Clarification: In the same way, it is unusual for the husband to be intimate with her on the way.

Precedence: The Gemara says the same thing in Perek Eilu hein ha'Golin (Makos, Daf 9b) regarding the Din of being exiled to a city of refuge - 'They hand him two Talmidei-Chachamim, in case he (the next of kin) attempts to kill him on the way'.

Precedence (cont.): The Gemara there asks 'Is that not to warn him that if he kills him, he will be Chayav Misah'?

Precedence (concl.): So we see, that the Din of warning requires Talmidei-Chachamim.

Question: The Gemara in Perek Ein Ma'amidin (Avodah-Zarah, Daf 36b) it implies that Yichud of Arayos is d'Oraysa. That being the case, from where do we know that Yichud of a Nidah is permitted?

Answer: It is specifically Yichud of Arayos that the Torah forbids, since they have no Heter - similar to a son with his mother, but not a Nidah (who has a Heter).

Clarification: When the Gemara says 'That is the reason', it is in no way similar to the case in the first Perek of Eruvin, where the Gemara uses the same expression.

Clarification: One can say that it is only on 'she'Kein Yesh Heter le'Isuro' that they queried him, but not on what he said 'Hi ha'Nosenes'.

Clarification (cont.): Which is why they needed another Pircha.

Precedence: Since we find in many places that people take a small sin more seriously than a more stringent one, and are afraid to transgress it.

Example #1: Like in the first Perek of Kesuvos (Daf 4b), where the people took the Mitzvah of mourning, even though it is only mi'de'Rabbanan, more seriously than Nidah, which is subject to Kareis.

Example #2: And in Perek ha'Nizakin (Gitin, Daf 54a), where it explains that in the place of Rav Yehudah people were more concerned about Shevi'is, which is only a La'v, than they were about Shabbos, for which one is Chayav S'kilah.

Example #3: And in the first Perek of Beitzah (Daf 2b) where the Gemara says that where it is most lenient, one needs to distance it even more - since in answer to the Kashya there 'Why by Shabbos does Rebbi present a S'tam Mishnah like Rebbi Shimon, and by Yom-Tov, like Rebbi Yehudah?

Example #3 (cont.): And it answers that Shabbos, which is more strct, he issues a S'tam Mishnah like Rebbi Shimon (who is more lenient), and on Yom-Tov, which is more lenient, he issues a S'tam Mishnah like Rebbi Yehudah (who is more strict).

Conclusion: So we see that sometimes, people keep away from lenient things more than from strict things, and sometimes it is the other way round.

Resolving the Beraisa: And now we need to resolve the Beraisa in light of the Yerushalmi and the Tosefta.

The Tosefta: For this is what the Tosefta (in Perek 1), citing 'Rebbi Yehudah, says 'Her husband is believed on her from a 'Kal va'Chomer' - If already a Nidah, with whom intimacy is subject to Kareis ... '

The Tosefta (cont.): Rebbi Yossi said 'The Torah believes him, as the Pasuk writes "And the man shall bring his wife ... ".

The Yerushalmi: And the Yerushalmi learns like this: 'Rebbi Yehudah says that her husband is believed ...'.

The Yerushalmi (cont.): They said to him 'No! If you say by a Nidah, where this is a Heter ... '.

The Yerushalmi (cont.): To which Rebbi Yehudah replied that it is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv - "ve'Heivi ha'Ish es Ishto ... ".

The Yerushalmi (cont.): They said to him - 'Provided there are witnesses!'

Conclusion: We can now say that they queried him in that Tosefta, and then he quoted them the Pasuk, as the Yerushalmi states.

Question: On Rebbi Yossi however, one can ask - that initially he cited a Pasuk, and then a Kal-va'Chomer (See Maharsha).

Clarification: This is the way to explain 've'Omer': 'Why do you connect the Din to the fact that there is no Heter to the Isur?

Clarification (cont.): Firstly, his Yeitzer ha'Ra will overcome him, because, seeing as the Isur has no Heter, there is nothing to keep him in check, because if not now, when?

Clarification (cont.): And even if you will say that his Yeitzer ha'Ra will not overcome him regarding his wife with whom he has already been intimate, "Stolen waters taste sweet" (i.e. before she was permitted, but now she is forbidden).

Question: Why does the Mishah in the first Perek of Sanhedrin, Daf 2a) not list Sotah and Zakein Mamrei in the list of cases that require a Beis-Din of seventy-one?

Answer: Because the conclusion of the Din of Sotah and Zakein Mamrei did not take place in a Beis-Din of seventy-one.

Question: Seeing as we learn Sotah from Zakein Mamrei, we need to say by Sotah that 'the location is crucial', like it is by Zakein Mamrei, which is why they brought her to the Lishkas ha'Gazis ...

Question (cont.): If so, the bitter water ceased to function from the day the Sanhedrin went into exile and sat in 'Chanus', since the location is crucial, because they did not want to judge Dinei Nefashos, as the Gemara says in Perek Hayu Bodkin (Sanhedrin, Daf 41a),

Question (concl.): Yet in the last Perek of this Masechta (Daf 47a) the Gemara says that Raban Yochanan ben Zakai was the one to stop the bitter water, and before the Sanhedrin went into exile, says the Gemara in Perek Hayu Bodkin (Ibid, Daf 41a), Raban Yochanan ben Zakai was a Talmid who sat before his Rebbe, who was not yet carry the title 'Raban'?

Answer: The Din of frightening the Sotah (the sole reason why the Sanhedrin would have been required) was not crucial, In fact, if it was not performed at all, the Sotah would have drunk anyway. Consequently, the Din of Sotah continued to apply, even after the Beis-Din's exile.

Clarification: The Ri in the name of Rebbi Shmuel. That this refers to the division of Yechezkel, when Yehudah and Reuven were neighbors.

Question: In this case, it is not feasible without a receipt, because if she claims that she lost her Kesubah, how can he force her to return it?

Question (cont.): It is fine regarding a regular borrower, who simply holds back the debt, until the creditor gives him back the Sh'tar, but here there is no payment, seeing as she lost her Kesubah. And where there is no alternative, everyone agrees that one writes a receipt?

Answer: Her husband has the option of retaining the Get, until she gives him the Kesubah.

Question: According to the Maskanah that in a town where one does not write a Kesubah, one writes a receipt' ...

Question (cont.): Why is it necessary to write a receipt? Let them tear the Get and write on it 'We tore this Get, not because it is Pasul, only in order that she should not be able to claim her Kesubah a second time'? ...

Source: Like we say in Perek ha'Koseiv (Kesuvos, Daf 89a)

Answer: The Gemara here is speaking after the time of danger, of which the Gemara says in Perek ha'Koseiv (Ibid.) that she may claim her Kesubah even without a Get.

Question: They ask that one can extrapolate that in a place where they do write a Kesubah, one does not write a receipt ...

Question (cont.): Whereas in Get Pashut (Bava Basra, Daf 171b) Ravin explains that logically, one writes a receipt, because otherwise, the creditor will eat the fruit and rejoice.

Question (cont.): And when Abaye countered that if one does does write a receipt, and the debtor loses it, the creditor will still have the fruit and rejoice?

Question (cont.): Rava answered 'Yes indeed, because the debtor is an Eved to the creditor'.

Conclusion: So we see, that Rava accepted the Svara that one writes a receipt?

Answer: It seems that Rava actually holds that one writes a receipt, and what he says here is merely to reject the proof from the Mishnah that one does so.