Question #1: Tosfos Rebbe asks that whereas here, Rebbi Meir Darshens the 'Hey' of "ha'Alos", the Gemara in the first Perek of Horiyos states that Rebbi Meir does not Darshen "Kahal" "ha'Kahal"?

Question #2: Furthermore, Rebbi Yehudah Darshens the extra 'Hey' to preclude, whereas there he Darshens "Kahal" "ha'Kahal" to include?

Question #3: And finally, Rebbi Yehudah here does not Darshen "es" (of "es ha'Alos"), whereas in the first Perek of Menachos (Daf 11b) he Darshens "es Kol ha'Levonah" to include an additional grain?

Clarification: Rashi here explains that we must Darshen like this: 'Tum'ah tachas Ishech Chinaki', whereas at the end of Perek Shevu'as ha'Eidus (Shevu'os, Daf 36a) he explains "Hinaki", without a 'Yud', like 'Chinaki' ...

Clarification (cont.): And it refers to the Pasuk that follows - "ve'At ki Satis ... ", implying 'You will be strangled with this bitter water, if you sinned!'

Clarification (cont.): And the Gemara says there that 'Rebbi Meir does not hold "mi'Chelal La'av Atah Shome'a Hein" by money-matters, but by matters involving Isur, he does; and Sotah is an Isur which also contains money matters.

Question: They asked Tosfos' Rebbe - that in the first Perek of Nedarim (Daf 11a) the Gemara explains 'la'Chulin' to mean 'Lo Chulin lehavi, Ela le'Korban'.

Question (cont.): And the Gemara there posits that the author of the Mishnah cannot be Rebbi Meir, since he does not hold 'mi'Chelal La'av Atah Shome'a Hein'? And so the Gemara also extrapolates at the end of the Perek there, Daf 13: and at the beginning of the second Perek, Daf 14a). even though Nedarim is purely an Isur?

Answer: And his Rebbe answered that there too, it is an Isur that contains money, as he forbade his friend's money on himself.

Yerushalmi: The Yerushalmi in the first Perek of B'rachos states - 'This teaches us that T'cheiles resembles the sea, the sea resembles grass, grass, the sky; the sky, the Throne and the Throne resembles sapphire'.

Yerushalmi (cont.): And the Pasuk writes in Yechezkel (10) "And I saw and behold on top of the sky ... " '.

Mishnah in Shabbos: The Mishnah in Perek ha'Motzi (Shabbos, Daf 78b) writes 'Parchment enough to write on it the smallest Parshah in the Tefilin namely "Sh'ma Yisrael".

Question: Why does it not rather cite Parshas Sotah, which is shorter?

Answer: The Ri answers that Parshas is not as common as Parshas Tefilin.

Source: And the Gemara rules there that 'When it is a matter of common and not common, the Rabbanan go after the one that is more common to be lenient'.

Question: Why does the Gemara not include everything form the word "ve'Kasav", as it does in the second Perek of Gitin (Daf 21b), where it says tha from "Seifer" we only know Seifer, and that we learn everything else because the Torah writes "ve'Kasav", implying everything.

Question (cont.): So why did the Torah then write "Seifer"? Just as a Seifer does not possess life ... '.And the Rabbanan counter that this would be fine if the Torah had written 'ba'Seifer'. In any event, we see from there that wherever the Torah writes "Seifer", everyone agrees that it comes to include everything barring things that have a spirit of life [continued overleaf])

Answer #1: It is not difficult at all however according to Rabeinu Tam, who explains there (in Gitin) that the Gemara learns the Din there from a 'K'lal u'Perat u'Chelal', seeing as the Torah adds the words "ve'Nasan lah"/

Answer #1 (Cont.): Whereas here, it is merely a 'K'lal u'Perat', in which case the K'lal only includes what lies in the P'rat.

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Gemara there Darshens the extra Pasuk, since the Torah writes "ve'Kasav lah Seifer K'risus" twice.

Yerushalmi #1: The Yerushalmi also asks - that even though both here and there the Torah writes "Seifer", in one place the Gemara says that it includes whatever is detached from the ground, and in the other, it says like this?

Yerushalmi #1 (cont.): And it answers that the first case is different, since the Torah writes "ba'Seifer".

