Question: Yerushalmi: 'The Torah writes "ve'Lakach ha'Kohen mi'Yad ha'Ishah es Minchas ha'Kena'os". Does he wave it in his hands and not in hers?

Answer: But from here we learn that he takes it from a K'li Chol and places it in a K'li Shareis'.

Rejection: This implies not like Rashi, who explains that it is the husband who takes it.

Alternative: It is possible to explain that although a Zar is eligible to sanctify the Minchah, the Mitzvah of taking the Minchah from her hand is incumbent upon the Kohen, and once he has already taken it, he also places it inside a K'li Shareis.

Question: Why does the Mishnah need to state that the Kohen places his hand underneath hers? Why does it not just say that he 'places his hand'?

Answer: To teach us that the waving is performed by the Kohen.

Question: The Yerushalmi asks whether the Kohen placing his hand underneath that of the woman is not immoral? And placing a cloth in between constitutes a Chatzitzah?

Answer: The Yerushalmi answers that one brings an old Kohen, and adds that, in fact, even a young one will do, seeing as there is no Yeitzer-ha'Ra for such a short period of time.

Halachah, Opinion #1: Rebbi Chiya cites a Beraisa which states that If a Sotah has no hands, two Kohanim wave her Minchah on her behalf.

Halachah, Opinion #2: The Bavli however (at the end of Perek Arusah (later, Daf 37a) holds that a a Sotah who has no hands does not drink at all.

Basis of Machlokes: Perhaps their Machlokes is based on whether we need to fulfil the Pasuk as it is written (See Sanhedrin 45b)

Clarification: The Yerushalmi learns what the Gemara says in Perek Kol ha'Menachos (Menachos, Daf 60b) "ve'Heivesa", to include the Minchas ha'Omer in the Din of Hagashah, and from "ve'Hikrivah", to include the Minchas Sotah, after which the Torah writes "ve'Heirim".

Question: Where does the Tenufah take place?

Answer: And it answers that it took place earlier.

Halachah: And from there we also learn that the leftovers of the Minchas Sotah are eaten, as the Torah writes after that "And what is left over from the Minchah is for Aharon ... ".

Clarification: This means even though he has already brought her Minchah.

Clarification (cont.): And the same will apply where the Kohen wrongly failed to erase the Megilah at all until after the Minchah has been brought, that he must do so afterwards.

Reservation: And it seems that establishing the Pasuk where the ink is visible, is La'v Davka, because, since the Torah writes "u'Machah", it is understood that it the ink is visible, it is not called erased.

Source: Seeing as we preclude from there placing Kankantum (vitri'ol) into the ink, since its mark remains discernable, rendering it a script that cannot be erased.

Conclusion: But the Pasuk comes mainly to teach us that if he first brought her Minchah and then gave her to drink, it is Kasher, as Rebbi Shimon learned from the first "ve'Hishkah".

Proof: And so the Yerushalmi says - that according to the Rabbanan, if he first brought her Minchah and then gave her to drink, it is Kasher.

Yerushalmi: The Gemara there Darshens according to the Rabbanan "ve'Achar Yashkeh" - that one forces her.

Yerushalmi (cont.): And this is the text there "ve'Achar Yashkeh", against her will, not to her advantage.

. Yerushalmi (cont.): Rebbi Shimon concedes to the Chachamim that if he gave her to drink and then brought her Minchah, it is Kasher.

The Machlokes the Rabbanan and Rebbi Shimon: And the Chachamim concede to Rebbi Shimon that if he first brought her Minchah and then gave her to drink, it is Kasher.

The Machlokes the Rabbanan and Rebbi Shimon (cont.): And the Machlokes between them is what is the Mitzvah; The Rabbanan, based on the Pasuk "Minchas Kena'os Hi" say that that is what examines her, whereas Rebbi Shimon maintains that it is the water that examines her.

The Machlokes the Rabbanan and Rebbi Shimon (cont.): The Rabbanan's reason is due to the Pasuk "Minchas Zikaron Mazkeres Avon".

