Explanation #1: Rashi explains that she drank a cup of sterility.

Refutation: The Gemara in Perek Af-al-Pi (Kesuvos, Daf 60b) however, does not seem to say that ...

Refutation (Cont.): When it cites a Beraisa, which says 'Or if she is barren, old an Aylonis or unfit to have children'. So we see that 'unfit to have children' is not synonymous with 'barren', whereas according to Rashi, drinking a sterile cup is synonymous with 'barren'?

Rabeinu Chananel: This is what Rabeinu Chananel writes there: 'One can ask that Aylonis and barren are one and the same? And the answer lies with what we said in Perek Yesh Nochlin (Bava Basra, Daf 119b) 'If she marries at twenty, she can have children until forty; but if she marries at forty, she can no longer have children'.

Explanation #2: By the same token we can say that 'unfit to have children' refers to where she did not get married for ten years after the death of her husband, and did not have the intention of remarrying ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): And Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel says in Perek Arba Achin (Yevamos, Daf 34b) that if a woman does not get married for ten years after the death of her husband, she will no longer be able to become pregnant.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And when Ravin came he quoted Rebbi Yochanan as establishing that where she did not intend to remarry.

Implied Question: Even though the Gemara (later, Daf 25b) mentions both 'Akarah' and 'Zekeinah', whereas according to Rabeinu Chananel, Akarah is not mentioned in the Mishnah?

Answer: One can say that the Gemara was not particular about the Lashon.

Question: But why did the Mishnah not mention 'Akarah'.

Question: What is this extra piece of Mishnah coming to tell us? We already know this from the Reisha 'And one who says "I will not drink", does not receive her Kesubah'.

Answer: Tosfos' Rebbe explains that it is specifically a pregnant Sotah who does not drink, because of the danger to the baby, as the Gemara explains in Perek ha'Choletz (Yevamos, Daf 42b); But one who married within three months, what has been has been; we no longer penalize him by making him divorce her and we refer to her as a woman who is fit for him.

Conclusion: And in the case of a Kohen, even the Rabbanan concede that she does not drink, as we conclude in ha'Choletz (Ibid. 37a) that even according to the Rabbanan her sends her away with a Get'.

Question: But he himself states in Perek Eilu ha'Nechnakin (Sanhedrin, Daf 85b) in connection with "Ish Ish" of "who curses his father and his mother, where he says 'Dibrah Torah in the vernacular', and does not Darshen anything from it?

Refuted Answer: Perhaps where there is something to Darshen, even those who hold 'Divrei Torah ... ' will concede that we Darshen?

Refutation #1: If so, what does the Gemara ask at the beginning of Perek Sho'el (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 94b) on the Gemara's She'eilah 'From where do we know that a Shomer Sachar is Chayav for Aveidah?'

Refutation #1 (cont.): And it quotes a Beraisa "Im Ganov Yiganev". 'We only know Geneivah. From where do we know Aveidah? Therefore the Torah says "Ganov Yiganev", in any event.

Refutation #1 (cont.): That is fine according to the opinion that does not hold 'Dibrah Torah ... '. But what will you say according to those who say 'Dibrah Torah ... '?

Refutation #1 (cont.): But there, there is something to Darshen, yet we still say "Dibrah Torah'.

Refutation #1 (concl.): So why does he (Rebbi Yonasan) Darshen it here?

Refutation #2: Furthermore, we say in Perek ha'Shochet ve'ha'Ma'aleh (Zevachim, Daf 108b) - 'And Rebbi Yossi, since that "Ish Ish" is a matter of 'Dibrah Torah ... ', so is the other "Ish Ish" ' ...

Refutation #2 (cont.): And we do not say that, since it is possible to Darshen from it, he concedes that we do not say 'Dibrah Torah ... '?

Statement: It is difficult to resolve all the contradictions concerning "Dibrah Torah ... ' between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Meir, Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yehudah, Rebbi Yossi and Rebbi Yossi and between Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Shimon.

Discrepancy #1: In Rebbi Meir: in Perek Arba Misos (Sanhedrin, Daf 56a), who answers the Rabbanan who say in connection with "Ish Ish" that is written by Birchas Hash-m - 'Dibrah Torah ... ' - 'that it comes to include Kinuyim (the other Names of Hash-m) ...

