Previous daf

1)

(a) According to Shmuel, one should rather marry a Domah than the daughter of a Domah. A Domah is a woman about whose licentiousness everyone talks.

(b) Shmuel's reason is - because whereas *she* is from Kasher parents, her daughter is not (and her father may well be a Nochri or a Mamzer).

(c) Rebbi Yochanan permits marrying the daughter - who has a Chezkas Kashrus (due to the principle 'Most Be'ilos are attributed to her husband', for which reason, he is not concerned about a 'Tipah Pesulah'), whereas her mother, who is known to go out with other men, does not.

(a) We refute the proof for Shmuel from the Beraisa 'Nosei Adam Domah' - by pointing out that we need to change it anyway, seeing as one may certainly not marry a Domah Lechatchilah. Consequently, one needs to change the wording to 'Im Nasa Adam Domah Mutar'. In that case, we may as well make a second change, to read 'Im Nasa Bas Domah Mutar'.

(b) One may not marry a Domah or a bas Domah Lechatchilah.

(c) We rule like Rebbi Yochanan on the basis of a Beraisa quoted by Rav Tachlifa bar Ma'arva in front of Rebbi Avahu - who said that the children of a licentious woman are Kasher, because most of a woman's Be'ilos are attributed to her husband.

(a) Rav Amram asks whether one may marry the daughter of a Domah who is highly licentious, which might be forbidden even according to Rebbi Yochanan - because it is no longer possible to attribute most of the Be'ilos to her husband.

(b) This She'eilah is not applicable according to those who hold that a woman becomes pregnant only a short while before her Veses (period) - because seeing as her husband does not know when her Veses is due, he cannot keep check of her movements whenever it occurs (and the answer to the She'eilah is obvious).

(c) It applies however - according to those who hold that a woman becomes pregnant shortly after her Tevilah, in which case, it is possible for her husband keep check of her movements.

(d) Despite the fact that her husband is able to keep track of her movements, it might nevertheless be forbidden to marry her daughter - because when a woman is excessively licenteous, even her husband cannot possibly keep track of all her escapades, and we may well no longer attribute most of her Be'ilos to her husband.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "Ish Ish" - that whenever the husband is unable to warn his wife, then Beis-Din take his place.

(b) The Tana Kama learns from "Ve'heivi *ha'Ish* es Ishto" that Beis-Din's warning will only suffice for her to lose her Kesuvah, but not to drink the Mei Sotah. According to Rebbi Yossi - it will even be effective to make her drink, though only under the auspices of her husband, when he is freed from jail.

(c) The basis of their Machlokes is - whether we Darshen from "Ve'kina Ve'heivi" that the one who makes her drink must be the one who warned her (the Chachamim) or not (Rebbi Yossi).

(d) We do not preclude the Beis-Din warning her from "Ve'Kinei ha'Ish es Ishto", implying that only her husband can warn her - because the Torah writes "Ish Ish" to include them.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Ve'ne'elam *me'Einei* Iyshah" - that a woman whose husband is blind cannot become a Sotah (Rav Sheishes).
2. ... "*Ve'he'emid* ha'Kohen es ha'Ishah Lifnei Hashem, Ve'Nasan al *Kapehah*" - that a woman who is lame or who has no hands cannot become a Sotah either (Rav Ashi).
3. ... "*Ve'amrah* ha'Ishah Amen Amen" - that a mute woman cannot become a Sotah (Mar bar Rav Ashi).

(b) The Beraisa learns from the Hekesh "Asher Tisteh *Ishah* Tachas *Iyshah*" - that we compare the man to the woman and vice-versa in all the above regards.

6)

(a) Rebbi Akiva learns from ...

1. ... "U'va'u ... U'va'u" - that just as the water examines the Sotah, so too, does it examine the Bo'el.
2. ... the extra 'Vav' in "Nitme'ah Ve'nitme'ah" - that just as she is forbidden to her husband, so too, is she forbidden to the Bo'el.

