Talmud for Sotah 65:16
ור' יהודה מכה ככה ורבנן כה ככה לא משמע להו
THE OATH CONCERNING TESTIMONY. [That this may be uttered in any language is derived from] the text: And if any one sin, in that he heareth the voice of adjuration<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 1. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> — in whatever language he hears it. THE OATH CONCERNING A DEPOSIT. [That this may be uttered in any language] is derived from the analogous use of the phrase 'if any one sin' in the oath concerning testimony.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. ibid. 21. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> THE FOLLOWING ARE RECITED IN THE HOLY TONGUE: THE DECLARATION MADE AT THE OFFERING OF THE FIRST-FRUITS, THE FORMULA OF <i>HALIZAH</i>, etc. down to: WHENCE IS IT THAT THE DECLARATION MADE AT THE OFFERING OF THE FIRST-FRUITS [MUST BE IN HEBREW]? [IT IS STATED], AND THOU SHALT ANSWER AND SAY BEFORE THE LORD THY GOD, AND ELSEWHERE IT IS STATED, AND THE LEVITES SHALL ANSWER AND SAY; AS THE LATTER MUST BE IN THE HOLY TONGUE, SO MUST THE FORMER BE IN THE HOLY TONGUE. But whence have we it of the Levites themselves [that they used Hebrew]? — It is derived from the analogous use of the word 'voice' in connection with Moses. Here it is written with a loud voice,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXVII, 14. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> and elsewhere it is written: Moses spake and God answered him by a voice;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XIX, 19. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> as in the latter passage it was in the holy tongue, so also in the other passage it means in the holy tongue. WHENCE IS IT THAT THE FORMULA OF <i>HALIZAH</i> etc. What, then, do the Rabbis make of the word 'thus'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Upon which R. Judah bases the teaching that the formula must be in Hebrew. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> — They require it to indicate that each act<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mentioned in Deut. XXV, 9, viz., loosing the shoe, spitting in his face, and pronouncing the formula. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> invalidates [the ceremony by its omission]. And R. Judah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From where does he derive this teaching? ');"><sup>21</sup></span> — From the use of 'Kakah' instead of koh.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both words signify 'thus'; and since the text has the longer form, he takes it as an indication that the formula must be in Hebrew and also that the omission of an act invalidates the ceremony. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> And the Rabbis? — They draw no inference from the use of 'Kakah' instead of koh.