Discrepancy #1: Whereas in the second Perek of Avodah-Zarah (Daf 27a) Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yossi also argue - and where Rebbi Yehudah says that 'A Kuti may not circumcise a Yisrael', since he circumcises in the name of Har Gerizim, to which Rebbi Yossi replied 'Where do we find in the Torah that Milah must be performed ll'Shemah?'

Discrepancy #1 (cont.): And the Gemara there explains that Rebbi Yehudah learns from the juxtaposition "la'Hashem" to "Yimol", to which Rebbi Yossi responds that the Torah writes "Himol Yimol", whilst Rebbi Yehudah learns 'Dibrah Torah ... '.

Discrepancy #1 (cont.): So we see that Rebbi Yossi does not hold 'Dibrah Torah ... ' ...

Discrepancy #1 (cont.): And that Sugya itself discusses a Machlokes Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah, where Rebbi Meir says that a Kuti may circumcise but not a Nochri - like Rebbi Yossi, who says that a Kuti is permitted to circumcise, because he does not hold 'Dibrah Torah ... ' ...

Discrepancy #1 (concl.): Whereas in Perek Mechusrei Kaparah (Kerisus, Daf 11a) the Gemara says 'Very good according to Acherim, who holds regarding 've'Hafdeh Lo Nifdasah" 'Dibrah Torah ... '. And Acherim is alias Rebbi Meir, as the Gemara says at the end of Maseches Horayos (Daf 13b)?

Discrepancy #2: In Rebbi Yehudah: who says in the case of "Himol Yimol" 'Dibrah Torah ... '; whereas in Perek Metzi'as ha'Ishah (Kesuvos, Daf 67b) the Gemara cites a Beraisa, where he explains that "Ha'avet Ta'avitenu" refers to someone who has and does not want to be sustained, whom one gives as a gift' ...

Discrepancy #2 (cont.): And where the Chachamim say that if someone has and does not want to be sustained, one does not lend him. 'So how will we explain "Ta'avitenu"? 'Dibrah Torah ... '. But Rebbi Yehudah Darshens it?

Discrepancy #2 (cont.): And similarly, in Perek B'nos Kutim (Nidah, Daf 32b) and in Perek Yotzei Dofen (Ibid. Daf 44b) Rebbi Yehudah Darshens "Ish Ish" to include a baby of one day old in the Din of Zivus ...

Discrepancy #2 (Extention): Whereas Rebbi Yishmael B'no shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah says that this is not necessary, since the Torah writes "ve'ha'Zav es Zovo". So why does the Torah say "Ish Ish"? 'Dibrah Torah ... '?

Discrepancy #3: In Rebbi Yossi: between the case in ha'Shochet u'Ma'alah (Zevachim, Daf 108: [which we cited earlier]), where he says regarding "Ish Ish" 'Dibrah Torah ... ', and that of "Himol Yimol", where he argues with Rebbi Yehudah (who says 'Dibrah Torah ... ') and Darshens?

Discrepancy #4: In Rebbi Shimon: with regard to the case of "Ish Ish", in Perek ha'Shochet (Ibid.) where Rebbi Yossi says 'Dibrah Torah ... ', and he Darshens it to render Chayav two people who hold a limb and offer it together (outside the Azarah).

Discrepancy #4 (cont.): Whereas in Perek Eilu Metzi'os (Bava Metzi'a 31b) he says that ih he has and does not want to be sustained, we do not lend him. So why does the Torah write "Ha'avitenu"? 'Dibrah Torah ... '?

Answer: It seems that those who hold 'Dibrah Torah' concede that wherever it is possible to Darshen, we do; and all of the above-mentioned Tana'im hold 'Dibrah Torah'. However, wherever it is possible to Darshen it in a way that upholds their tradition and their S'varos, them they Darshen it.

Basis of the Machlokes: And the one who holds 'Dibrah Torah' and the one who does not, argue over the following:

Basis of the Machlokes (cont.): The one who holds 'Dibrah Torah' maintains that the extra Lashon cannot detract from the simple meaning via 'Im Eino Inyan le'Gufo', because since it is possible to say 'Dibrah Torah', we say it and do not take it out of its simple meaning, seeing as it is not a superfluous Pasuk.

