Yerushalmi: 'The Beraisa states that it is hidden underneath the pivot of the Heichal. Why? In order that it becomes rubbed out.

Yerushalmi (cont.): There was a small hole there (See M'lo ha'Ro'im), into which the water was poured.

Beraisa #1: One Beraisa says that it has no Kedushah. Consequently, may one use it to mix cement? Why not, seeing as in any event, it is poured out.

Beraisa #2: Another Beraisa says that it does have Kedushah.

Clarification (cont.): 'If the Megilah was erased and she declares that she does not want to drink, one forces her'. Why? Because she caused the Name of Hash-m to be erased.

Clarification (cont.): How much (i.e. how many letters) must be erased? Rebbi Chanin cited a Beraisa: Beis Shamai say 'one, Beis Hillel, 'two'.

Reason: Rebbi Ila'i said that the reason of Beis Hillel is to leave space to write 'Yud Key' (the Name of Hash-m).

Question #1: Tosfos Rebbe asks that, in the time of Rebbi Meir, the Mei Sotah had already stopped functioning, as the Gemara says in the last Perek (later, Daf 47a), since Raban Yochanan ben Zakai stopped it?

Question #2: Moreover, Rava said earlier (Daf 17b) that, if the Megilas Sotah is written before the Sotah accepts the Shevu'ah, it is not valid?

Question #2 (cont.): In that case, what is the reason of the opinion that holds that one can erase the Parshah from the Torah?

Refuted Answer: And one cannot answer that the opinion that permits erasing it from the Torah does not hold like Rava ...

Refutation: Because if so, why did the Gemara say (earlier, on Daf 19b) that according to Rebbi Shimon, it is 'by the way'? Why did he not say that he does not hold like Rava? This indicates that everyone holds like Rava.

Answer: One can answer that the opinion that holds that one may erase the Parshah from the Torah, is speaking there where that Parshah was written in the Torah after she accepted the Shevu'ah.

Implied Question: And even though the Sofer did not write it on behalf of the Sotah, but in the name of the Seifer Torah?

Answer to Question #1: And the reason that one does not add Kankantum (vitriol) into the ink when writing the Parshah of Sotah even nowadays ...

Answer to Question #1 (cont.): Is because the Torah writes "u'Machah" indicating that one needs a script that can be erased.

Conclusion: And since he holds that one may 'erase the Parshah from the Torah, we see that, in his opinion, the Torah is particular that Parshas Sotah should be erasable, even if it is written in the Torah.

Theoretical Question: According to this refutation, the Gemara could have asked 'Does the Tana Kama not hold of the Mishnah "Any Get that is written not for the sake of the woman, is Pasul. How is that? If he (the husband) is walking in the street and he hears the sound of Sofrim calling out ... '?

Theoretical Answer #1: And he could have answered 'Perhaps that only applies to a Get, which is S'tam Pasul, since a woman does stand to become divorced, whereas a Sotah who secluded herself after her husband warned her, stands to be given the water to drink, as the Gemara says at the beginning of Zevachim (Daf 2b).

Theoretical Answer #2: Alternative, it could have answered that, till now, we only declared a Get Pasul because the Torah writes "ve'Kasav lah".

Clarification: However, once one has copied it in the name of Rachel, one cannot copy it in the name of Leah by erasing it.

Clarification (cont.): And also according to Rav Acha bar Yashiyah, even though her 'Asiyah' refers to erasing, nevertheless, the fact that the Torah writes "ve'Asah lah" and not 'u'Machah lah' is effective to the extent that ...

Clarification (cont.): We apply it to the script as well, in that it needs to be written for t he sake of the curses.

Clarification (cont.): However, the fact that the Torah does not write "ve'Kasav lah" is also effective to the extent that it is Kasher, even though it was written in the name of another woman, according to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak's refutation.

Question: The Gemara says here - 'There the Torah writes "ve'Kasav lah", whereas here it only writes "ve'Kasav", whereas 'lah" is writes in connection with Asiyah.

Question (cont.): But in Perek Kol ha'Get (Gitin, Daf 24b) to explain why we invalidate all those Gitin, the Gemara writes 'Had it written "ve'Nasan Seifer K'risus", we would (only) have excluded the first case, where it was not written on behalf of any woman, therefore the Torah writes "ve'Kasav".

Question (cont.): And had it written only "ve'Kasav", we would have thought that we exclude only the case where he did not write it, but where he has two wives, where he wrote it, it will be Kasher. Therefore the Torah writes "ve'Kasav lah", to exclude a case where he had two wives'.

Question (concl.): So we see that we exclude from "ve'Kasav" alone - there where it is written on behalf of another woman?

