(Mishnah): If one witness says that she was defiled, and one says that she was not defiled, or a woman says that she was defiled and another woman says that she was not, the Sotah drinks;

If one witness says that she was defiled, and two say that she was not defiled [in front of you], she drinks. (If Kosher witnesses know that she was not defiled during the entire seclusion, it would be as if there was no seclusion proper for Bi'ah - PF.)

If two say that she was defiled, and two say that she was not defiled, she does not drink.

(Gemara - Gidul bar Minyamin citing Rav): Whenever testimony of a woman is Kosher like that of a man, a man can contradict a woman, and a woman can contradict a man.

Question: [If so, our Mishnah] should teach 'if one witness says that she was defiled, and a woman says that she was not defiled [she does not drink]. If a woman says that she was defiled and one witness says that she was not defiled, [she does not drink]!

Answer: Indeed, Tana'im (people who recite Beraisos) of Rebbi's house taught so.

(Beraisa - in the name of R. Nechemyah): We follow the majority of testimony;

How is this? Two women and one woman - [Chachamim] made this like two witnesses and one witness (one cannot contradict two).

Limitation: This refers to a woman and women, but if there were 100 women and one witness, this is like a witness and a [contradictory] witness. (If they came together, she drinks.)

(Rav Ada bar Achavah): One witness is believed to be Metamei her (forbid her), but one witness is not believed to make her forfeit her Kesuvah. (This is like R. Tarfon (in Halachah 2) before he retracted. SEFER NIR says that if so, it should have been brought there! Rather, here we discuss two witnesses who contradict each other. The Ed of Tum'ah is believed only to forbid her to drink.)

Note: Another support is that before and after this, it discusses contradictory witnesses Perhaps the text in Rav Ada and Rav Chisda should say 'Ed b'Ed' or 'Ed Echad b'Ed' instead of 'Ed Echad' - PF.)

(Rav Chisda): Why did they say that one witness is believed to be Metamei her? It is because there are Raglayim l'Davar (circumstantial evidence. Therefore, he is believed also to make her forfeit her Kesuvah.)

(Shimon bar Ba citing R. Yochanan): Here (when two witnesses disagree about whether or not she was defiled, the text of our Mishnah should say) she does not drink. Regarding Eglah Arufah (if one witness says that he saw the murder, and another contradicts him) they would behead.

(Rav): She would drink. (ACHIEZER EH 6 - R. Yochanan holds that due to Raglayim l'Davar, the witness of Tum'ah is like two witnesses who clarify that she was defiled; he is believed against one witness who contradicts him. Rav holds that the witness of Tum'ah is believed only to prevent her from drinking. If his testimony was accepted, he is believed like two, and afterwards one witness cannot contradict him. However, if from the beginning a witness contradicted him, he is not believed like two, and she drinks, just like we behead Eglah Arufah in such a case. Rav Ada holds like Rav, therefore one witness does not make her forfeit her Kesuvah. Rav Chisda holds like R. Yochanan; the witness is believed about Tum'ah, so she loses her Kesuvah.)

Question (against Rav - Mishnah): If one witness says that she was defiled, and two say that she was not defiled, she drinks;

Inference: If [only] one witness [says that she was not defiled], she would not drink!

Answer: He establishes [the two] to be Pasul witnesses (but the one is a Kosher witness. The Chidush is that two Pesulim are like one witness, like R. Nechemyah above; it does not teach the above inference.)

Question: If it discusses Pasul witnesses, the Seifa is difficult!

(Seifa): If two say that she was defiled, and one says that she was not defiled, she would not drink;

Inference: [If this refers to two Pesulim, and they are like one Kosher witness, this means that] if one [Kosher] witness contradicts [one Kosher] witness, she would not drink. Why did Rav say that she drinks?

(R. Yochanan): [If one witness contradicts one,] she would not drink.

Question (against R. Yochanan - Seifa): If two say that she was defiled, and one witness says that she was not defiled, she would not drink;

Inference: If [one] witness contradicts [one] witness, she would drink!

Answer: He establishes [the two] to be Pasul witnesses (but the one is a Kosher witness. The Chidush is that two Pesulim are like one witness, like R. Nechemyah above; it does not teach the above inference.)

Question: If it discusses Pasul witnesses, the Reisha is difficult!

(Reisha): If one witness says that she was defiled, and two say that she was not defiled, she drinks;

Inference: [If this refers to two Pesulim, and they are like one Kosher witness, this means that] if one [Kosher] witness contradicts [one Kosher] witness, she drinks. Why did R. Yochanan say that she does not drink?

(In the name of R. Shmuel): Our Mishnah discusses Pasul witnesses (also the one against the two is Pasul. We explained this like PNEI MOSHE.)

(In the name of R. Shmuel): Our Mishnah discusses a different seclusion.