Example: Hence the Gemara asks in Perek ha'Sho'el (Bava Metzi'am, Daf 94b) 'All well and good according to the opinion that holds 'Lo Dibrah Torah', "Yiganev" is a superfluous Pasuk, and if it is not needed for Geneivah, then use it for Aveidah' - seeing as "Yiganev" implies Geneivah and not Aveidah'.

Example (cont.): But according to the opinion that holds 'Dibrah Torah', seeing as it is not a superfluous Pasuk, what will you say?'

Question: And in Perek ha'Shochet ve'ha'Ma'aleh (Zevachim, Daf 108b) even though the Gemara says 'Since, according to Rebbi Yossi, by the one "Ish Ish" 'Dibrah Torah', he also says by the other "Ish Ish" 'Dibrah Torah' ...

Answer: We could well have Darshened one for 'Dibrah Torah, and the other to include, seeing as "Ish Ish" does imply a Ribuy ...

Precedent: Like Rebbi Yonasan in our Sugya, who Darshens the "Ish Ish" of "Sisteh Ishto" to include, and "Ish Ish ki Yekalel" as 'Dibrah Torah'.

Answer (cont): So too could Rebbi Yossi have Darshened "Ish Ish" o Shechutei Chutz to include someone who Shechts for a Hedyot ...

Reason: Only, because the Pasuk writes "Ish Ish" of Shechutei Chutz and of Ma'aleh be Chutz in one context, the Gemara tries to Darshen them both in the same way.

The Sugya in Nedarim: And the Sugya in Nedarim, Daf 3. We will explain as follows: We include Kinuy Nezirus like Nezirus and Yados Nezirus like Nezirus from "Nazir Lehazir".

The Sugya in Nedarim: And we compare Nedarim to Nezirus, because the Torah writes "Lin'dor Neder Nazir Lehazir".

The Sugya in Nedarim: And the Gemara asks that if we learn Kinuy and Yados by Nezirus from "Nazir Lehazir", why can we not also learn them by Nedarim from "Lin'dor Neder"? So why do we need the Hekesh?

The Sugya in Nedarim: And it answers that if the Torah would have written 'Neder Lin'dor', like it writes "Nazir Lehazir", the question would be justified, but now that it writes "Lin'dor Neder" - 'Dibrah Torah ... '.

Explanation: Since the Torah did not change its language, we say 'Dibrah Torah', and do not consider it a superfluous Pasuk to Darshen from it the inclusion of Kinuyin and Yados ...

Explanation (cont.): Which are not implied by the Pasuk itself, only from the Ribuy; because without the extra Pasuk it is not logical to include them and to render Chayav 'Konem' and 'Koneis', as if one said 'Korban'.

Explanation (cont.): Or if someone declares 'Hareini' or 'Ehei', that it should be as if he said 'Hareini Nazir'.

Explanation (cont.): Therefore we need an extra Pasuk.

Implied Question: Nor is it comparable to Kinuy Hash-m, that we include from "Ish Ish", even according to the opinion that learns 'Dibrah Torah'?

Answer #1: Since we find those Kinuyin written in the Pasuk - such as "Keil", "Tzevakos", "Eh'keh" and "Shakai"; all the Names that the Tana mentions in Shevu'os (Daf 35a)

Answer #2: Moreover, one Kinuy is actually mentioned in the Pasuk there (in Vayikra 24) concerning someone who 'blesses' Hash-m - "Ish Ish asher Yekalel Elokav!"

Support: And that is what the Gemara means there at the beginning of Nedarim 'That is fine according to the opinion that holds 'Dibrah Torah', because it is according to him that one cannot Darshen it.

Precedent: And so the Gemara says in Perek Arba'ah Mechusrei Kaparah (K'risus, Daf 11a), where Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah said to Rebbi Yishmael 'Generally, I hold like you that 'Dibrah Torah', but here it is different, because, since the Torah writes "ki Lo Chupashah", why did it then need to add "ve'Hafdeh Lo Nifdasah?" - It must be to include a woman who is half a Shifchah and half a bas Chorin'.

Precedent (concl.): So we see that even those who hold Dibrah Torah, Darshen it when the Pasuk is superfluous, since it then warrants Darshening.

