1)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah, that on that day, Rebbi Yehoshua ben Hurkenus Darshened from the Pasuk "Hein Yikteleini Lo Ayachel" that Iyov served Hash-m with love, and that he required the Pasuk "Ad Egva Lo Asir Tumasi Mimeni" (declaring that his perfection will never leave him) - because we might otherwise have interpreted the first Pasuk to mean that if Hash-m kills him, he will no longer hope for His salvation. Examining the word to see whether it is spelt with an 'Alef' or with a 'Vav' will not help - because sometimes the word "Lo" means 'to him', even when it is spelt with an 'Alef'.

(b)We prove this from the Pasuk "v'Chol Tzarasam Lo Tzar" - which means that Hash-m suffers whenever Yisrael suffer, even though "Lo" is spelt with an Alef' (see Agados Maharsha).

2)

(a)The Pasuk "Zera Avraham Ohavi", indicates that the Pasuk "Ata Yadati Ki Yerei Elokim Atah" - does not confine Avraham to one who only feared G-d, but who loved Him too.

(b)Rebbi Meir learns from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' ("Yerei Elokim" "Yerei Elokim") - that "Yerei Elokim" mentioned by Iyov also incorporates love.

(c)Based on the Pesukim "Notzer Chesed la'Alafim l'Ohavai u'le'Shomrei Mitzvosai" and "u'le'Shomrei Mitzvosai l'Elef Dor", Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar distinguishes between someone who serves Hash-m out of fear and someone who serves Him out of love - in that Hash-m sometimes rewards the former's descendants up to a thousand generations, whereas those of the latter might receive their reward up to as much as two thousand generations later.

(d)He proves his point from the Pasuk itself - which places "l'Ohavai" next to "la'Alafim" and "u'le'Shomrei Mitzvosai" (the equivalent of 'Yir'ei Elokim') to "l'Elef Dor".

3)

(a)Our Sugya differs from the Sugya in Perek Notel 'Parush me'Ahavah' and 'Parush mi'Yir'ah' (which we discussed above) - since it is referring to the fear of Hash-m Himself, not to the love of reward and the fear of punishment (of which the latter speaks)

(b)When one Talmid dreamt the Pasuk "Mah Rav Tuvcha Asher Tzafanta li'Yere'echa", and the other, the Pasuk there "Ve'yism'chu Kol Chosei Vach ... Ve'ya'altzu B'cha Ohavei Shemecha", Rava commented - that they were both perfect Tzadikim, only the one served Hash-m out of love, and the other, out of fear.

4)

(a)Following their respective opinions in the opening Mishnah in the Masechta, if someone heard from a bird in flight that his wife had contravened his warning and secluded with another man ...

1. ... Rebbi Eliezer holds - that he is obligated to divorce his wife, though she does not lose her Kesuvah.

2. ... Rebbi Yehoshua - requires two witnesses even for that.

(b)The significance of 'Ad she'Yis'u v'Yitnu Bah Muzaros' is - that (due to the Pasuk "u'Tehorah Hi" which precludes her from remaining with her husband), if people are talking about her, it is as good as two witnesses, as far as the obligation to divorce her is concerned.

5)

(a)If, in the previous case, one witness adds that she committed adultery - she no longer drinks the Mei Sotah, and goes out without her Kesuvah.

(b)We will believe a solitary witness even ...

1. ... an Eved or a Shifchah, and even ...

2. ... her mother-in-law, her husband's sister or brother's wife, her rival wife or her husband's daughter.

(c)The Halachah in the previous two groups of cases differs - inasmuch as in the former group, she loses her Kesuvah, whereas in the latter group, she does not, because, although the Torah believes any witness regarding prohibiting her from her husband, we cannot believe this group with regard to money-matters, because they all hate her.

(d)These last-mentioned five have in common - that they are not believed to testify that her husband died.

6)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk "v'Ed Ein Bah" - that even if there are no two witnesses, only one, she is forbidden, provided she was not raped.

(b)If not for the Pasuk, we have thought that one witness is not believed - because, if he is not believed by the Setirah (which does not forbid her on her husband permanently [until she drinks the water]), then he should certainly not be believed by the Tum'ah, which does.

(c)We learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' (from Mamon) "Ki Matza Bah Ervas Davar", "al-Pi Shenayim Edim Yakum Davar" - that one witness is not believed by the Setirah.

(d)If not for the Pasuk, we would have thought that one witness is believed - 'Kal va'Chomer from the Din of Tum'ah, where he is believed even though he forbids her forever.

7)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that in a case where one witness testifies that she is Tamei and another witness testifies that she is not - she drinks (because the two witnesses cancel each other out, and the woman remains a Safek.

(b)The Din ...

1. ... in the previous case when the two witnesses are women - is exactly the same as when they are men.

2. ... if one witness testifies that she is Tamei and two, that she is not (because, they claim, they were with him when he witnessed the Setirah and that his testimony is untrue) is - that she drinks.