The Machlokes the Rabbanan and Rebbi Shimon (cont.): Rebbi Shimon's, to the Pasuk "u'Va'u vah".

The Machlokes the Rabbanan and Rebbi Shimon (cont.): The Rabbanan hold that he writes, erases, gives her to drink and brings her Korban'.

The Machlokes the Rabbanan and Rebbi Shimon (cont.): Rebbi Shimon, that he writes, brings her Korban, erases and gives her to drink'.

The Machlokes the Rabbanan and Rebbi Shimon (cont.): Both agree that erasing comes next to giving her to drink.

Halachah: Furthermore, the Yerushalmi states there 'If he brings her Minchah and she then declares that she will not drink, one forces her to drink against her will - like Rebbi Shimon ...

Halachah: Since, according to the Rabbanan, she has already drunk.

Conclusion: One must now say that, even though according to the Rabbanan, we Darshen the latter "ve'Hishkah" with regard to forcing her to drink, they hold that forcing her is connected to erasing the Megilah, and it is the extra Pasuk that they Darshen regarding forcing (See M'lo ha'Ro'im).

Gemara Sanhedrin: In Perek Arba Misos (Sanhedrin, Daf 52a) Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan argue over the Mitzvah of 'Nisrafin', as the there says 'One places a hard cloth inside a soft one, and wraps it round his neck; one person pulls one end and another, the other end, and when he opens his mouth, one throws the (burning) wick into it'.

Gemara Sanhedrin (cont.): Rebbi Yehudah says 'If he dies at their hand (when they pull the cloths tight), they will not have fulfilled the Mitzvah of S'reifah? So they open his mouth with a pair of tongs'.

Question: The Ri asks why it is here that, according to Rebbi Yehudah, they use a Kalbus, whereas there they use Tz'vas (two kinds of tongs)?

Answer: The Ri answers that here too, they opened her mouth with a Tz'vas, only after having done that, they placed a Kalbus in her mouth to prevent her from closing it again.

Answer (cont.): And the Rabbanan agree here that they do not open her mouth by means of cloths ...

Answer (cont.): Because the reason of the Rabbanan there is that, since S'reifah is more stringent than Chenek, and the conclusion of the death-penalty is S'reifah, they hastened his death via Chenek, because of the Mitzvah of "ve'Ahavta le'Re'acha Kamocha".

Answer (concl.): Whereas here, hastening her death is not an issue.

Clarification: This is how the Rach explains according to the text in the Sefarim: 'The second "ve'Hishkah" teaches us that we force her to drink, whereas the first one comes for the statement itself.

Clarification (cont.): 'What is it coming to teach us'? The Beraisa does not mention the first and second "ve'Hishkah"; rather it is the Gemara which explains that the latter "ve'Hishkah" comes to teach us that we force her to drink, whereas the first one comes for itself.

Clarification (cont.): And Rebbi Akiva holds like the Rabbanan, that we first give her to drink and then bring her Minchah.

Question #1: The Gemara asks how Rebbi Akiva can say that we force her to drink, when he holds that she is already considered examined (when she refuses to drink)?

Question #2: Furthermore, the Gemara asks that Rebbi Akiva in this Beraisa, with whom Rebbi Shimon argues, learns that erasing the writing is crucial, from which we can extrapolate that he holds the erasing and making her drink precede bringing her Minchah, like the Rabbanan, in which case as long as the Megilah has not been erased, she can retract.

Question #2 (cont.): Whereas in the Beraisa where he argues with Rebbi Yehudah, he learns that the Kometz is crucial, in which case the Minchah precedes the drinking, like Rebbi Shimon.

Answer: And the Yerushalmi answers that two Tana'im argue over Rebbi Akiva holds.

Question: Does Rebbi Akiva not hold that we force her?

Answer: He holds that we force her once she has begun to drink.

Clarification: This means that, if the Megilah is erased before the Kometz has been sacrificed, which the Kohanim did not in accordance with the Halachah, then, since she began to drink, we force her to finish (See M'lo ha'Ro'im).