(b) The latter D'rashah is based on the two Pesukim "Ve'kinei es Ishto ve'Hi Nitma'ah" and "Ve'haysah im Nitma'ah". We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Ve'nisterah ve'Hi Nitma'ah" - that the Sotah is considered Vaday Tamei if there is one witness who testifies that she is guilty.
2. ... "Asher Tisteh Ishah ... ve'Nitma'ah" - that, if she is a Kohenes, she is forbidden to eat Terumah.

(c) These two D'rashos are not inserted in this Mishnah - because the Tana only brings the two "Ve'nitma'ah" that it does to teach us the Machlokes between Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi.

(d) Rebbi learns the latter D'rashah of Rebbi Akiva - (not from the 'Vav', like Rebbi Akiva does, but) from the double usage of the word "Nitma'ah".

(a) 'On that day', Rebbi Akiva made other D'rashos (which will now be discussed). 'On that day' refers to - the day that Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah took over the Nesi'us from Raban Gamliel. The latter would only permit people whom he knew to be totally sincere into the Beis Hamedrash. But when the former took over, he opened the doors wide, allowing entry to anyone who wished to enter. The result was an upsurge of Talmidim in the Beis Hamedrash, and they in turn, clarified many Halachos that had previously been obscure.

(b) He learned from the Pasuk "u'K'li Cheres Asher Yipol Meihem el Tocho, Kol Asher be'Socho *Yitma*" (instead of "Tamei") - that a loaf of bread in an earthenware oven does not only become a Sheini le'Tum'ah, but it also render whatever it touches a Shelishi (the source of a Shelishi le'Tum'ah both by Chulin and by Terumah, according to Rebbi Akiva).

(c) The Tana cites the current D'rashos here - because the D'rashah of "Nitma'ah" "Ve'Nitma'ah" it appears, was also Darshened 'on that day'.

(d) When Rebbi Yehoshua said 'Mi Yegaleh Afar me'Einecha Raban Yochanan ben Zakai! - he meant who would enlighten him and tell him Rebbi Akiva's D'rashah, because he had stated that there will come a generation who will declare a loaf that is a Shelishi Tahor, since there is no Pasuk that renders it Tamei.

(a) Everone agrees that the one thousand Amos surrounding the cities of the Levi'im constitute empty space. According to Rebbi Akiva, the second Pasuk which gives the Shiur as two thousand Amos, is referring to T'chum Shabbos (and not to the space surrounding the Levi'im's cities). Rebbi Eliezer B'no shel Rebbi Yossi Hagelili reconciles the two Pesukim - by establishing the latter as an extras thousand Amos for the planting of fields and vineyards for the benefit of the Levi'im (but T'chum Shabbos according to him, is only mi'de'Rabbanan).

(b) Rebbi Akiva also explained the Pasuk "Az Yashir Moshe ... *Leimor* to mean that Yisrael all repeated after him like one recites Hallel. Rebbi Nechemyah says - that they repeated it after him like one recites the Sh'ma (both opinion will be explained later).

(c) Rebbi Yehoshua learns from the Pasuk "Hein Yikteleini Lo Ayachel" that Iyov served Hashem with love. He nevertheless requires the Pasuk "Ad Egva Lo Asir Tumasi Mimeni" (declaring that his perfection will never leave him) - because we might otherwise have interpreted the first Pasuk to mean that if Hashem kills him, he will no longer hope for His salvation (since sometimes the word "Lo", even when it is spelt with a 'Vav', means 'not' [as if it was spelt with an 'Alef']).

(d) Rebbi Yehoshua commented - that, based on the Pasuk "Ish Tam ve'Yashar Yerei Elokim ve'Sar me'Ra", Raban Yochanan ben Zakai Darshened that Iyov served Hashem out of fear, but not out of love; and here was his Talmid Rebbi Yehoshua, Darshening from a Pasuk that he also served Hashem out of love.