Explanation (cont.): And they will also Darshen it where it is to support their traditional explanation or their S'vara, as long as it does not uproot the word from its meaning; for example "Yiganev" which implicitly means theft, yet we Darshen from it loss on account of the double expression.

Explanation (cont.): Conseqently, in all the cases cited in Perek Eilu Metzi'os (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 31a) - "Hasheiv Teshiveim", "Shale'ach Teshalach", "Hoche'ach Tochi'ach", "Azov Ta'azov", "Hakeim Takim", "Mos Yumas", "Hakeh Sakeh", Hashev Tashiv", "Chavol Tachbol", "Paso'ach Tiftach" and "Nason Titen", everybody agrees that the D'rashah that we Darshen, since the D'rashah in each case, does not uproot the simple meaning of the word.

Who Does Not Hold 'Dibrah Torah': And that is what the Gemara says 'That is fine according to those who do not hold "Dibrah Torah" - this refers to Rebbi Akiva, whom we never find saying it, and who Darshens in Perek Arba'ah Mechusrei Kaparah (K'risus, Daf 11a) from "ve'Hafdei Lo Nifdasah" - a woman who is partially set free.

Proof #1: And in the opening Sugya of Perek ha'Areil (Yevamos, Daf 70a), where Rebbi Eliezer says "Ish Ish" 'Dibrah Torah', Rebbi Akiva Darshens it to include an Areil.

Proof #2: And similarly, at the beginning of Cheilek (Sanhedrin, Daf 90b) and in Perek Arba Misos (Ibid. Daf 64b) regarding the Pasuk "Hikareis Tikareis", he Darshens "Hikareis" - 'in this world'; "Tikareis" - 'in the World to Come'.

Proof #3: And this is also implied in the Sugya in Perek ein Omdin (B'rachos, Daf 31b) "Im Ra'oh Sir'eh", where Rebbi Yishmael holds 'Dibrah Torah', but Rebbi Akiva Drshens "If you will see, it is fine, but if you don't, you will see!'

Rebbi Yishmael: Rebbi Yishmael however, holds everywhere 'Dibrah Torah', such as the current cases where he argues with Rebbi Akiva, and also in Perek Arba'ah Mechusrei Kaparah (K'risus, Daf 11a).

Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah: And likewise Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah, in the first Perek of Kidushin (Daf 17b) and in Perek Eilu Metzi'os (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 31b) in connection with the Pasuk "Ha'anek Ta'anik" (holds Dibrah Torah) except for the case in K'risus, as the Gemara there explains.

Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yossi: And according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yossi at the beginning of Cheilek (Sanhedtin, Daf 90b).

Implied Question: And when the Gemara in Perek Eilu hein ha'Golin (Makos, Daf 12a) says in connection with the Pasuk "Im Yatzo Yeitei" - One holds like the opinion that holds 'Dibrah Torah', the other, like the opinion that does not'?

Answer: The one that holds there 'Dibrah Torah', does so based on a S'vara ...

Proof: As Abaye explains there 'Logically, the one who says Dibrah is right'.

Question: From where does Rebbi Yashiyah learn the Ribuy (of Rebbi Yonasan), and from where does Rebbi Yonasan learn the comparison (of Rebbi Yashiyah) of a woman to a man?

Question (cont.): Do we need to say that they argue over that as well, that Rebbi Yashiyah does not hold that the wife a a Cheresh drinks, and Rebbi Yonasan does not hold that a blind woman does not drink?

Clarification: Those Leshonos that argue in 'ha'Ba al Yevimto' (Yevamos, Daf 58a) regarding a Shomeres Yavam who fell (to the Yavam) from the marriage or from the betrothal, pertain specifically to T'rumah, since she had already eaten it before ...

Clarification (cont.): But not to making her drink, inheriting her or rendering oneself Tamei for her (when she dies),

Refuted Text: The Sefarim have the text 'If so, let us say that Rav holds like Rebbi Yashiyah?'

Refutation: The words 'If so", however, do not fit the text?

Rashi: Rashi does not have 'If so' in the text.

Rashi (cont.): He does not erase it, only he explains S'tam ''Let us say that Rav says ... ' ...

