Hagahah: (Minchas Yehudah explains that these words (Mai Taima...) are the Dibur ha'Maschil of this Tosfos. It pertains to the very top of Amud B.)

Pesak: It seems that the Halachah follows Chachamim.

Reason #1: When an individual argues with a Rabim, the Halachah follows the Rabim.

Reason #2: We say that Rabanan hold like the opinion that if one read Shema and was not audible to his ears, he was Yotzei;

In Berachos (15b) we conclude like the first Tana of R. Yosi, who says so there.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): One may read in a Sefer Torah in any language that he wants.

Objection: Keri'as ha'Torah is not mid'Oraisa. It is only mid'Rabanan, except for Parshas Zachor, which is mid'Oraisa!

Explanation #2: Every [Parshah] that must be read in Torah, e.g. the Mitzvah of Chalitzah, Eglah Arufah, Viduy Ma'aser and [Viduy] Bikurim, and all those listed in the Mishnah in Sotah (32a, may be said in any language).

Question: in Sotah (33a) [regarding matters that must be said in Lashon ha'Kodesh, and those said in any language] we require a verse both according to the opinion that Torah was given in every language, and according to the opinion that it was given in Lashon ha'Kodesh! (We should ask like here, that the one who holds that the entire Torah was said in Lashon ha'Kodesh needs no inclusion for matters that require Lashon ha'Kodesh, and the one who holds that the Torah is in any language, needs no inclusion for matters that are in any language! - Maharsha)

Answer: There, we want to establish the inclusion according to all opinions;

According to the opinion that [Torah] was said in every language, we need a verse to "include" Lashon ha'Kodesh [for Keri'as Shema, and every other matter that must be in Lashon ha'Kodesh];

According to the opinion that [Torah] was said in Lashon ha'Kodesh, we need a verse to include every language.

Question: This is difficult for Rashi's opinion (Berachos 34a) about "there is no Seder for the middle Berachos."

Explanation (Rashi): If one erred in one of the middle Berachos and omitted it, so he must return [to say it], he says it where he remembered, and finishes his Tefilah.

If so, he says the 18 Berachos out of order. Here we find that Shimon ha'Pekuli arranged them in order!

Answer: There, "they have no Seder" means that they are unlike the first three and last three. There, one returns to the beginning of the three if he erred in one of them;

Rather, [if he erred in one of the middle Berachos] he returns to say the one he forgot, and finishes from it and below, [and says] everything in order.

Distinction: However, [if on a Ta'anis he forgot to say in Shome'a Tefilah] Aneinu, he does not return, since he passed its place. (He already finished the middle Berachos.)

Support: We say similarly below (18a) about Megilah. If he omitted one verse, he begins (returns) and reads from that verse and onwards.

Rashi's opinion: Even though there are only eight Tehilim until it [and including it], "Ashrei ha'Ish" (Tehilim 1) and [the end of that Psalm, i.e.] "Lamah Ragshu Goyim" really count like two.

Note: Nowadays, in all Tehilim they are considered two, and "Shevor Rasha..." is in Tehilim 10.

Question: In Berachos (10a) we say that they are one Parshah!

We conclude there that every Parshah that was beloved to David, he began it and ended it with "Ashrei", e.g. this one, which begins with "Ashrei ha'Ish..." and ends with "Ashrei Kol Chosei Vo", which is the end of Lamah Ragshu Goyim.

Inference: They are one Parshah!

Answer: We must say that "la'Menatze'ach Al Mus" (Tehilim 9) and [the end of that Psalm, i.e.] "Lamah Hash-m Ta'amod b'Rachok" are two.