Source: The Tosefta (Perek 1): As the Pasuk says in Melachim 1 (8) "When a man sins against his friend and imposes upon him an oath comes before Your altar in this house ...

Source: To condemn the wicked party" - 'And her stomach will swell'. "And to vindicate the righteous party" - 'And if the woman did not sin, but she is innocent, then she will be declared innocent and will becomes pregnant'.

Source (cont.): She stands inside, and the Kohen outside, as it says "And the Kohen shall place the woman before Hash-m" - 'The woman is before Hash-m, but not the Kohen'.

Clarification: What the Tana is saying is that one places them both in the Azarah simultaneously to make them drink, even if they do not actually drink simultaneously, and the same applies to 'Retzi'ah' (piercing the ears of the two servants).

Support: The Tosefta of Parah (Perek 3) also states that 'Two cows cannot be burned simultaneously, and that after the one has turned into ashes, one brings the other one and burns it on the ashes of the first one.

Question: Will the Tana also forbid Shechting two Korbanos at the same time, such as two Olos or two Chata'os, to stand them both in the Azarah, and Shecht first one and then the other?

Refuted Answer: And what the Gemara says in the second Perek of Shechitas Chulin (Daf 29: & 30.) forbidding someone to Shecht two Korbanos ...

Refutation: That speaks where he cuts both necks simultaneously, which is an Isur d'Oraysa; it is not talking about Shechting them in the above manner.

Conclusion: And in Perek Na'arah ha'Me'urasah (Nedarim, Daf 73.) the Gemara asks as to whether a man may annul the Nedarim of his two wives at the same time - whether "Osah" is Davka or not? And it resolves the She'eilah from here.

An Alternative Answer: It seems that the Gemara could have given the difference as 'Another woman who is not a Sotah, which is permitted according to Rebbi Shimon, whereas according to Rebbi Yehudah, one may not allow any woman to stand next to her in the area of Sha'ar Nikanor'.

Precedent: Indeed, the Gemara draws this distinction in Perek Taraf be'Kalpi (in Yoma, Daf 42:) where Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon also argue about the Pasuk "ve'Hotzi osah", written in connection with the Parah Adumah ...

Precedent (cont.): An where the Gemara says 'The difference between them is a donkey - inasmuch as according to Rebbi Yehudah, who says "Osah" is exclusive, it is forbidden to take out (even) a donkey together with it.

Question: What is the Kashya, bearing in mind that 'Ein Osin Mitzvos Chavilos Chavilos' is only an Isur de'Rabbanan, and they are arguing over Pesukim?

Clarification: Rashi explains that the same will apply to Eved, in one Beis-Din and where there is one master.

Question: But the purification of two Metzora'im is comparable to two Avadim of two masters?

Equivalent Ruling: In Perek Eilu hein ha'Lokin (Makos, Daf 2:) we learned a similar Beraisa: 'The Shamash grabs his clothes ... '

Source: The reason, it would seem, is because the Torah writes about him "ve'Niklah" - rendering it a Mitzvah to debase him.

Halachah: The Tosefta (Perek 1) states that they draw lots, and that whoever comes up - even if it is the Kohen Gadol, he must leave the Azarah and stand beside the Sotah and grab her clothes.

Implied Question: Even though it is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv ...

Answer: Sitting and desisting is not considered uprooting, as we learned in Perek ha'Ishah Rabah (Yevamos, 90.).

Question: Why is this a Kashya a contradiction in the Rabbanan, seeing as the Gemara, in Perek Nigmar ha'Din (Sanhedrin, Daf 45.) attributes this ruling to the word "Oso" - 'Him without his clothes, and not her without her clothes' ...

Question (cont.): In that case, why should we need to debase her, seeing as the Pasuk says not to?

Answer: According to both Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan of "Oso", the Torah is only coming to preclude his clothes. Consequently, according to the Rabbanan, we do not know what the Din is regarding her, and Beis-Din have the right to do as they see fit, and the Gemara will explain the basis of their Machlokes.

Answer (concl.): Hence there is a contradiction in the Rabbanan's rulings, because, seeing as they are not concerned about thoughts, one should debase her in order to chastise the women who are present?

Question #1: Seeing as there is no Mitzvah for the men to see her, why does one not hang a linen sheet between her and the men, and uncover her hair, as the Torah prescribes?

Question #2: And as for the Kohen who gives her to drink, let him turn his face away?

Support: In fact, the Sifri says just that, when it comments on the Pasuk "And uncover the woman's head": 'One spreads a linen sheet between her and the People, and the Kohen turns the other way as he uncovers her hair in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of Peri'ah'.

Conclusion: And why not do the same thing, according to Rebbi Yehudah?

Answer: If, according to Rebbi Yehudah, one were to spread a sheet between her and the men, it would not debase her in the eyes of the women, like before the men, since a woman is not embarrassed in front of other women ...

