(Mishnah): What constitutes warning? If he told her in front of two witnesses 'do not speak with Ploni', and she spoke with Ploni, she is [still] permitted to her husband and [if he is a Kohen] permitted to eat Terumah;

If she was secluded with him and delayed the time needed for Bi'ah, she is forbidden to her husband and forbidden to Terumah;

If [her husband] died later (without children), she does Chalitzah. She may not do Yibum.

(Gemara) Question: Is it Me'akev that she speak with him? If she was secluded with him and did not speak with him, does the seclusion have no effect?!

Does our Mishnah come to teach you that even if she spoke with him and was not secluded, she is [still] permitted to her husband and [if he is a Kohen] permitted to eat Terumah?! (This is obvious! - MEICHAL HA'MAYIM)

Answer: The Mishnah uses a euphemism. ['Speak' really means] 'do not be secluded with Ploni.'

Question: Can he be Mekanei her from [being alone with] two men at once?

Answer (R. Yudan): There is an argument about this. The one (cited above, Sof 1b) who says that he can be Mekanei her against seclusion with her father or son (even though normally, this is permitted), he holds that he can be Mekanei her from two men at once.

(R. Yosi): If he wants (KESEF MISHNEH), he can be Mekanei her from being with 100 (i.e. many) people. (MINCHAH CHADASH asks, why will seclusion forbid her? If she is with at least two others, this is Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Rabim, which is Tahor! He answers that R. Yosi is Metamei Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Rabim (Taharos Perek 5). I do not see a proof from there. Further, it seems that this R. Yosi is an Amora! (PF) Perhaps R. Yosi does not mean 100 together, rather, to be secluded with any of 100 men. However, also the coming Halachah discusses being with many men at once.)

(R. Yosi bei R. Bun): [Even] if he told her 'do not enter the Beis ha'Keneses with [Ploni]', she may not enter with him.

(R. Mana): This is only [if she enters] with him, but not one after the other.

(R. Avin): It is even one after the other. In any case there are Raglayim l'Davar (circumstantial evidence that they intend to sin. It seems that SHA'AREI TORAS ERETZ YISRAEL explains like this.)

[If she entered with the man she was warned about] to a major road at night, or to a ruin [even] during the day, or to dark alleys [even] during the day [this is seclusion].

Question (to Ben Zoma): Why is Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Yachid Tamei?

Answer (Ben Zoma) Question: What is [the Isur of] a Sotah to her husband - it is Vadai, or [due to] Safek?

Answer (Talmidim): It is [due to] Safek.

Ben Zoma: We find that [even though she is a Safek], she is forbidden to her husband. From here you learn to a Sheretz (to be Metamei amidst Safek). Just like here it is Reshus ha'Yachid, also there it is Reshus ha'Yachid. And just like here there is Da'as Lish'ol (an involved party has understanding), also there, there is Da'as Lish'ol.

Inference: From here, Chachamim said that in a case of [Safek Tum'ah] - when there is Da'as Lish'ol, in a Reshus ha'Yachid the Safek is Tamei. In a Reshus ha'Rabim, the Safek is Tahor;

The words of [the following] Rabanan disagree [about the source for this];

(R. Ze'ira citing R. Yosa citing R. Yochanan): If a minor was Mezanah, she does not have desire (i.e. she is considered Ones, and not Mezid) to become forbidden to her husband.

Support (Mishnah): Whenever there is no Da'as Lish'ol, the Safek is Tahor.

Inference: When there is Da'as Lish'ol, the Safek is Tamei. However, here, even though there is in him (the Bo'el) Da'as Lish'ol, the Safek is Tahor! (Alternatively, there is in this case Da'as Lish'ol, i.e. the wife, even though she is a minor. This shows that R. Yochanan does not learn about Da'as Lish'ol from Sotah.)

Note: I do not understand this. A minor is permitted even if Vadai she was Mezanah. This does not depend on laws of Safek! (PF)

(Tosefta) Question: Why is Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Rabim Tahor?

