Nor as a widow waiting for my yavam, nor when married - and if she was his yevamah and he married her and warned her, and she secluded herself, he can extend an oath onto her that she was not defiled while she was a "shomeret yavam". A "shomeret yavam" is one who is anticipating and waiting for her yavam to marry her through levirate marriage. ["Shomeret" is] in the sense of "and his father kept the matter in mind" [Genesis 37:11] and "You would not keep watch over my sin" [Job 14:16].

Amen that I did not become defiled - that is the acceptance of the oath; and if I did become defiled, let [the waters] come into me -- that is the acceptance of the curse, corresponding to the way that [the priest] administered the oath to her that was described earlier in the Gemara [Sotah 18a:12]: "I administer an oath to you that you were not defiled and that if you were defiled [all these curses] will come upon you". And this is the elaboration of [the clause] "amen on the oath; amen on the curse" that was stated in the beginning of the Mishna.

Amen that I will not become defiled - that if she will become defiled after some time, the water will destabilize her after she becomes defiled, as is taught in the Baraita in the Gemara [Sotah 18b:12].

Nor with regard to after she becomes divorced etc. - and even according to Rabbi Meir, who says that he does stipulate with her on future events.

And became defiled - during the period in which she was divorced, since she is only forbidden to return to [her original husband] if she was married [to someone else] by betrothal -- when it says "Then the first husband who divorced her shall not take her [into his household] to become his wife again" [Deuteronomy 24:4], it is referring to after betrothal and marriage, as it says "and becomes [the wife] of another man, then this latter man rejects her" [Deuteronomy 24:2-3].

Gemara. Who committed adultery - while she was a widow awaiting her yavam.

She becomes forbidden to her yavam - just as a woman who commits adultery while married to her husband becomes forbidden to her husband.

From the fact that the mishna teaches "nor as a widow waiting for my yavam" - [from the fact that] he administers an oath to her regarding adultery that she may have committed while she was a widow awaiting her yavam.

Granted, if you say - that if she committed adultery she is forbidden to him -- that is why he can stipulate through "extension [of an oath]" even regarding that adultery. But if you say that etc. ...

Betrothal does not take effect - for a woman who is forbidden by negative mitzva [alone] to the one who betroths her. But the Rabbis argue, and say that it is only with those [forbidden unions] punishable by karet where the betrothal does not take effect; but with those forbidden by negative mitzva [alone], [the betrothal] does take effect. Therefore according to Rabbi Akiva, [unions] forbidden by serious negative mitzvot are equated to [unions] punishable by karet with respect to the additional prohibitions devolving thereof, [such as the ruling that] the offspring [of such unions] is a mamzer. Regarding becoming prohibited to her husband, too -- just when one has sexual intercourse with a married woman, which is punishable by karet, the woman becomes forbidden to her husband, so too when one has sexual intercourse with a widow waiting for her yavam, which is forbidden [by the negative mitzva] "the wife of the deceased shall not become that of another party, outside the family" [Deuteronomy 25:5] -- she will become forbidden to her yavam.

Is considered to be - with respect to unions forbidden by a negative mitzva

Like a woman forbidden to him - for which [the punishment would be] karet.

Their first marriage - such as if he divorced her, remarried her, and then warned her and she secluded herself.

Concerning the marriage of his brother, what is the halakha - [do we] extend [the oath to include] adultery while married to his brother? Because that which was taught in the mishna -- "when I was betrothed, married, a widow waiting for my yavam or married [through levirite marriage]" [Sotah 18a:13] -- was not referring to one woman whom the yavam would make drink and swear about [the period of] betrothal and marriage to [the husband's] brother, but rather was referring to individual cases: if it a husband who is making her drink, he can stipulate with her about [the time when she was] betrothed and married; if it is a yavam who married her who is making her drink, he can stipulate with her about [the time when she was] a widow waiting for her yavam and married [through levirite marriage].

Therefore he may indeed stipulate with her concerning any case in which she would become forbidden - and she would have become forbidden to him forever on account of her committing adultery during the first period of marriage. The same applies to adultery committed during the period of her marriage to his brother, as is stated in the first chapter [Sotah 2a:3]: "And if her husband dies she performs ḥalitza and may not enter into levirate marriage"

When Rabbi Meir said: Amen that I will not become defiled in the future, it did not - enter his mind that she would be evaluated [by the water] now on [events that might take place in] the future.

Will destabilize her - they will return to her throat, like a person who chokes on a liquid appears to gargle. It is the term [expressed in the verse] "they raise a cry of anguish" [Isaiah 15:5].

Concerning a later marriage - according to Rabbi Meir who said that he may stipulate about the future, can he stipulate with her using "extension of an oath" that she will not defile herself, if he will divorce her and remarry her and defile herself?

And afterward her husband took her back - the reason [he may not stipulate with her] is because she was defiled during the time she was divorced, which does not cause her to become forbidden to him. But he may indeed stipulate now [as to a case where] she was defiled after he took her back.

The law of jealousy - one law for all jealousies -- that for all [incidents] he may act with her according to this law.

Rabbi Yehuda says [the word] "this" - is a restrictor: this one, but not another one.

Ditch digger - to bring water into the fields and roads for the pilgrims.

With regard to two men - if her husband who made her drink dies, and she was married to another man, and he warned her and she secluded herself -- we accepted Neḥunya's testimony that the second [husband] makes her drink, because Rabbi Yehuda interprets "this" as a restrictor -- that she does not drink and repeat on account of the first husband warning her again; and he interprets "law of" as an amplifier -- that she drinks a second time on account of her second husband. And because Rabbi Yehuda says that she drinks again on account of the second husband, it implies that the first tanna would hold that even the first husband can make her drink twice. Thus we will ask "but according to the first tanna, isn't it written "this"? What does [the first tanna] consider that to exclude?