Clarification: The Torah did not 'double' - "If he did lie, he will not be innocent", Rashi explains, only from the B'rachah we infer the K'lalah ...

Implied Question: Because even though the Torah juxtaposes "And you, if you did sin ... " ...

Answer: That does not specify a K'lalah on the first Shevu'ah, since the Torah then writes "And the Kohen shall make the woman swear the Shevu'ah of theAlah ... " ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas the first Shevu'ah does not contain an Alah, as it writes there "And the Kohen shall make her swear", and it makes no mention of a K'lalah, and we learn it by deducing it from the B'rachah.

Question: Seeing as we learn all the Dinim of T'nai from the B'nei Gad and the B'nei Reuven, we require the 'Yes' before the 'No' (Gitin, 75b) - and here the 'No' precedes the 'Yes', since "Im Lo Shachav" is written first?

Answer: "Im Lo Shachav" is considered a 'Yes', since what we want to happen is considered the 'Yes' ...

Precedent: Similar to "If they will cross" , which is what we want to happen - because if they con't, they will lose ...

Answer (cont.): In the same way, we want her words to be the truth - that a man did not lie with her; that is the 'Yes', and if he did, she will lose; that is the 'No'.

Explanation #1: According to Rashi the 'Doubling' goes like this - "Im Lo Shachav, Hinaki", 've'Im Shachav, Chinaki" (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim) , "ve'At ki Satis" - Since 'Chinaki' refers to "ve'At ki Satis" that is written after it.

Refutation: In that case, the act follows the condition, whereas we learnt in the Mishnah (in Bava Metzia, 94a [See Masores ha'Shas] that the condition must precede the act?

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore explains that it does not refer to "ve'At ki Satis" that is written after it ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): But the word "Hinaki" is as if it was written "Chinaki", and the Kohen would repeat it and say "ve'Im Shachav, Chinaki".

Conclusion: According to this, the condition precedes the act.

Clarification: Rabeinu Chananel explains like this: "If a man did not lie with you ... Tachas Ishech" - in other words "You will remain under the jurisdiction of your husband ...

Clarification (cont.): "But if you did sin ... mi'Bal'adei Ishech" - You will have to take leave of him" - and the condition precedes the act.

Implied Question: And even though the 'No' precedes the 'Yes' ...

Answer: The Gemara in Sanhedrin (Daf 43b & 33a) learns from here that 'One opens the proceedings with the side of merit. Tosfos Yeshanim].

Question: What has this to do with the Machlokes? Why does the Torah need to write it even according to Rebbi Meir - when on many occasions the Torah writes "And he shall bathe in water and become Tahor" (See Vayikra 14), and it did not deem fit to add 'And if he does not, he will not become Tahor'?

Answer: It is not comparable (to there), where it is obvious that since it is a Mitzvah commanded by Hakadosh-Baruch-Hu, if he does not comply, he will not be Yotzei ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas here, there is a slight connotation of T'nai, because, since it writes "Hu Yischata ... ", it is as if it wrote 'If he purifies himself, he will be Tahor' ...

Reason: When it ought to have written 've'Yischata ve'Yithar'.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that Mechubar (attached produce) is not subject to T'rumah since the Torah writes in Devarim (18) "Reishis Degancha", implying smeehing that has undergone 'Digun' (flattening the pile after winnowing). in which case it is taling from what is Chayav on to what is Patur.

Question #1: In that case, even taking from Talush (what is detached) before it has been flattened is not T'rumah either - since it is before the Digun ...

Qustion #1 (cont.): And this is not the case, since the Gemara says elsewhere (in Eruvin, Daf 31b) that 'Ma'aser Rishon which the Levi arrives when it is still stalks (before the Miru'ach) is exempt from T'rumah Gedolah - implying that it is subject to T'rumah?

Question #2: From the Mishnah in T'rumos (1:10) 'If somebody takes T'rumah from crops that have passed the stage of G'mar Melachah - which is after Miru'ach - on to crops that have not, his T'rumah is valid (Bedi'eved)'.

Explanation #2: Therefore the Ri explains that the P'tur of Talush is based on the word "Mimenu" (Bamidbar , 18:26) ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Which the Sifri Darshens "Mimenu", 've'Lo min ha'Mechubar' - since the Pasuk is speaing about Talush ; and clearly "Mimenu" is coming to teach us that even Bedieved, it is Asur ...

Proof: Because as far as Lechatchilah is concerned, that we already know from "Degancha" - since Mechubar is not included in 'Digun'.

Proof (cont.): So we see that Mecbubar is Pasul even Bedieved.

Conclusion: And the case of 'Ma'aser where the Levi arrives when it is still stalks', where it is effective Bedi'eved, is speaking by Talush, before the Miru'ach.

