(Mishnah - R. Eliezer): One is Mekanei (warns his wife not to be secluded with a particular man) in front of [at least] two [witnesses]. He can be Mashkeh her (bring her to the Mikdash to drink Sotah water) through one [witness], or himself (if he saw her secluded);

R. Yehoshua says, Kinuy is in front of two. He is Mashkeh through two [witnesses of seclusion].

(Gemara): "V'Avar Alav Ru'ach Kin'ah v'Kinei Es Ishto..." - one may not be Mekanei amidst laughter, [idle] talk, lightheadedness, anger and quarrels, rather, amidst fear.

Question: If one was Mekanei amidst one of these [improper] ways, what is the law? Was it said [l'Chatchilah] for the Mitzvah, or is it Me'akev?

If you will say that it is for the Mitzvah, his Kinuy (warning) is valid. If you will say that it is Me'akev, his Kinuy is invalid.

Answer: We learn from the following. Whenever it says "Chukah" or "Torah", it is Me'akev.

Note: It says "Zos Toras ha'Kena'os", so it is Me'akev. The RAMBAM rules that it is not Me'akev. The KESEF MISHNEH explains that "Toras" does not apply Kinuy. SHIREI KORBAN says that the Rambam rules like the Bavli, that a matter is Me'akev only if it says "Chukah" and "Torah". Here it is not clear, but it is clear below (2:3, Sof 11a) that the Yerushalmi holds that "Torah" alone suffices to make it Me'akev. (PF)

Kinuy - R. Yehoshua said in the name of R. Eliezer, it is an obligation [if one sees his wife secluded with men]. R. Yehoshua [himself] says, it is Reshus (optional).

(R. Lazar ben Yosi, in front of R. Yosa): R. Eliezer holds like Beis Shamai, and R. Yehoshua holds like Beis Hillel;

R. Eliezer holds like Beis Shamai, who say that one may not divorce his wife unless he found in her a matter of Ervah;

If he found in her abhorrent (immoral) matters, he may not divorce her, for he did not find in her Ervah. He cannot keep her, for he found abhorrent matters. Therefore, [Kinuy] is an obligation.

Question (Beraisa - in the name of Beis Shamai): I know [that one may divorce his wife] only due to Ervah. What is the source to include if [she goes out with] her head uncovered, the sides of her garment are torn (and her skin or undershirt is seen) or her arms are exposed? "Ki Matza Bah Ervas Davar" (includes these).

Answer (R. Mana): The Beraisa discusses when witnesses saw these matters. Kinuy is obligatory when there are no witnesses (just her husband himself saw).

And R. Yehoshua holds like Beis Hillel, for Beis Hillel say that even if she burned his food [he may divorce her]. Therefore, they say that [Kinuy] is Reshus. If he wants, he warns her. If he wants, he divorces her.

Question: What is the reason of R. Eliezer (he is Mekanei in front of two, and he is Mashkeh through one witness or himself)?

Answer: "Ki Matza Bah Ervas Davar" - Ervah refers to seclusion (it leads to Ervah). Davar refers to Kinuy (it is verbal). We learn from a Gezeirah Shavah "Davar-Davar." Just like Davar said there ("Al Pi Shnayim Edim Yakum Davar") is through two witnesses, also Davar said here is through two witnesses;

Note: Even though "Ki Matza Bah..." was written about divorce, above we said that Kinuy depends on divorce (PNEI MOSHE).

He is Mashkeh through one witness or himself. It says "u'Ma'alah Vo" - she transgressed conditions that he stipulated with her through (in front of two) others. (There is no source to obligate witnesses for seclusion.)

(Beraisa - R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah, citing R. Eliezer): He is Mekanei in front of one witness, or by himself. He is Mashkeh through two.

Source: [Haska'ah requires two, for] it says here "Ki Matza Bah Ervas Davar." Everywhere, Metzi'ah is through [two] witnesses (e.g. "Ki Yimatzei Ish Shochev...)

Question: [According to R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah,] what does R. Eliezer learn from Davar?

Answer: It is a Davar (matter, i.e. seclusion) that leads to Ervah.

He is Mekanei through one witness or himself. It says "u'Ma'alah Vo" - (she transgressed against him alone, i.e. he warned her without witnesses. All the more so Kinuy can be in front of one witness!)

Question: [According to R. Eliezer in our Mishnah,] what is the source that one witness can be Mashkeh (even if her husband did not see seclusion)?

Answer: A [litigant's] mouth does not obligate (his opponent) to swear about money, but it can be Mashkeh. One witness, who obligates (a defendant) to swear about money, all the more so (it can be Mashkeh)!

Question: Can a relative be Mashkeh?

Answer: Is there a closer relative than her husband?! (He can be Mashkeh, and all the more so other relatives.)

Question: Can Ed mi'Pi Ed (one tells Beis Din what he heard from a witness) be Mashkeh?

Answer: Why should this be unlike a relative? (Even though he is not Kosher for other testimony, he is Mashkeh. The same applies to Ed mi'Pi Ed.)

Rebuttal: A relative, even though he is not Kosher now, he is Kosher later (e.g. if now he is related through marriage, he is Kosher after divorce or death). Ed mi'Pi Ed is not Kosher now, and not later!

Note: A Tosefta (Sanhedrin 5:4) is Machshir only if he was distanced when he saw the testimony, and when he testified. If so, a relative's testimony is never Kosher! And why can't we learn from relatives not through marriage? Their testimony never becomes Kosher! Perhaps we learn from relatives through marriage. They cannot testify now, but they can later. This shows that the testimony itself is valid, just there is a hindrance. Ed mi'Pi Ed, the testimony itself is Pasul. (PF)

Question: What is R. Yehoshua's reason?

Answer: "Ki Matza Bah Ervas Davar" - Davar refers to Kinuy (it is verbal). "Ki Matza" - Metzi'ah is always through [two] witnesses.

Question: How does R. Yehoshua expound 'Ervah'?

Answer: It is Ervah that comes through Davar (Kinuy. This cannot be Bi'ah, for Bi'ah forbids even without Kinuy! Rather, it is seclusion. We explained the Sugya like MEICHAL HA'MAYIM.)