Answer: There is difference, since the Torah only needed to write "ve'Nasan lah Seifer K'risus". Consequently, "ve'Kasav" is superfluous, to exclude from it where it is written on behalf of another woman ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas here, "ve'Kasav" is not superfluous. Therefore we only exclude from it there where it was not written for any oath at all, since the Torah writes "ve'Kasav lah es ha'Alos".

Support: The Ri explains that we find specifically in the Sifri and in the Yerushalmi that, according to Rebbi Akiva, a merit gives her extra time'.

Yerushalmi: The Yerushalmi cites Rebbi Tarfon, who says that wherever the Torah mentions 'Zichronos', it is always for the good, except for here (by Sotah), where it is for a punishment.

Yerushalmi (cont.): Rebbi Akiva said to him 'Had it said "Mazkeres Avon" and stopped, I would have agreed with you; but when the Torah adds "Minchas Zikaron", it is only for the good.

Initial Alternative: Had Rebbi Akiva not specifically said that a merit gives her extra time, we would have established him like Rebbi in the Mishnah (later, on Daf 22b), and like Rebbi Shimon.

Refutation #1: It seems however, that we could not have established him like Rebbi, because, since the Seifa goes like Rebbi, the Reisha cannot also go like him.

Refutation #2: Moreover, there is an opinion in the first Perek (on Daf 6a) which maintains that Rebbi and the Rabbanan argue over where she deteriorates.

Question: Tosfos' Rebbe asks that here it implies that bringing a Meis into the Mikdash is worse than a Tamei Meis who enters.

Question (cont.): Whereas at the end of the last Perek of Eruvin (Daf 104b) Rav Tuvi bar Kisna Amar Shmuel says that 'Someone who brings a Tamei Sheretz into the Mikdash is Chayav, a Sheretz itself, he is not, since the Torah says "mi'Zachar ve'ad Nekeivah Teshaleichu" - Someone who is subject to Taharah in a Mikvah' ...

Conclusion: And a Meis is not subject to Taharah in a Mikvah either?

Answer: The Gemara is speaking about someone who brings in a Sheretz without actually touching it, and a Sheretz does not render Tamei via carrying.

Proof: Indeed, that is why the Gemara talks about a Sheretz and not a Neveilah. Because if the person carrying it would become Tamei, then why mention the Sheretz, seeing as he himself, a Tamei Sheretz, entered the Mikdash?

Conclusion: And as for our Sugya, here is what the Gemara means - 'And only a Tamei Meis did they say, after he has separated from the Tum'ah, but even (with) the Meis itself, which is a case of 'Tum'ah be'Chiburin' (joined with the Tum'ah) when he brings it in, which is more stringent than Tum'ah she'Lo be'Chiburin, as we learned in the second Perek of Avodah-Zarah (Daf 37a).

Question: The Ri asks from the Gemara in the last Perek in Nidah (Daf 71a), which quoting Beis Shamai, who says that all women die Nidos, explains that it is on account of the terror of seeing the Angel of Death. And Beis Hillel disagrees there.

Question (cont.): The Gemara then asks there on the Beraisa, where Beis Shamai says that all women die Zavin, that (if it is on account of seeing the Angel of Death), we ought to apply the D'rashah "mi'Besaro", and not because of an Oneis?

Question (cont.): Therefore Beis Shamai's reason is ... '.

Conclusion: So we see that we do not say that 'fear loosens the blood'?

Answer: The terror of seeing the Angel of Death does not loosen the blood (there), since she only sees him as her Soul leaves her body.

Yerushalmi: Sometimes a merit gives one extra year - from Nevuchadnetzar "At the end of twelve months ... " (Daniel 4); Sometimes, it is two years - from Amnon "And it was at the end of two years (Shmuel 2, 22) And sometimes, it is three years - from Achav "And they lived for three years during which there was no war ... " (Melachim 1, 22).

Yerushalmi (cont.): Rebbi Yossi said that throughout those three years he (Achav) fulfilled Mitzvos, and throughout those two years, he (Amnon) studied Torah.

Yerushalmi (cont.): ' "Minchas Zikaron" is a K'lal, and "Mazkeres Avon", a P'rat'.

Explanation: Tosfos explains this as follows - Let us say that we cannot learn the remembrance of a merit from "Minchas Zikaron", only the remembrance of the sin, since the K'lal only teaches us what is contained in the P'rat'?

Proof: 'If you say that, then will the Midas ha'Din not be overturned? Because if the measure of punishment which is small, then how much more so the measure of good, which is abundant (five hundred times more than that of punishment)?'

Conclusion: 'We must therefore explain that "Minchas Zikaron" speaks where she has a merit, and "Mazkeres Avon", where she doesn't.