Answer (Ben Zoma): We find that the Tzibur do (offer) their Korbanos Pesach when most of [the Tzibur] is Tamei (Mes). Vadai Tum'ah was permitted to the Tzibur, all the more so Safek Tum'ah! (TIFERES YISRAEL (BO'AZ, Taharos 4:18) asks how we can learn greater leniencies than we find in Pesach, e.g. for three people without Rov Tzibur, also outside the Mikdash, for all Tum'os... He answers that we infer from Sotah, that the Safek is forbidden only in seclusion. However, had we not found a leniency elsewhere (i.e. Pesach), we would have limited the Heter to cases like Sotah, where she is already married to her husband.)

(Mishnah): For all Arayos, [the Torah] made Ha'ara'ah (the first stage of Bi'ah - some say that it is touching of the genitals, and some say that it is entrance of the crown) like a full Bi'ah, and for Shifchah Charufah one is liable only for full Bi'ah, and [for other Arayos] one is liable for every Bi'ah (but for Shifchah Charufah, he brings one Korban for many Bi'os);

[The Torah] was [more] stringent about Shifchah, and made Mezid [Chayav Korban] like Shogeg.

(R. Yirmeyah citing R. Ba bar Mamal citing Rav): [It says regarding Shifchah Charufah] "Shichvas Zera" - [they are not liable] until he ejaculates.

Question: It says here (Shifchah) Shichvas Zera", and it says here (Sotah) Shichvas Zera. Here you say until he ejaculates, and here you say so?! (Below, it says that Ha'ara'ah forbids Sotah.)

Answer (R. Yosi): Here (Sotah) is different, for it says "v'Nisterah v'Hi Nitme'ah" - since she was secluded, the Torah called her Tamei. However, here (Shifchah) it says Shichvas Zera - until he ejaculates.

Why was it written [about Sotah] Shichvas Zera? It is for Shi'urim;

This is like it was taught "v'Nisterah v'Hi Nitme'ah" - what is the Shi'ur of seclusion [to forbid]? It is in order to become Tamei (forbidden through Zenus).

How much is in order to become Tamei? It is the time for Bi'ah. How much is the time for Bi'ah? It is the time for Ha'ara'ah.

Question: How much is the time for Ha'ara'ah?

Answer #1 (R. Eliezer): It is the time for a palm tree to [bend in the wind and] return;

Answer #2 (R. Yehoshua): It is the time needed to mix a cup [of wine];

Answer #3 (Ben Azai): It is the time needed to drink it;

Answer #4 (R. Akiva): It is the time needed to roast an egg;

Answer #5 (R. Yehudah ben Beseira): It is the time needed to eat three roasted eggs, one after the other;

Answer #6 (R. Elazar ben Pinchas): It is the time needed for a weaver to tie a thread.

Answer #7 (Minyamin): It is the time needed to stick out her hand and take a loaf from a basket.

Even though there is no proof for this [from a verse], there is a hint - "Ki v'Ad Ishah Zonah Ad Kikar Lechem..."

(R. Yosi): All these Shi'urim are after removing [her] underpants.

(R. Yochanan): Each [Tana] estimated by himself (the time he needs for Ha'ara'ah).

Question: Did Ben Azai ever marry?!

Answer #1: He became heated (ALEI TAMAR - he had Bi'ah in a dream, and remembered precisely the time needed.)

Note: It is astounding to me that he would rely on what he saw in a dream to argue with his Rebbi (R. Akiva) and the Rebbeyim of his Rebbi (R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua). The coming answer connotes that he had Bi'ah only once. Also, why he was not concerned lest the Shi'ur is less for people who had Bi'ah beforehand. Also, surely Chachamim did the act amidst Kodesh intents. Surely adulterers, acting amidst lust and afraid lest they be caught, are quicker! R. Eliezer used to due to the act hastily, lest he come to think about another woman (Ge'onim, in Shitah Mekubetzes Nedarim 20b). Perhaps all these Chachamim did so (PF).

Answer #2: He had Bi'ah, and separated.

Answer #3: "Hash-m reveals secrets to those who fear Him, and informs them of His covenant."