yo'el "va'Yekane Hash-m le'Artzo" - which means "And Hash-m warned His people."

(b)The Navi is referring to - the impending plague of locusts.

(c)Based on the Pasuk in Pikudei "va'Yetzav Moshe va'Ya'aviru Kol ba'Machaneh Leimor", Rebbi Meir interprets "ve'Avar Alav Ru'ach Kin'ah" to mean - that Hash-m will announce (publicize) her sin, which she took great pains to perform in secret.

(d)And Resh Lakish extrapolates from the Pasuk "Ish Ish ki Sisteh Ishto" - that a person does not (wittingly) sin until a spirit of 'Sh'tus' (foolishness) has entered into him/her.

2)

(a)Based on the fact that the husband warned his wife prior to the S'tirah and Tum'ah - Rebbi Yishmael substantiates what we learned earlier, that one witness is believed by a Sotah, due to the strong evidence that they sinned.

(b)Rav Papa queries this from the fact that in fact, S'tirah and Tum'ah precede Kinuy in the Pasuk ("ve'Nisterah ve'Hi Nitma'ah. ve'Avar Alav Ru'ach Kin'ah"). To which Abaye replied - that "ve'Avar ... " must be translated as "And there had passed over him a spirit of jealousy" (in the pluperfect) before the S'tirah and the Tum'ah took place (despite the fact that a 'Vav' with a 'Sh'va' generally refers to the future).

(c)We cannot translate the Pasuk in Matos (in connection with the B'nei Gad and the B'nei Reuven) "ve'Avar Lachem Kol Chalutz" in the pluperfect - because the Torah also writes there "ve'Nichbeshah ha'Aretz Lifneichem ve'Achar Tashuvu", in which case it must refer to the future.

(d)"ve'Avar Alav Ru'ach Kin'ah ... " can only refer to before the S'tirah and the Tum'ah and not to afterwards (like the way it is written) - because it is futile to warn after the person has already sinned. Rebbi Yishmael is forced to translate "ve'Avar Alav Ru'ach Kin'ah ... " in the past (in spite of the fact that it is written after S'tirah and Tum'ah) - because otherwise there would be no point in warning at that stage.

3)

(a)Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learns from the Pasuk "ve'Avar Alav Ru'ach Kin'ah ... " that a man does not warn his wife until there passes over him a spirit, which the Rabbanan interpret as a spirit of Tum'ah, and Rav Ashi - as one of Taharah (because he detests lewdness).

(b)We prove Rav Ashi right from a Beraisa, where Rebbi Akiva obligates a man to warn his wife should he suspect her of adultery. According to Rebbi Yishmael - the warning is voluntary.

(c)This proves Rav Ashi right - because, according to the Rabbanan, warning one's wife is not even voluntary, and certainly not obligatory (though it is not clear why the Rabbanan could not hold like our Mishnah, which forbids warning Lechatchilah).

(d)Rebbi Yishmael also says 'R'shus' with regard to the Pasuk in Emor (in connection with a Kohen becoming Tamei for his deceased relations) "Lah Yitama", and the Pasuk in Behar "Le'olam Bahem Ta'avodu" (in connection with an Eved Cana'ani) - whereas Rebbi Akiva says there too, 'Chovah'.

4)

(a)We initially propose - that Rebbi Yishmael considers all Mitzvos Asei, R'shus, whereas Rebbi Akiva considers them obligatory.

(b)We conclude however, that it is confined to these three cases, which are all based on Pesukim. In our Sugya, Rebbi Yishmael learns like Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, in whose opinion the Torah needs to permit a man to warn his wife not to go with someone else - to preclude from the La'av of "Lo Sisna es Achicha bi'Levavecha" (which such an act would otherwise contravene).

5)

(a)Rebbi Akiva learns from the additional Pasuk "O Avar Alav Ru'ach Kin'ah ve'Kinei es Ishto ve'Hi Lo Nitma'ah" - that it is not only permitted to warn one's wife, but obligatory.

(b)According to Rebbi Yishmael - the extra Pasuk comes to balance the Pasuk "ve'Hi Lo Nitma'ah" that is written there.

(c)The source for this is the principle taught by Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael - that the Torah will readily repeat a Parshah merely for the sake of an addendum that was not mentioned previously.

6)

(a)According to Rebbi Yishmael, the Torah writes in Emor (in connection with Kohanim) "Lah Yitama", to permit the relatives who would otherwise be included in the Pasuk "le'Nefesh Lo Yitama be'Amav". Rebbi Akiva learns that it is a Mitzvah - from "Lah Yitama" (since we already know R'shus from "Ki-im li'She'eiro ... ").

