In the cases where they have relations or he prevents her from drinking, it sounds like they are nonetheless divorced, which seems odd. Unless the mishna is telling us that she's not disqualified from her ketubah if they later get divorced. I'm not sure; need to do more reading.
According to the midrash, Moshe recovered Yosef's bones on the night of the exodus -- while everybody else was occupied with gathering their own households and Egyptian loot (as commanded), Moshe was tending to the dead.
(Today's daf is 10.)
The first mishna of the tractate teaches: a man can warn his wife not to associate with a certain man (of whom he is jealous). This warning requires two witnesses. Then if she associates with him anyway, R' Eliezer says he can force the sotah ritual with one witness while R' Yehoshua requires two witnesses. (The man can be one of the witnesses.) These witnesses are testifying to opportunity; if there were two witnesses who directly witnessed them having relations, we'd be out of sotah territory and into adultery territory instead.
If the man warned his wife and she then talked with the other man, she is not yet forbidden to him -- they can continue to have marital relations. But if she was secluded with him long enough for them to act, then she is forbidden to her husband until the matter is resolved and, should he die before the sotah ritual is completed, she is not eligible for levirate marriage (wherein his brother would marry her to, effectively, continue his marriage to produce a child). (2a)
(Today's daf is 3.)
(Today's daf is 40.)
The mishna lists the restrictions on Yom Kippur: we may not eat or drink, wash, anoint, wear (leather) shoes,1 or have intimate relations. Rabbi Elazar says that a king and a bride may wash their faces and a pregnant woman may wear shoes, but the sages forbid these. What are the exact parameters of "may not eat or drink"? Whoever eats food to the size of a large date or drinks a mouthful is guilty. All kinds of food are counted to the size of the date and all liquids are counted to the size of the mouthful -- we're talking totals here, not saying that you can eat up to the size of a date and then do it again if you wait long enough.
The g'mara discusses the "date" measure, looking to other cases where there is a minimum amount of food to count. (Surely the maximum you can eat on a fast day must be less than the minimum needed to count as "eating" for another purpose.) The g'mara talks about how much you need to eat in order to qualify for grace after meals, though the first case that came to my mind was how much matzah you have to eat at the seder to fulfill your obligation. These minimums are the volume of an egg, and there's discussion in the g'mara here about whether a large date is larger or smaller than an egg. I think for this reasoning to work it must be smaller, so we have a continuum from "no food" to "limit for a fast" to "minimum to fulfill a positive food obligation" to "plenty".
Finally, I note that today serious questions are raised about taking pills on Yom Kippur, though a pill is certainly (I hope!) smaller than a date. So these size rules have probably been refined since the talmud. (Also, this is for pills that are in some sense optional, like your daily vitamin or aspirin for your caffeine headache. If it's medically necessary you not only can but must take it regardless of the fast.)
1 The mishna here says "lace on shoes" and doesn't mention leather, though leather is discussed elsewhere in this tractate. Since it says "lace" this raises the question of slip-on shoes; the answer is that all leather shoes are forbidden whether laced, slip-in, sandals, or other, but I don't know where this is resolved.
Seven days before Yom Kippur they remove the high priest from his house and move him to the cell of the counselors. Another priest is prepared so that, should something happen to the high priest, another can take over. A substitute wife is also prepared for the high priest lest his wife die, because the torah says he makes atonement for himself and his house, and "his house" requires a wife. (But only one wife because it says "house", not "houses"; there is some complexity in the discussion here.)
During these seven days they provide elders of the beit din (rabbinic court), who read before him the order of the service and urge him to memorize it, because perhaps he forgot or never learned. On the day before Yom Kippur they bring before him all the animals that will be offered, so he will recognize them and be familiar with what is to be done. Late in the day leading up to Yom Kippur they prevent him from eating much, lest he eat too much and fall asleep. They then take him to the elders of the priesthood and make him swear that he will not change a single thing from what they have taught him. Then he (if learned) or others (if not) would expound on torah, and read from Job, Ezra, Chronicles, and sometimes Daniel. And they would keep him up all night occupied with torah.
(It may sound like they're treating him as a child or an ignoramus. Perhaps they are (under Roman rule the position of high priest was sold to the highest bidder, for instance). But it's also important to remember that this service is essential for the people's relationship with God and that we've seen what happens when instructions for service aren't followed correctly -- Aharon's sons Nadav and Avihu brought aish zarah, an "alien fire", and were struck down. Had they been representing the whole people, what might have happened? Even the most learned must study the haggadah at Pesach, and even the most learned high prist must study the Yom Kippur service.)
(Today's daf is Nazir 26.)
The mishna teaches: if two groups of witnesses testify about a man, one saying that he vowed to become a nazir for two years and the other that he vowed for five, how do we resolve the difference? Beit Shammai rules that because there is conflicting credible testimony he is not a nazir at all -- we can't tell, so we eliminate both. Beit Hillel, on the other hand, says that five includes two -- those who say five agree that he vowed for at least two. Thus he is a nazir for two years because everybody agrees on that much. (20a)
I wonder if the "at least this much" approach applies to torts too, like disputed loans or damages. It seems reasonable that it should.
A nazir is forbidden, among things, to consume wine (or grape juice). If a man says: "I declare myself a nazir on the condition that I can drink wine", he becomes a nazir and is forbidden wine -- a condition on a vow can't contradict torah law. If he says "I didn't know that a nazir is forbidden wine", he is still forbidden (but R' Shimon releases him from his vow). If he says "I knew that a nazir is forbidden wine but I thought the sages would give me permission because I cannot do without wine", he is released from his vow (but R' Shimon binds him to it). Why is he released if he thought he would get an exemption? Because we don't hold people to vows broken under pressure. (We accept his claim that he can't live without wine and thus we know he will violate the vow.) (11a-b)
I want to ask you, Internet, to please stop taking all of this [supposed evidence] at face value. Please stop taking things like lists of names stolen from a company as a reason to abuse others — online or offline. When you see a story about someone doing something you think is either wrong or even just lame, it’s not a reason for you to abuse, stalk or attack someone you don’t know.
The mishna teaches: if a man says "I vow to be like Shimshon" (with some additional language) he becomes a nazir like Shimshon. This is different from one who vows to become a lifetime nazir. How so? A life-nazir may thin his hair with a razor when it becomes burdensome (and then bring animal offerings), and if he becomes ritually impure he brings an offering. A nazir like Shimshon, however, may not thin his hair, and if he becomes ritually impure he brings no offering. The mishna then goes on to say that the default length of a nazir vow, if not specified, is 30 days. (4a, 5a)