Bavli: Our Gemara however, does not say this there, but rather - that 'had it written there "ba'Seifer", as the Gemara said, we would have included everything that is detached with the exception of something that has a spirit of life.

Yerushalmi #2: The Yerushalmi cites a Beraisa where Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua prohibits writing the Megilah of a Sotah on the skin of a non Kasher animal; whereas Rebbi Shimon holds that, since we have learned that it is anyway going to be erased, why should one not do so?

Yerushalmi #2 (cont.): Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, in another Beraisa, condones the opinion of Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua over and above that of his father, because, should she refuse to drink, it will transpire that the Name of Hash-m will remain on the skin of a non-Kasher animal.

Yerushalmi #3: Furthermore, the Yerushalmi, quoting Rebbi Levi bar Sisi - asked Rebbi whether the Megilas Sotah renders the hands Tamei, to which Rebbi replied that it is a good question.

Yerushalmi #3 (cont.): Rebbi Yossi however, said that it is not a question at all, since, the only reason that they decreed that Sefarim render the hands Tamei is due to their Kedushah. Consequently, this Megilah, which stands to be erased, is not Metamei the hands.

Clarification: The Yerushalmi asks 'Now that the Torah writes "Machah", perhaps one should write with a liquid or with a fruit-juice? Therefore it writes "ve'Kasav". How does one reconcile the two expressions? It must be a script that can be erased. And what is that? Ink that dot not contain Kankantum (vitriol).

Question: But did the Beraisa not say that if one erased from the Seifer, it is Kasher?

Answer: This Beraisa must be interpreted in accordance with another Beraisa, where Rebbi Meir said that as long as he learned by Rebbi Yishmael, he did not (See Rashash) used to add Kankantum to the ink.

Clarification: We learn the entire ceremony of Sotah from here, in the second Perek of Megilah (Daf 20b), that making her drink must be done by day.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that 'Just as judgment is done by day, as the Gemara in Sanhedrin from "ve'Hayah be'Yom Hanchilo es Banav".

Refutation: This is not correct however, seeing as "al=Pi ha'Torah" that is written in connection with a Zakein Mamrei is referring to Dinei Nefashos, whereas the Pasuk of "be'Yom Hanchilo" is referring to money-matters.

Explanation #2: The Pasuk from which the Gemara there learns 'ba'Yom' is therefore that of "ve'Hoka osam la'Hashem Neged ha"Shemesh".

Conclusion: Tosfos also explains that the entire Din of Sotah, both the concluding session and the opening one are Pasul at nighttime similar to Dinei Nefashos, unlike Dinei Mamonos, where the initial session must be performed by day, but not the conclusion.

Question: The Ri queries the Gemara later in Perek Eilu Ne'emarin (Daf 43b), which also appears at the beginning of the second Perek of B'rachos, and in Meseches Megilah (Daf 17b) - which forbids K'ri'as Sh'ma to be read backwards from "ve'Hayu", according to the Rabbanan, and from "Devarim" "ha'Devarim", according to Rebbi.

Question (cont.): The Rabbanan need to learn from "ve'Hayu", the Gemara explains, because they do not hold of "Devarim" "ha'Devarim".

Question (concl.): Why, the Ri now asks, do they not learn from "ha'Eileh", like the Gemara learns here from "ha'Devarim ha'Eileh"?

Answer: Seeing as they had a tradition from their Rebbes to Darshen from "Sh'ma" in any language that one fancies, "ve'Hayu" is rendered superfluous to teach us that one should not read the Sh'ma backwards, and from "ha'Eileh", they Darshen something else.

Yerushalmi: The Yerushalmi cites a Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish. One of them says that he first makes her swear and then writes Parshas Sotah, the other, that he first writes Parshas Sotah and then makes her swear - in order to juxtapose the oath to the drinking.

Yerushalmi (cont.): And it appears there that the one who gives the oath precedence over the writing holds that "Chukah' and "Torah" render the order crucial, whereas the other opinion holds that it renders the writing and the oath crucial, but not the order.

Question #1: In that case, they hold neither like Rebbi Yehudah not like Rebbi Nechemyah in Perek Hotzi'u lo (Yoma, Daf 60a), both of whom appear to hold that "Chukah" renders the order crucial?