(b)Rebbi Yishmael learns from "Lah Yitama" - that the Kohen is only permitted to bury his relatives when they die, but not limbs of his live relatives that have fallen off (even though a detached limb of a live person is Metamei, just like that of a dead one).

(c)Assuming that Rebbi Akiva agrees with that - he learns the previous ruling from the word "Yitama" (which is superfluous).

(d)According to Rebbi Yishmael - the Torah writes "Yitama" - only because it needed to write "Lah".

7)

(a)According to Rebbi Yishmael, the Torah writes in Behar (in connection with Avadim Cana'anim) "le'Olam Bahem Ta'avodu" to counter "Lo Sechayeh Kol Neshamah" (Shoftim, in the same connection). In fact - the first Pasuk is coming to permit the son (or daughter) of a foreigner who bore a child from a Cana'ani woman (in other words, the father determines the nationality of a Cana'ani, not the mother).

(b)By Cana'ani - we mean any of the seven nations 'Chiti, Girgashi, Emori, Cana'ani, P'rizi, Chivi and Yevusi'.

(c)When the Torah writes "ve'Gam mi'B'nei ha'Toshavim ha'Garim Imachem Meihem Tiknu" - it is referring to the children of foreigners who bear children from Cana'ani women.

(d)And when it writes there "Asher Holidu be'Artzechem" - it means specifically "those who gave birth in your land (i.e. foreigners)" - to preclude the children of native Cana'anim, whom one is obligated to kill.

8)

(a)Rebbi Akiva learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Meihem Tiknu" - that one is permitted to purchase a slave who is the child of a Cana'ani woman.

2. ... "le'Olam Bahem Ta'avodu" - that having does so, one is obligated to retain him forever as a slave.

(b)We suggest that Rebbi Yishmael learns from "le'Olam Bahem Ta'avodu" - "Bahem", 've'Lo ba'Acheichem' (forbidding treating a Jewish servant like a Cana'ani slave, by asking him to perform menial tasks that only a slave would normally perform).

(c)Rebbi Akiva however points out that we know this already from the continuation of the Pasuk "u've'Acheichem B'nei Yisrael Lo Sirdeh Bo be'Farech". So Rebbi Yishmael explains - that the Pasuk writes "le'Olam Bahem Ta'avodu" merely to balance "u've'Acheichem B'nei Yisrael Lo Sirdeh Bo be'Farech" (like he did in the two previous cases).

9)

(a)Rav Chisda compares anger and adultery in one's home to a worm - inasmuch as they are as destructive to the home as a worm is to the sesame-seeds in which it is found.

(b)This pertains exclusively to women - because when a wife occupies herself with adultery, her home is neglected (the reason for anger is unclear).

(c)Rav Chisda correlates the Pesukim "Ki Hash-m Elokecha Mis'halech be'Kerev Machanecha" and that of "ve'Lo Yir'eh B'cha Ervas Davar ve'Shav me'Acharecha" - by establishing the former, before adultery became rampant (when Hash-m was found in every home), and the latter, after it spread (because, as this Pasuk warns, immoral conduct drives the Shechinah away).

10)

(a)Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeini Amar Rebbi Yonasan says that when someone performs ...

1. ... a Mitzvah in this world - it marches before him to Olam ha'Ba.

2. ... a sin in this world - it envelopes him and goes before him to the day of judgement.

(b)Rebbi Elazar goes even further. He learns from the Pasuk in Vayeishev (in connection with Yosef and the wife of Potifera) "ve'Lo Shama Eilehah Lishkav Etzlah, Lih'yos Imah" - that it attaches itself to him like a dog (see Agados Maharsha).

11)

(a)We learned earlier that Tum'ah requires only one witness to forbid a Sotah on her husband. The Tana in Perek Mi she'Kinei tries to learn from S'tirah to the contrary from a 'Kal va'Chomer' - because if S'tirah (which will not necessarily forbid her forever, but only until she drinks the Mei Sotah, and is proved innocent) requires two witnesses, the Tum'ah itself, which does forbid her forever, should certainly require two witnesses.

(b)According to the Halachah we should now learn that - if one witness will suffice for the Tum'ah (even though she will be forbidden forever), then it should certainly suffice for S'tirah, (where she will only be forbidden temporarily).

(c)The Tana cites the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Davar" "Davar" from money-matters, to override the 'Kal va'Chomer', but we reject it on the basis of the S'vara that - due to the strong evidence that she did commit adultery, it is more logical to accept the 'Kal va'Chomer'.

(d)In fact, we learn that S'tirah nevertheless requires two witnesses and not just one - from "ve'Eid Ein Bah", from which we Darshen 'Bah ve'Lo be'Kinuy', "Bah ve'Lo bi'S'tirah" (as we already learned).