Previous daf

1)

(a) What distinction does the Tana draw between a young man whose old wife or one who is unable to have children is a Sotah whether he has another wife or not?

(b) What happens then to the latter?

(c) The Tana obligates a Sotah who is pregnant or feeding to drink the Mei Sotah (or to leave the marriage without a Kesuvah).
What is the Chidush? Why might we have thought otherwise?

(d) What do the following have in common: 'Eishes Mamzer le'Mamzer, Eishes Nasin le'Nasin, Eishes Ger ve'Eved Meshuchrar ve'Aylonis'?

(a) Rav Nachman (who holds that even the Rabbanan of Rebbi Eliezer agree that an Aylonis does not drink) holds like Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar.
What does Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar learn from the Pasuk "Ve'niksah Ve'nizre'ah Zara"?

(b) What does Rebbi Akiva learn from "Ve'niksah Ve'nizre'ah Zara"?

(c) On what grounds does Rebbi Yishmael object to this D'rashah?

(d) So how does he modify it? What four advantages does the Sotah gain to make up for her embarrassment, assuming her to be innocent, according to him?

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah included a Pasul woman who is married to a Mamzer in the Din of drinking, as well as the wife of a convert and a a freed slave.
Why did he find it necessary to include ...

1. ... a Pasul woman who is married to a Mamzer?
2. ... the wife of a convert and a a freed slave?

(b) Then what is his source for including them?

(c) He also includes the wife of a Kohen.
What might we have Darshened from the Pasuk "*ve'Hi* Lo Nispasah" (bearing in mind that "ve'Hi" is a Mi'ut [which comes to preclude]) to imply that she does not drink?

(a) The Tana states further (with regard to the wife of a Kohen) 'u'Muteres le'Ba'alah'.
Why does he need to tell us that? Is it not obvious?

(b) If the Tana is speaking when the water affects her, then why is it not obvious that she is indeed guilty (and that she did not die on account of her merits)?

(c) In that case, what is the Tana coming to teach us? What might we otherwise have thought?

(a) The Tana also says 'Eishes S'ris Shoseh'.
Why is this not a case of the Shechivah of the adulterer preceding that of the husband, in which case, the water will not have any effect?

(b) Why must the Tana be referring to a S'ris Chamah (who was born a S'ris) and not a S'ris Adam (who became one through an accident)?

(c) Why might we have thought that Kinuy will not apply to an adulterer who is a close relative? What might we have learned from the dual expression "Ve'nitma'ah Ve'nitma'ah"?

(d) How do we refute this proposition?

6)

(a) What does the word "Ish" (with regard to the Din of Sotah) come to preclude?

(b) The Tana includes 've'she'Eino Ish' together with a Katan. Initially we suggest that this means a Shachuf.
What is 'Shachafas'?

(c) But we reject this proposition on account of Shmuel.
What did Shmuel say about a Shachuf?

(d) And on what grounds did we attempt to preclude a Shachuf (as well as a Saris - see Tosfos DH 'Shachuf') from the Din of Sotah?

(a) The Pasuk in Emor "ve'Lo Yechalel *Zar'o*" does not come to preclude the Bi'ah of a Shachuf from disqualifying a bas Kohen from eating Terumah (because, like a Saris, he is a ben Shechivah), neither does it come to preclude a Nochri, because of a statement by Rav Hamnuna.
What did Rav Hamnuna say regarding the Bi'ah of a Nochri?

(b) We might have thought that he does not qualify as a Bo'el in the Din of Sotah (just as we learned above regarding a Saris). Why might we have thought, based on the Pasuk "u'Vas Kohen *Ki Sihyeh* le'Ish Zar", that his Bi'ah does not disqualify a bas Kohen from Terumah either?

(c) What did Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rebbi Yishmael learn from the Pasuk "u'Vas Kohen Ki Sih'yeh Almanah u'Gerushah ve'Zera Ein Lah, ve'Shavah el Beis Avihah" that teaches us otherwise?

(a) So what does the Pasuk "ve'Lo Yechalel Zar'o" come to preclude (from disqualifying a bas Kohen from Terumah)? Who is the 'Mi she'Eino Ish' in our Mishnah?

(b) What does the Tana of a Beraisa learn from the Pasuk "Lo Savi Esnan Zonah u'Mechir Kelev ... Gam *Sheneihem*"?

(c) What is the case of ...

1. ... Esnan Kelev?
2. ... Mechir Zonah?

(d) Having included a Shachuf and a Saris in the Din of Sotah, we have a problem why the Torah writes "Shichvas Zera".
Why can it not come to preclude a case where a husband warned his wife not to ...

1. ... perform an unnatural Bi'ah with the adulterer, like Rav Sheishes suggests?
2. ... lie with him in close proximity, without performing Bi'ah (according to our initial understanding), like Rava suggests?

(a) Abaye explains that it comes to preclude Neshikah.
What is Neshikah?

(b) On what grounds do we then object to Abaye's explanation?

(c) So in order to accommodate those who interpret Ha'ara'ah as Neshikah, we reinstate Rava's answer, that it comes to preclude a case where the husband warned his wife not to lie with the adulterer in close proximity, without performing Bi'ah. How do we then answer the Kashya that we asked earlier ('that this may well be an indecent act, but there seems to be no reason why it should render a woman a Sotah')?

Next daf