(Mishnah) Question: Why does she say "Amen Amen"?

Answer: [The extra Amen teaches] Amen to (acceptance of) the curse, Amen to the oath, Amen to [liability if I sinned with] this man [about whom she was warned], Amen to any other man;

Amen that I was not defiled, and if I was defiled, [the curses] should come upon me.

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

R. Meir says, Amen that I was not Mezanah, Amen that I will not be Mezanah.

(Gemara - R. Lazar citing R. Yosi ben Zimrah): Amen [can be like taking] a Shevu'ah, Amen [can be] acceptance [of a curse], Amen can be confirmation of the matters;

Amen [can be like taking] a Shevu'ah - we learn from Sotah. Amen [can be] acceptance - "Lema'an Hakim Es ha'Shevu'ah Asher Nishbati la'Avoseichem..."

Amen can be confirmation of the matters - "va'Ya'an Benayahu Ven Yehoyada ha'Kohen Es ha'Melech va'Yomer Amen...."

(Rebuttal - R. Tanchuma): If you learn from here (Sotah) that Amen is Shevu'ah, you do not learn anything (perhaps it is acceptance of the curse, or confirmation of the matters)!

What is the source? "Le'avrecha bi'Vris Hash-m Elokecha uv'Alaso."

Alah refers only to Shevu'ah - "v'Hishbi'a ha'Kohen Es ha'Ishah bi'Shevu'as ha'Alah."

Question: From where did [Chachamim] learn Gilgul Shevu'ah (if one must swear to Ploni about one matter, Ploni may demand that he include other matters in the Shevu'ah)?

Answer: It is from Sotah. "V'Amrah ha'Ishah Amen Amen" - Amen with this man, Amen with another man.

Question: This teaches only about matters that it is proper to make one swear [about them, e.g. Metaltelim]. Matters that it is not proper to make one swear [about them, e.g. land, what is the source that Gilgul applies to them]?

Answer (R. Yosi bei R. Bun): We learn from here - Amen that I was not Mezanah during Eirusin, after Nisu'in, when she was a Shomeres Yavam, or after Yibum;

An Arusah or Shomeres Yavam, is it proper to swear about them?! [Surely not, for the water tests her only if she was Mezanah after Bi'ah with her husband! Even so,] we are Megalgel [them]. And [also] here (other Shevu'os), we are Megalgel [matters that it is not proper to make one swear about them].

Some who recite Beraisos, they teach 'just like this (Sotah), there is Alah (curse) and Shevu'ah, also all who swear, there is Alah and Shevu'ah.' And some who recite Beraisos, they teach 'this has Alah and Shevu'ah, but all who swear do not have Alah and Shevu'ah.'

Question: The one who says 'this has Alah and Shevu'ah, also all have Alah and Shevu'ah', this is fine. However, the one who says 'this has Alah and Shevu'ah, but all who swear do not have Alah and Shevu'ah' - you learn to Gilgul, and you do not learn Alah and Shevu'ah?!

Some who recite Beraisos, they teach 'just like this (Sotah, she must say Amen Amen), also all who swear, Amen Amen.' And some who recite Beraisos, they teach 'this has Amen Amen, but all who swear do not have Amen Amen.'

Question: The one who says 'this has Amen Amen, also all have Amen Amen', this is fine. However, the one who says 'this has Amen Amen, but all who swear do not have Amen Amen' - you learn to Gilgul, and you do not learn Amen Amen?!

(R. Ba bar Mamal): Who is the Tana who taught [that he is Megalgel] Yevamah? It is R. Akiva, for R. Akiva says that there is a Mamzer from a Yevamah [who became pregnant from a stranger, just like an Eshes Ish who had Bi'ah with another man. Likewise, Zenus forbids her to the Yavam, just like it forbids an Eshes Ish to her husband.]

Rebuttal (R. Ili): What is the relevance of Mamzer? Regarding Kinuy, Torah said "v'Kinei Es Ishto" - even a partial wife! (SEFER NIR - even though a Shomeres Yavam cannot drink, for she did not yet have Bi'ah with the Yavam, so the water would not test her, Kinuy applies to forbid her to him, for Zenus would forbid her.)

Question (R. Shamai): Didn't R. Yanai say 'over 30 Chachamim voted [and concluded] what is the source that Kidushin does not take effect on a Yevamah? "Lo Tihyeh Eshes ha'Mes Chutzah l'Ish Zar Yevamah Yavo Aleha" - she has no Havayah (Kidushin; this word has the same root as Tihyeh) with another man.

Support (for R. Yanai - R. Yochanan): Does not a Mishnah teach this? [If one told a woman 'you are Mekudeshes to me...] or after your Yavam does Chalitzah to you', she is not Mekudeshes (since Kidushin does not take effect on her now, this is Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam).

R. Yanai praised [R. Yochanan's proof] - 'ha'Zalim Zahav mi'Kis", "Bni Al Yalizu me'Einecha", "Chacham Bni v'Samach Libi", "Ten l'Chacham v'Yechkam Od", "Yishma Chacham v'Yosif Lekach."

Objection (Reish Lakish): After all these verses of praise [it is not a solid proof]. We can establish the Mishnah like R. Akiva, for R. Akiva says that there is a Mamzer from a Yevamah l'Shuk! (However, Chachamim could say that there is Kidushin in a Yevamah, if not for R. Yanai's Drashah above.)

Summation of question: [According to R. Ili, R. Yochanan] should have refuted [Reish Lakish] 'what is the relevance of Mamzer? Regarding Kidushin, the Torah said "Ki Yikach Ish Ishah" - even a partial woman' (a Shomeres Yavam, who is partially tied to the Yavam, another's Kidushin takes effect in her)!