Question #2: Tosfos' Rebbe also asks that in Perek Arbas Misos (Sanhedrin, Daf 49b) Rava, quoting Rav S'chorah Amar Rav Huna says that 'Wherever the Chachamim recorded something via a list, the order is La'av Davka, with the exception of 'the seven ingredients (in connection with a stain of Nidus)'.

Question #2 (cont.): Rav Papa the elder in the name Rav adds 'The four Misos'. The first opinion (Rava), says the Gemara, is not concerned with Machlokes.

Question #2 (cont.): Rav Papa adds also the order of Yoma (the Avodah on Yom Kipur). The other opinions, the Gemara explains, hold that this is merely a Chumra.

Question #2 (concl.): This implies that the Gemara would otherwise have included it. Why does Rav Papa then not include the order of Sotah, seeing Rava says here that if he (the Kohen) wrote the Parshah before she accepted on herself the oath, it is Pasul', and the Yerushalmi implies that the entire Parshah needs to be performed in the right order?

Answer: It seems that they are only discussing where the issues are learned in the right order, which precludes the order of Sotah, which is not, since the order in the Mishnah does not tally with the order in the Parshah, as Tosfos explained at the beginning of the Perek.

Answer (cont.): And the order of the Parshah is the prominent one; whereas the order of the Mishnah is not even a Mitzvah.

Conclusion: And this is also why the Gemara did not mention it there, when it said 'This is the order of the Tamid', to preclude from the Mitzvah of Chalitzah. It could not have said 'to preclude from the order of Sotah', since, even Bedieved one would not be Yotzei'.

Clarification: Rashi explains that this refers to a letter without 'Sirtut' (ruled lines) - since the Torah writes "ba'Seifer", and it is a Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai that Sefarim require 'Sirtut'.

Question: Why do we need to come on to the reason of 'Seifer', seeing as in any event it is forbidden to write a Pasuk without Sirtut?

Source #1: Because in the first Perek of Gitin (Daf 6b) Rav Yosef says 'Who tells us that Rebbi Evyasar is reliable?

Source #1 (cont.): Moreover, he sent to Rav Yehudah that 'People who come from there to here fulfil on themselves the Pasuk "And they gave boys for harlot's fees and they sold girls for wine, and they drank", which he wrote without Sirtut, despite Rebbi Yitzchak's ruling 'Two words are permitted, three are not!'

Source #2: And Abaye says at the end of Mitzvas Chalitzah (Yevamos, Daf 106b) Someone who writes a Get of Chalitzah, should write 'We made her read out "Me'ein Yevami" till "Yabmi" ', because of the prohibition of writing three consecutive words without Sirtut, as the Gemara concludes 'Mar Zutra made Sirtut and wrote out the entire Parshah.

Source #2 (cont.): Mar bar Rav Idi asked that it is not meant to be written? But the Halachah is like Mar Zutra, even though it is not meant to be written.

Answer: Were it not for the fact that it is called a Seifer, we would have thought that even though it is forbidden to write it without Sirtut, the Megilah itself does not become Pasul.

Answer (cont.): It therefore teaches us that it is Pasul, and it would seem, the water would not 'examine' her.

Quandry: Tosfos does not know however, if Sirtut between the lines that is performed after it has been written, renders the Megilah Kasher, even though it was written be'Isur, or not.

Sirtut by Tefilin, Explanation #1: And when we rule in ha'Kometz Rabah (Menachos, Daf 32b) and in Megilah (Daf 18b) that 'A Mezuzah requires Sirtut, but not Tefilin' ...

Sirtut by Tefilin, Explanation #1 (cont.): It seems that this is a Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai - that one is not permitted to make Sirtut on Tefilin.

Proof: Because, if that would not be the case, and that 'But not Tefilin' would mean that they are not Pasul if they are written without Sirtut, but that they do need Sirtut, since it is forbidden to write them without it ...

Proof (cont.): Then, when the Gemara asks there from 'Tefilin which became worn out, which one may not turn them into a Mezuzah', due to the prohibition of lowering a higher Kedushah to a lower one' - 'The reason is because of not lowering the Kedushah, but not on account of Sirtut?'

Proof (cont.): And the Gemara answers that it is a Machlokes Tana'im.