3. ... if two witnesses testify that she is Tamei, and one witness, that she is not, is - that she does not drink.

8)

(a)We extrapolate from the Pasuk "v'Ed Ein Bah" - "Bah", 've'Lo b'Kinuy', "Bah", 've'Lo bi'Setirah', which teaches us that one witness is not believed with regard to Kinuy and Setirah.

(b)The Tana of our Mishnah - does not really quote the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Davar" "Davar" from Mamon regarding this Din at all. He actually cites the Derashah of "Bah ... ", 've'Lo b'Kinuy', "Bah", 've'Lo bi'Setirah', which we need to add to the text.

(c)He cites the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' - to teach us that, when there is no Kinuy and Setirah, one witness is not believed to say that a woman committed adultery (as we might otherwise have learned from Sotah that he is).

9)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk "Lo Yakum Ed Echad b'Ish" - that whenever the Torah writes "Ed" Stam, it means two witnesses.

(b)Consequently, when the Torah writes "v'Ed Ein Bah" - it means that there are no two witnesses, only one, teaching us that one witness is believed by Tum'ah of Sotah (as we cited earlier).

(c)Ula says that whenever the Torah believes one witness - he has the strength of two.

(d)Consequently, he (and Rebbi Yitzchak) amend our Mishnah 'Ed Omer Nitmeis, v'Ed Omer Lo Nitmeis, Hayesah Shosah' - to 'Lo Hayesah Shosah' (seeing as the first witness, who testified that she is Tamei, has the power of two witnesses).

10)

(a)Rebbi Chiya retains the original version of our Mishnah ('Hayesah Shosah') - because he establishes the Mishnah when the second witness testified 'Toch Kedei Dibur' of the first one, in which case, the testimony of the first witnesses has not yet been accepted. Ula's Din on the other hand, will apply when the second witness testified only after the testimony of the first one had been accepted.

(b)We can extrapolate from the case of 'Ed Omer Nitmeis, u'Shenayim Omrim Lo Nitmeis, Hayesah Shosah' - that if there were two single witnesses, she would not drink (like Ula's text).

(c)Rebbi Chiya will counter this Kashya - by making the exact opposite inference from the final case 'Shenayim Omrim Nitmeis, v'Echad Omer Lo Nitmeis, Lo Hayesah Shosah', 'Ha Chad v'Chad, Haysash Shosah' (like his text).

(d)He does not remain with the original assumption, that the Tana's intention is to teach us the inferences, and the third case speaks when the second witness came after Toch Kedei Dibur of the first (like he explained in the Reisha) - because 'u'Shenayim Omrim Lo Nitmeis' implies 'Lo Nitmeis b'Fanecha' (as we explained in the Mishnah), in which case all the witnesses came together to Beis-Din.

11)

(a)Seeing as the Tana clearly does not come to teach us the inferences, he must be speaking when in both cases, the two witnesses are women, and the Chidush is - that whenever the Torah believes one witness, we always go after the majority opinion, even if it is two women versus one man. Consequently, when the Tana says ...

1. ... Echad Omer Nitmeis, u'Shenayim Omrim Lo Nitmeis, Hayesah Shosah' - he means that one man testifies 'Nitmeis' and two women, 'Lo Nitmeis'.

2. ... 'Shenayim Omrim Nitmeis, v'Echad Omer Lo Nitmeis, Lo Hayesah Shosah' - that two women testify 'Nitmeis, and one man, "Lo Nitmeis'.

(b)The author of our Mishnah will then be - Rebbi Nechemyah.

12)

(a)According to the second Lashon - we amend Rebbi Nechemyah to read - 'Kol Makom she'He'eminah Torah Ed Echad, Halach Achar Rov Dei'os v'Asu Shtei Nashim b'Ishah Achas, Ki'Shnei Anashim b'Ish Echad'.

(b)According to this Lashon, if one man testifies that she is Tamei, and two women (or even a hundred) that she is not assuming that ...

1. ... they came together - the Din will be exactly the same as one against one; they cancel each other out and she is obligated to drink.

2. ... one of them came after 'Toch Kedei Dibur' of the other - then whichever testified first will be believed like two, and the one that followed will not be believed.

(c)In the case of 'Ed Echad Omer Nitmeis, u'Shenayim Omrim Lo Nitmeis, Hayesah Shosah', the Tana must be speaking when the two witnesses came after 'Toch Kedei Dibur' - because if they came together, then she would drink even if it was one against one.

(d)The Chidush must therefore be - that even though the woman testified first, the two men who came after her, negate her testimony, and she is obligated to drink.

13)

(a)The Tana finds it necessary to teach us the Din of 'Sh'nayim Omrim Nitmeis, v'Echad Omer Lo Nitmeis', after having already informed us that we follow the majority opinion in the reverse case - because we would otherwise have restricted the ruling to the first case, where we go l'Chumra and make her drink, but we would not perhaps follow the majority opinion to go l'Kula and absolve her from drinking.