Question: At the beginning of Maseches Nazir (Daf 2a) the Gemara says that the Tana only mentions it on account Sotah, like the opinion of Rebbi?

Answer: True, it only fixes it in Seder Nashim on account of Sotah, but then, because it is similar to Nedarim, it fixes it after Nedarim.

Question: Why did it not fix it in Seder Nashim on account of Nedarim, bearing in mind that in the fourth Perek of Nazir, the Tana cites many cases concerning the Nedarim of women and their nullification by their husbands?

Answer: The Gemara prefers to ascribe it to its similarity to Sotah, seeing as the two Parshiyos appear in the Torah nevt to one another.

Support: The Gemara, at the beginning of Shavu'os (Daf 2b) says a similar S'vara.

Question #1: Is it true that wherever the Tana places a 'Hey' at the beginning of a word, it denotes Di'eved, Did we not learn at the beginning of Eilu Ovrin (Pesachim, Daf 49a) 'ha'Holech li'Shechot es Pischo'?

Question #2: And in Avodah Zarah Perek ha'Socher (Daf 69a) - 'ha'Meni'ach Oveid-Kochavim ba'Chanuso', the Gemara in the first Perek of Chulin concludes (Daf 3a) that it is l'Chatchila?

Question #3: And in the second Perek of Chulin (Daf 37a) - 'ha'Shochet es ha'Mesuknes'?

Question #4: And in the first Perek of Beitzah (Daf 6b) 'ha'Shochet es ha'Tarnegoles u'Matza bah Beitzim Gemuros'?

Answer: Wherever it it makes sense to extrapolate it from the Lashon, the Gemara does so.

Precedent: As it also does in the first Perek there (Daf 16b) 'ha'Shochet be'Magal Yad', and in the first Perek of Beitzah (Daf 7b) 'ha'Shochet Chayah ve'Of, Yachpor be'Deker' and in Perek Chavis (Shabbos, Daf 147a) 'ha'Rochetz be'Mei Ma'arah O be'Mei Teverya').

Question: How can the Gemara extrapolate from here that it is forbidden to be Mekane one's wife? Why does it not explain it to mean 'A Mekane who comes (to ask what to do)', as it answers in the first Perek of Beitzah (Daf 7b)?

Answer: We are therefore forced to explain that the Gemara makes this inference from the extra words, as Rashi explains.

Question: In Perek Eilu Megalchin (Mo'ed Katan, Daf 18b), when Shmuel says that 'One is allowed to betroth a girl on Chol ha'Mo'ed, incase somebody else betroths her first', the Gemara queries him from our Sugya 'Forty days before a baby is formed ... ?'

Question (cont.): Why does the Gemara not establish Shmuel's statement by the second marriage?

Clarification: Rebbi explains 'before the formation of the male, irrespective of whether the female has not yet been born or whether she has.

Question: On the contrary, why does the Gemara not say the opposite - 'But with regard to Tum'ah we need two witnesses', seeing as it renders her forbidden forever?

Question (cont.): So without the Mishnah that it now cites, why is it so obvious to the Gemara to learn the way it does?

Answer: Because Tum'ah is more reason to be strict, despite the fact that it renders her forbidden forever, because of the evidence that points to her guilt.

Implied Question: "Echad" that is written in the Pasuk "ve'Eid Echad Lo Ya'aneh be'Nefesh" (See Maharsha) ...

Answer: The Gemara in Perek Echad Dinei Mamonos (Sanhedrin, Daf 34a) establishes with regard to one of the Talmidim stating his opinion.

Implied Question: And "Lo Yumas al Pi Eid Echad" (Devarim, 17) ...

Answer: We Darshen in the first Perek of Makos (Daf 6b) with regard to 'Eidus Meyuchedes' - to preclude where one witness sees the act from one window, and the other witness, from another window.

Question: In connection with Shevu'as ha'Eidus, the Torah writes (in Vayikra 5) "ve'Hu Eid" (without the word "Echad"), yet we declare Chayav even one witness, as we learned in the Mishnah (in Shevu'os, Daf 31b) 'If one person denies, and one admits, the one who denies is Chayav'?

Answer: The Torah renders Chayav by Shevu'as ha'Eidus only if one clais from them. Consequently, wherever the sinner causes a financial loss, he is Chayav, since it is the loss of money that counts.

Yerushalmi: The Yerushalmi Darshens as follows: "What is Rebbi Eliezer's reason (See Hagahos ha'Bach)? "Ki Matza bah Ervas Davar". "Ervas" - 'This refers to the S'tirah (the seclusion), "Davar" - to the Kinuy (the warning)'

Yerushalmi (cont.): And we then learn "Davar" "Davar" - Just as "Davar" there (in Ki Seitzei) refers to two witnesses, so too does "Davar" here refer to two witnesses.

Yerushalmi (cont.): Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah learned in a Beraisa that he makes her drink through two witnesses - It says "ki Matza", and wherever the Torah uses the expression 'Metzi'ah', it means via witnesses.

Yerushalmi (cont.): How does Rebbi Eliezer explain "Davar"? Something that tends to lead to adultery.

Yerushalmi (cont.): Furthermore the Yerushalmi states "And there passes over him a spirit of zealousness " - He should not warn when in a mood of frivolousness or lightheadedness or haughtiness, but in a way that puts fear into her.

Yerushalmi (Question): What if he did warn her when in one of these moods, is this ruling just a Mitzvah (Lechatchilah), or is it crucial (Bedieved)?

Yerushalmi (Ramifications): If it is the latter, then his warning is not valid.

Yerushalmi (Answer): Rebbi Mana said - We learn it from the principle that wherever the Torah says "Chukah" or "Torah", it is crucial. Here too (since the Torah writes "Zos Toras ha'Kena'os") it negates the warning.