If a Shomeres Yavam was Mezanah - R. Lazar says, she is permitted to her house (Yavam). R. Yehoshua ben Levi said, she is forbidden to her house.

(Rabanan citing R. Mana): Didn't R. Yakov bar Acha citing R. Lazar say, if a Shomeres Yavam died, [the Yavam] is permitted to her mother? (This shows that she is not like the Yavam's wife. Therefore, Zenus does not forbid her.)

Question: [How can you say so? The coming] Mishnah teaches, this is the general rule - anyone that if she would have Bi'ah with him, she would not be forbidden to [her husband], he cannot stipulate with her (Megalgel) about him!

[If all Tana'im agree that Zenus does not forbid a Shomeres Yavam], who taught this Mishnah - it is not Rabanan, and not R. Akiva!

Rather, the one who says that she is permitted to her house (R. Lazar), this is like Rabanan, and unlike R. Akiva. The one who says that she is forbidden to her house (R. Yehoshua ben Levi), this is like R. Akiva, and unlike Rabanan. (We explained this like PNEI MOSHE.)

(R. Yanai): If a Shomeres Yavam was Mezanah, she is permitted to her house.

Support (Beraisa): "V'Nelam me'Einei Ishah", and not from the eyes of her Yavam.

(R. Yakov bar Zavdi citing R. Avahu): A case occurred, and she was a Kohen's wife, and [Chachamim] permitted her to her house (she was not even considered a Zonah).

(R. Yosi bei R. Bun): There are not even lashes for [Zenus of a Shomeres Yavam].

(In our Mishnah, R. Meir says, Amen that I was not Mezanah, Amen that I will not be Mezanah.) R. Meir did not say that the water tests her now. Rather, the water is deposited in her. When she will be defiled, it tests her retroactively.

Note: If the water would kill her now, she could not be Mezanah afterwards! Rather, the Havah Amina is that if she intends to be Mezanah afterwards, she dies now. Alternatively, if Hash-m sees that if she lives, she will be Mezanah, she dies now. (PF)

"Toras ha'Kena'os" - this is permanent. A woman does not drink, and drink again [even if she later transgressed Kinuy, for the water remains in her from the first time she drank].

(R. Yudah): Nechemyah Ish Sichin testified in the name of R. Akiva that a woman drinks, and drinks again.

R. Akiva: I will explain. From one husband, she does not drink and drink again. From two husbands, she drinks and drinks again.

Note: Even if R. Meir held that the water will kill her for Zenus while married to another man, he could hold that she drinks again if she remarried. Her latter husband could be concerned lest her first husband was not "Menukah me'Avon", and therefore the water is not testing her. Or, perhaps she need not drink again; the water removes all Safek for any husband who is innocent.

Chachamim say, whether from one husband, or from two husbands, she drinks and drinks again. [A woman named] Korchamis proves this. She drank, and drank a second and third time in front of Shemayah and Avtalyon, from one husband.

(Mishnah): We do not give a Giyores (female convert) to drink... Chachamim say, we are Mashkeh.

Question: What is the case?

If a Ger married a Bas Yisrael (this cannot be, for) it says "Bnei Yisrael", and not converts! (PNEI MOSHE - in the Havah Amina, 'Giyores' means a Ger's wife.)

If a Yisrael married a Giyores (this cannot be, for) it says "v'Hevi ha'Ish Es Ishto El ha'Kohen" (which connotes that they are equal)!

Answer: Rather, the case is, a Ger married a Giyores.

What is the reason of Akaviya (the first Tana of the Mishnah)? "Bnei Yisrael", and not converts.

What is the reason of Rabanan? "Aleihem" includes everything written in the Parshah.

What is written in the Parshah? "V'Shachav Ish Osah" - [anyone] whose Bi'ah forbids her, her husband can be Mekaneh and Mashkeh her.

(Beraisa): "V'Nelam me'Einei Ishah" excludes a blind [husband], who has no [working] eyes.

[The same applies whether] he is blind or she is blind (she does not drink).

The Beraisa is unlike R. Yehudah, for he exempts [a blind person] from all Mitzvos (Aseh - OHR SOMAYACH Hilchos Sotah 2:3) in the Torah. (He would not need a verse to teach that he is not Mashkeh her - SHA'AREI TORAS ERETZ YISRAEL.)

(Mishnah): All (R. Meir and Chachamim) agree that he cannot stipulate to include before Kidushin or after divorce;

If she was secluded after [divorce], was defiled, and [her ex-husband] remarried her, he cannot stipulate with her [about this].

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

(Gemara - R. Yanai): Obviously, a man can pardon his Kinuy.

Question: If he divorced her, is it as if he pardoned his Kinuy?

What is the case? He was Mekanei her, divorced her and remarried her, and she was secluded;

If you will say that divorce is like one who pardoned his Kinuy, he must be Mekanei her a second time. (If not, he cannot be Mashkeh her for seclusion.) If you will say that divorce is like one who did not pardon his Kinuy, he need not be Mekanei her a second time.

However, if he was Mekanei her, and she was secluded, and he knew, and he divorced her and returned her, and she was secluded and she drank, and the water did not test (kill) her, she is Tehorah.

Note: He returned her through Kidushin. He did not have Bi'ah with her, for if so, he is not "Menukah me'Avon", and surely the water would not test her (PF).

Or, since the water does not test a woman forbidden to her husband (there was no Heter to remarry her, due to the Safek, she is forbidden, for perhaps) she is Tamei. (We explained this like PNEI MOSHE.)