Question (R. Ze'ira, to R. Mana): What does it mean 'our Mishnah discusses a different seclusion'? (Obviously, if the witness[es] who say[s] that she was not defiled discuss a different seclusion, she does not drink due to the seclusion about which the witness[es] say[s] that she was defiled!)

Answer (R. Mana): So said R. Yochanan citing R. Yanai - this entire Perek is when he warned her and she was secluded;

If she was secluded in front of two, and one witness says that she was defiled during the seclusion, there is seclusion and there is Tum'ah;

[If the witness says that she was defiled] after the seclusion, there is seclusion and there is not Tum'ah (she drinks);

If there were three [witnesses] - if one says 'I saw that she was defiled after the seclusion', there is seclusion and there is no Tum'ah (she drinks. If one says 'I saw that she was defiled) during the seclusion', there is seclusion and there is Tum'ah (she does not drink. We explained this like PNEI MOSHE.)

Question: If there were three [witnesses] - if one says 'I saw that she was not defiled during the seclusion', how do you judge this? (If there were only two witnesses, and one says that she was not defiled during the seclusion, only one witness testifies about seclusion with possible Bi'ah. He is not believed to say that she was defiled, nor to make her drink if he does not know about Bi'ah.)

Is this like testimony that was partially Batel (it is as if the one says that there was no seclusion? If so, it is totally Batel.) Or, is the testimony intact through the others?

Answer (Rav Avmari): Even according to the opinion that testimony that was partially Batel is totally Batel, here he admits that the testimony intact through the others, because there are Raglayim l'Davar.

Note: TZIYON YERUSHALAYIM says that due to Raglayim l'Davar, we assume that there was Vadai Bi'ah, and the witness is not believed against this. I support this from the question against Rav - if one says that she was defiled, and two say that she was not defiled, she drinks. The Makshan assumed that they are Kosher witnesses. If so, we should totally believe the two, and she should not drink! Rather, we join Raglayim l'Davar to the witness of Tum'ah, and it is like two against two. SEFER NIR explains that the one who says that there was no Bi'ah comes to say that there was no seclusion to make her drink, so it is as if he is not part of the testimony. Perhaps 'Raglayim l'Davar' merely explains why one witness is believed about Tum'ah, but not to say that there was no Tum'ah. (PF)

(Mishnah): The following may be said in any language: Parshas Sotah; Viduy Ma'aser (the declaration that one has given his tithes); Keri'as Shma; prayer; Birkas ha'Mazon; Shevu'as ha'Edus (the oath that one does not know testimony); and Shevu'as ha'Pikadon (the oath of a Shomer).

(Gemara - Beraisa): It is written "v'Amar ha'Kohen l'Ishah" - in any language that she understands. R. Yoshiyah says so;

R. Yonason: If she does not understand the language, why does she answer Amen?! (The verse need not teach that she understands the language!) Rather, [it teaches that] he may not tell her through a translator.

(R. Yochanan citing R. Lazar bei R. Shimon): We do not find that Hash-m spoke with a woman, except for Sarah.

Question: It says "El ha'Ishah Amar Harbeh Arbeh..." (Hash-m spoke to Chavah)!

Answer (R. Yakov of Kefar Chanin): He told her through an intermediary.

Question: It says "va'Yomer Hash-m Lah Shnei Goyim b'Vitnech..." (Hash-m spoke to Chavah)!

Answer (R. Yakov of Kefar Chanin): Hash-m's word came for her [through an intermediary].

(R. Biri): How many matters Hash-m arranged [to talk to Sarah], for he desires to hear the conversation of righteous women! [Initially, He did not rebuke her Himself, for surely she would not respond. Rather, He told Avraham to rebuke her. Only after she denied, He spoke to her -] "va'Yomer Lo Ki Tzachakt." (PNEI MOSHE)

Viduy Ma'aser [may be said in any language], for it says "v'Amarta Lifnei Hash-m Elokecha."

Keri'as Shma [may be said in any language], for it says "v'Dibarta Bam."

Rebbi says, I say that Keri'as Shma must be in Leshon ha'Kodesh.

What is the source? "V'Hayu ha'Devarim ha'Eleh."

R. Levi bar Chazisa went to Kisarin. He heard them reciting Keri'as Shma in Greek. He wanted to stop them;

Rav Yosi heard and was upset. He said, one who does not know to recite in Ashuris (Leshon ha'Kodesh), he will not recite?! Rather, he recites in any language that he knows, and he is Yotzei!

Question (against both of them - R. Berachiyah): Megilas Esther - if one knows to read it in Ashuris or La'az (a Nochri language), he is Yotzei in La'az or Ashuris! (Rav Yosi connotes that only one who does not know Ashuris is Yotzei in La'az.)

Rebuttal (R. Mana): Megilas Esther - if one knows to read it in Ashuris or La'az, he is Yotzei only in Ashuris! [If one knows only] La'az, he is Yotzei [even if it is written] in La'az! However, here (Keri'as Shma) he is Yotzei in any language that he knows.