Answer (concl.): And consequently, they will not be chastised.

Question: We can ask from the Gemara in Perek Ein Dorshin (Chagigah, Daf 11:) which says that the Yeitzer ha'Ra of Arayos is powerful whether it is in one's presence or not?

Answer: This is not difficult at all, since what the Gemara means there is - having seen the forbidden woman once, he will constantly think about her, even when not in her presence.

Answer (concl.): But seeing one woman stoned naked, will not cause a man to think about another woman.

Halachah: The Yerushalmi explains that the Chevel ha'Mitzri and the Kefifah Mitzris (in which the Sotah's Minchah is placed) are bought from the Sheyarei ha'Lishkah like the wall of the city and its towers.

Quandry: Tosfos does not know whether the cloth with which someone who is Chayav Chenek is strangled, and the sword with which someone who is Chayav Hereg is killed (both of which the Gemara in Nigmar ha'Din [Sanhedrin, Daf 43.)] says are purchased from public funds], are also bought from the Sheyarei ha'Lishkah like the Din here.

Question: Tosfos does not know how the Gemara resolves the She'eilah from here any more than from the Mishnah 'Hi Chagrah lo Tziltzul ... ', which implies that one requires specifically a Chevel Mitzri ...

Question (cont.): And it is obvious that this is only for a Mitzvah (Lechatchilah), but is not crucial ...

Question (cont.): Because where does the Torah mention a Chevel ha'Mitzri or any other method of tying? So why should it be crucial?

Answer: If one looks carefully at Rashi, however, one will see that this is not a Kashya at all, since the Gemara's She'eilah concerns the Ikar bringing, whether it is a matter of Midah be'Midah and one requires specifically a Chevel ha'Mitzri, or to prevent her clothing from falling down, and since one needs to tie them with a cord, one may as well tie them with a rope, in order to punish her Midah be'Midah.

Conclusion: Either way, however, if there is no Chevel ha'Mitzri available, it is not necessary to spend too much time looking for one.

Clarification: Similarly, the Din of the four deaths, where someone transgressed them without witnesses and warning, who cannot be judged in Sanhedrin ...

Source: As the Gemara says in Perek "Echad Dinei Mamonos (Sanhedrin, Daf 37:), where, in connection with an episode concerning Rebbi Shimon ben Shetach, who lived in the time of the Beis-ha'Mikdash, the Beraisa quotes him as saying 'I will (not) be comforted if I did not see ... until a snake bit him!'

Source (cont.): And the Gemara asks that what the man did was not punishable by snake-bite, as Rebbi Chiya said in a Beraisa ... ?'

Implied Question: And the reason that the current Beraisa mentions after the destruction of the Beis-ha'Mikdash?

Answer: Is because he prefers to mention something that is absolute - inasmuch as the four deaths do not apply at all.

Question: They ask from Perek ha'Socher es ha'Po'alim (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 83:), where Rebbi Elazar be'Rebbi Shimon was seizing thieves.

Question (cont.): One day he came across a laundry-man, and issued the command to seize him. They seized him and hung him, and he (Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon) began to weep.

Question (cont.): They told him not to worry, since the man and his son had had relations with a betrothed girl on Yom Kipur, and since they were hanged, they were also strangled.

Conclusion: Why does the Gemara not ask, that this is not what they were Chayav, but S'kilah?

According to Rashi: This is not a Kashya however according to Rashi, who explains that he was hanged there, because whoever is stoned is then hanged.

Answer #1: When the Beraisa says that 'he either falls from the roof or is eaten by a Chayah, this is La'av Davka, only he will die in a way that is similar to the death that he would have received at the hands of Beis-Din.

Answer #2: Some commentaries explain that the son had relations with her first, in which case (when the father followed suite) she was a Be'ulah, whose death-penalty is indeed Chenek.

Question: In the Gemara in Perek Eilu hein ha'Golin (Makos, Daf 10:), Resh Lakish establishes the Pasuk "ve'ha'Elokim Inah le'Yado" where a man who killed be'Meizid is sitting at the foot of a ladder, when somebody who killed be'Shogeg, who is climbing the ladder (Note it ought to say 'descending') slips and falls on him and kills him. Tosfos' Rebbe asks that his due punishment is not S'kilah?

Answer: And he answers that, even though he is not subject to S'kilah, it is nevertheless Midah be'Midah, seeing as throwing something on somebody is considered a downward stroke, as the Torah writes in Masei (Bamidbar, 35) "And he cast it down on him and he died".

Answer (cont.): And here too, he (the man sitting at the foot of the ladder) died by way of descent.

Conclusion: Indeed, had he killed him (his first victim) by the sword, Hash-m would have found another way of punishing him.