Proof (concl.): Now if it would be permitted to make Sirtut on Tefilin, why did the Gemara not answer that it speaks where they did indeed make Sirtut? A proof that this is the Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai is that it is forbidden to make Sirtut on Tefilin,

irtut by Tefilin, Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam however, explains (See Maharsha) that, when the Gemara says that 'Three (words) is forbidden', it means that one did not make Sirtut at all, but if one made Sirtut on the four corners of the margins, even though one did not do so between the lines, it is considered Sirtut even with regard to a Seifer Torah.

Sirtut between the Lines: And it is only because of "Zeh Keili ve'Anveihu" (Sh'mos, 15) that one needs to make Sirtut between the lines.

Proof: And this is also evident from the Gemara in the first Perek of Megilah (Daf 16b), which commenting on the Pasuk in Esther "Divrei Shalom ve'Emes", explains that it needs Sirtut like 'Amitah shel Torah' ...

Proof (cont.): Which Rabeinu Chananel explains with reference (not to the Seifer Torah, but) to the Mezuzah. Since the Lashon 'ka'Amitah shel Torah' implies like unification of Torah - Mezuzah, which contains Ol Malchus Shamayim'.

A Proof on the Proof: And this is the correct explanation, because if the Pasuk of "Emes" referred to the Seifer Torah itself ///

A Proof on the Proof (cont.): Then when the Gemara says in Megilah (Daf 10a) 'A Megilah is called a "Seifer" and "an Igeres"; It is called a Seifer - inasmuch as it is Pasul if it is stitched with linen' why would it need it say because of "Seifer"? Why not give the reason because of "ve'Emes"?

A Proof on the Proof (concl.): A proof that it (the Megilah [See Poras Yosef]) is compared to Mezuzah, which does not require stitching, since it is called a Seifer with regard to stitching (?)

Refuted Question: Now one can no longer ask from the ruling in ha'Kometz Rabah (Menachos, Daf 32b) and in Megilah (Daf 18b) that a Mezuzah requires Sirtut, but not Tefilin'.

Refuted Question (cont.): And it asked from 'Tefilin that became worn out, which one may not turn into a Mezuzah' due to the prohibition of lowering a higher Kedushah to a lower one' - but not on account of Sirtut?

Refuted Question (cont.): To which it answered that it is a Machlokes, Tana'im. And since it did not answer that it is speaking about where they made Sirtut, we can learn that it is not even a Minhag, since it is not necessary to make Sirtut.

Refuted Question (concl.): And we learned in the Yerushalmi in Shabbos that 'Whoever does something from which he is Patur is called a Hedyot (an ignoramus)'.

Conclusion: Now we can answer that it does not require Sirtut between the lines, only on the four corners ...

Conclusion cont.): Since it is no worse than 'Three, one may not write' (See M'lo ha'Ro'im).

Question: According to his explanation however, it is not clear how he will answer why the Megilas Sotah is Pasul without Sirtut, seeing as even a Seifer Torah will suffice with Sirtut on the four corners (See M'lo ha'Ro'im)?

Sirtut on Letters: Tosfos found a Tosfos of Riva in Maseches Gitin who writes 'I heard from Rebbi Eliyahu the Frenchman, who used to say that our custom to write letters without Sirtut is not a problem, seeing as we do not write Pesukim, only sayings, to greet one another in Lashon ha'Kodesh, or to put something across in a clear manner.

Sirtut on Letters (cont.): However, the moment one writes something that entails citing a Pasuk, it is forbidden to write without Sirtut.

Sirtut on Letters (concl.): And he does not understand from where one takes the Heter to insert Pesukim in one's explanations, without making Sirtut.

Question: They query Rashi, who explains 'like the columns of a Seifer-Torah', from the Mishnah in the last Perek of Gitin (Daf 87b), "If one leaves over a part of the Get and writes it on another column, and the witnesses sign underneath, it is Kasher', and it is not considered two Sefarim, since it is joined ...

Support #1: As the Gemara says in the second Perek of Gitin (Daf 20b) on the case of 'This is your Get, and the paper remains mine, she is not divorced' on which Rav Papa asked 'What if the husband retains the space between the lines or between the words?'

Support #1 (cont.): The Gemara asks 'Why is it not Pasul due to the fact that the Torah says "One Seifer and not two", to which it answers 'that it is speaking where it is all joined.

Support #2: And in ha'Kometz Rabah (Menachos, Daf 33a) the Gemara cites Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel, who says that if one writes it on two columns, it is Pasul? (continued on the next Daf).