(Rava): If it was written on two Dapim (Tosfos - pages; Rashi - columns), it is invalid.

It says "a Sefer", and not two or three Sefarim.

(Rava): If he erased each letter after writing it, it is invalid.

It says "The Kohen will do this entire Torah (procedure. I.e., he must write a full scroll, then erase it.)

Question #1 (Rava): If a scroll was written for each of two Sotos, and they were erased into the same cup, is this valid?

If only the writing must be Lishmah (with intent for this Sotah), this was fulfilled.

If also the erasing must be Lishmah, this was not fulfilled.

Question #2 (Rava): If you will say that also the erasing must be Lishmah, if each scroll was erased into a different cup, and the waters were then combined, is this valid?

If it suffices for the writing and erasing to be Lishmah, this was fulfilled;

Or, perhaps it is invalid, because each Sotah drinks part of her water and part of the other's water!

Question #3 (Rava): If it is invalid, because each drinks part of her water and part of the other's water, if the waters were combined and then divided into two portions, is this valid?

Do we rely on Breirah (to say that each portion is the water originally prepared for that woman), or not?

This question is unresolved.

Question (Rava): Is it valid if she drank through a tube, or through a Siv (Rashi - tendrils that grow around palm trees, and it was used like a straw; Aruch - it absorbed the water, and she sucked the water from it)?

Is this considered the way of drinking, or not?

This question is unresolved.

Question (Rav): Why are there two oaths regarding a Sotah?

Answer #1 (Rav): One is before the scroll is erased, the other is after the scroll is erased.

Objection (Rava): The Torah mentions both oaths before the scroll is erased!

Answer #2 (Rava): One is an oath with a curse. The other is an oath without a curse.

Question: What is the oath with a curse?

Answer #1 (Rav): 'I impose an oath on you, that you are innocent. If you were Mezanah, the water will enter you (and kill you),'

Objection (Rava): That is not an oath with a curse. It is an oath and a curse!

Answer #2 (Rava): 'I impose an oath on you, that if you were Mezanah, the water...'

Objection (Rav Ashi): That is only a curse, there is no oath on her!

Answer #3 (Rav Ashi): 'I impose an oath on you, that you are innocent, and if you were Mezanah, the water will enter you...'

(Mishnah) Question: She answers "Amen" twice. What else does she accept?

Answer: She accepts all of the following:

The curse, and also the oath;

She was not Mezanah with the man she was secluded with, nor with any other man;

She was not Mezanah during Eirusin, after Nisu'in, (if she did Yibum,) when she was a Shomeres Yavam, or after Yibum;

She was not Mezanah, and if she did the water should kill her;

R. Meir says, she was not Mezanah, and she will not be Mezanah.

R. Meir and Chachamim agree that he cannot stipulate to include before Kidushin or after divorce;

If she was secluded after divorce, was Mezanah, and remarried her ex-husband, he cannot stipulate to include this.

The rule is, he cannot stipulate about any Bi'ah that would not forbid her to him.

(Gemara - Rav Hamnuna): If a Shomeres Yavam had Bi'ah with a stranger, she is forbidden to the Yavam.

He learns from our Mishnah. The oath includes Znus while she was a Shomeres Yavam and after Yibum.

We understand this only if Bi'ah with a stranger forbids a Shomeres Yavam to the Yavam. The Mishnah says that he cannot stipulate about any Bi'ah that would not forbid her to him!

(Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael): The Halachah does not follow Rav Hamnuna.

Question: But the Mishnah supports him!

Answer: The Mishnah is like R. Akiva, who says that Kidushin does not take effect if a Lav forbids the couple to have Bi'ah. (Therefore, a Shomeres Yavam who was Mezanah with a stranger resembles a married woman who was Mezanah, which forbids her to her husband.)

Question (R. Yirmeyah): Does the oath include adultery when she was previously married to him, or (if she did Yibum) during her marriage to his brother?

Answer (Mishnah): The rule is, any Bi'ah that would not forbid her to him is not included in the oath.

Inference: Any Bi'ah that would forbid her to him is included.

(Mishnah - R. Meir): She says "Amen", that I did not commit adultery...

(Beraisa): R. Meir said that the second "Amen" accepts that she will not later commit adultery. He did not mean that the water will test her now (if she would have sinned had she lived). Rather, if she will sin later, the water will test her then.

Question (Rav Ashi): (According to R. Meir,) can he stipulate that the water should test her for adultery during a later marriage to him?

Since it does not forbid her now, he may not;

Or, since he might divorce and remarry her and then it will forbid her, it tests her?

Answer (Mishnah): All agree, he cannot stipulate to include before Kidushin, nor after divorce. If she was secluded after divorce, had Bi'as Znus, and remarried her ex-husband, he cannot stipulate to include that Bi'ah.

Inference: He can stipulate to include Znus after she remarries him.

(Beraisa): "This is Toras (the law of) warning" teaches that a woman may drink, and drink again;

R. Yehudah says, "this" teaches that she does not drink again. Nechunya the pit digger testified that a second husband may make her drink a second time, but not the same husband;

Chachamim say, a woman may not drink more than once, even if married to a second husband.

Question #1: Why does the first Tana say that she may drink again? It says "this" (implying that she drinks only once)!

Question #2: Why does the last Tana say that she may not drink again? It says "Toras"! (This implies that each time she is secluded after warning, the law that she drinks applies.)