Rashi (cont.): Implying: Creating the impression that the words 'If so' did not appear in his text.

Question #1: Since he acquires her at least, regarding the things that are written in the Parshah, such as releasing her with a Get - because since he had relations with her, she is considered his wife with regard to those things ...

Question #1 (cont.): Why, if so, does Rebbi Yonasan prefer to include an Arusah than a Shomeres Yavam?

Question #1 (cont.): If it is because it is his Kidushin, by a Shomeres Yavam too, it his Bi'ah on account of which she is subject to strangulation?

Question #1 (concl.): And this is certainly a Kashya on Rav, who says that he goes even according to Rebbi Yonasan?

Question #2: Furthermore, what pushes the Gemara to say like Shmuel, since the Gemara concludes that even Rebbi Yonasan can go like Rav, and the Pasuk is only particular that he must have been intimate with her for the sake of Kidushin with regard to drinking?

Question #3: And in Perek ha'Ba al Yevimto (Daf 58a) too, the Gemara establishes the Mishnah 'Amen she'Lo Satisi Arusah u'Nesu'ah, Shomeres Yavam u'Kenusah' - where the Yavam was intimate with her in his brother's house, similar to here ...

Question #3 (cont.): And the Gemara queries that from the fact that the Sugya is going according to Rav, who says 'Kanah la'Kol'?, and it does not answer that by drinking there is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv that he needs to be intimacy for the sake of marriage (See Maharsha)?

Explanation: What the Gemara means is - that no need to mention according to R. Yashiyah, who includes a Shomeres Yavam, that Rav can hold like him.

Explanation (cont.): And the reason that one needs to include it is because the Torah writes here "whilst you are under the jurisdiction of your husband", implying that he had relations with her for marriage.

Refuted Explanation: And it is not necessary to explain that the Pasuk is merely an Asmachta, as Rashi explains.

Second Refuted Explanation: Also what he explains according to Shmuel, that what Rebbi Yonasan requires to preclude a Shomeres Yavam is an Asmachta is difficult ...

Refutation: Granted, she is not his wife, but had the Pasuk not precluded her, why would we have thought that she needs to be a wife by the drinking any more by the warning?

Refutation (cont.): If it is because the Torah writes "And the man shall bring his wife", by the warning too, the Torah writes "and he warns his wife"?

Yerushalmi: 'An Arusah does not drink. Why not? It is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv - "And a man shall bring his wife". Then don't warn her? The Torah says "And a man shall warn his wife" "And a man shall warn his wife" - even if she is partially his wife'.

Yerushalmi (cont.): R. Yudan asks that just as you said there "And he shall warn his wife""And he shall warn his wife" - even a partial wife', so too, why do we not say (with regard to making her drink) "whilst you are under the jurisdiction of your husband" "whilst you are under the jurisdiction of your husband" - even a partial wife'?

Yerushalmi (cont.): 'How does the warning of an Arusah work? If he warned her whilst she was still an Arusah and after he married her she secluded herself, he makes her drink on the basis of his warning, and the same applies if he warned her whilst she was still a Shomeres Yavam, and after he performed Yibum with her, she secluded herself.

Yerushalmi (cont.): If he warned her whilst she was still an Arusah and after she secluded herself, he married her - if he knew about it whilst they were still betrothed, she goes out (See Korban Eidah, Halachah 1) with a Kesubah; if not, she goes out without a Kesubah.

Yerushalmi (cont.): If, after her husband warned her, he died and she fell before the Yavam, who performs Yibum with her and she then secluded herself, he makes her drink on the basis of her husband's warning.

Yerushalmi (cont.): In the event that her husband did not warn her and died, and she fell before the Yavam, who warned her and died before performing Yibum with her and she then fell before his brother, he does not make her drink.

Yerushalmi (concl.): But if the first Yavam warned her and died after performing Yibum with her, and she fell before his brother, and, after he performed Yibum with her, she secluded herself again, he makes her drink on the basis of the first Yavam's warning.

Question: In those cases that the Gemara tries to resolve from Arusah and Shomeres Yavam, they are also not afraid of their husbands, seeing as their husbands are not together with them?

Answer: They are nevertheless afraid, in case their husbands notice their immoral behavior.