Clarification: presumably, it is only Kabalas Mitzvos that requires three, but Tevilah will suffice with one (i.e. on his own), assuming he has already accepted the Mitzvos.

Proof: From the case in Yevamos (Daf 45b) where, in connection with the man whom they called 'bar Arma'i' (gentile) - bcause he had circumcised but not Toveled ...

Proof (cont.): Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi said 'But didn't he Tovel for his Keri? - mea meaning that he must have seen Keri some time in his life, which would have necessitated Tevilah ...

Proof (concl.): Implying that since he was Yotzei the Tevilah for his Keri, he would not require a separate Tevilah for his Geirus - which in turn, implies that one does need three people.

Question: A Kashya remains however, from the Gemara there (Daf 47b) that - 'One places him in water up to his neck, and two Talmidei-Chachamim sit outside and inform him some of the easier ans some of the more difficult Mitzvos' ...

Question (cont.): And in answer to the question that we need three", the Gemara replies that the text should read 'three'?

Answer #1: Certainly Lechatchilah one requires three, but it is not crucial.

Answer #2: Alternatively, three are needed for the Kabalas Mitzvos.

Question: Why does even Kabalas Mitzvos require three, seeing as by admissions and loans, in connection with which the Torah writes "Mishpat", a Dayan can judge on his own, as the Gemara states in Sanhedrin (Daf 3a)?

Answer: We comparer it (Geirus) to cases of theft and wounds, which require three (Sanhedrin, Ibid.) ...

Source: Because wherever one can compare le'Kula and le'Chumra, we compare le'Chumra (Yevamos, 8a).

Question: In that case, Kabalas Mitzvos ought to require expert Dayanim, like cases of theft and wounds?

Answer #1: We carrry out their Shelichus, as the Gemara explains in Gitin, Daf 88b).

Answer #2: Furthermore, says ha'Rav Nesanel, the Torah (in Bamidbar 15) writes by a Ger le'Doroseichem", implying in all cases, even where there are no experts ...

Answer #2 (cont.): Since nowadays there are no experts - seeing as there are no Semuchin; and "le'Doroseichem" implies 'for all generations' (Kesuvos, 13a).

Question: Why does the Gemara not answer here like it did a little earlier - 'Who says that he will find three people?'

Answer: This Sugya holds like the opinion in Yevamos (Daf 47b) that, seeing as, before he has been set free, an Eved is Chayav Mitzvos like a woman he is not Chayav Kabalas ha'Mitzvos after he has been freed ...

Answer (cont.): In which case, whilst acquiring him they would Tovel him in order to accept the Mitzvos, and the Tevilah after Shichrur is merely Tevilas Geirus, which does not require three.

Observation: The Gemara could have given the same answer a little earlier.

Clarification: Rashi explains that he says this according to Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov

Reason: Because according to the Rabbanan a person cannot be Makneh something that is not yet in the world, in which case, even though she is pregnant, the Kinyan is not valid.

Question: How does Rebbi Chanina know that the Tana is speaking where the wife is not pregnant and the author is Rebbi Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov? Perhaps he is speaking even where she is, and according to the Rabbanan. On what grounds does he therefore say 'Lo Shanu ... '?

Answer: Because in the Beraisa that follows 'Harei At Mekudeshes li le'Achar she'Esgayer ... ', where Rebbi Meir says Mekudeshes, does not insert the case of 'Im Yaldah Isht'cha Nekeivah ... ' ...

Answer (cont.): Indicating the Tana's opinion that even according to Rebbi Meir, if he says 'Im Yaldah Isht'cha Nekeivah ... ', the Kidushin is not valid ...

Answer (cont.): And Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov are of the same opinion, as the Gemara says further on ...

Conclusion: That is why Rebbi Chanina comes to explain that Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov only speaks there where the wife is not pregnant, as Tosfos explained ...

Conclusion (cont.): Since he concedes that where he said 'Im yaldah Isht'cha Nekeivah', the Kidushin is not valid.

Halachah: Even though generally the Halachah is like Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, whose Mishnah is described as 'Kav ve'Naki', it is not like him here, nor like the other Tana'im who hold 'Adam Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba le'Olam' ...

Introduction to Reason: Since Rav Nachman and Rav Huna argue over this in Bava Metzi'a (Daf 66b) in the case of 'Someone who sells the fruit of a date-palm to his friend' ...

Introduction to Reason (cont.): Rav Huna says that before it comes into the world, he can still retract, but not after it has come into the world', because 'One can be Makneh something that is not yet in the world'.

Introduction to Reason (concl.): Whereas according to Eav Nachman, he can retract even after it has come into the world, seeing as 'One cannot be Makneh something that is not yet in the world', and he sold it before it came into the world.

Reason: And since we rule like Rav Nachman in money- matters, the Halachah cannot be like Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov.