Answer #6 (Ravina): The Tana lists only transgressions that apply to food, oaths apply to other things as well.

Objection: Hekdesh applies to sticks and stones!

Correction: Rather, the Tana only lists transgressions that only apply to tangible things;

Oaths apply to intangible things, e.g. I will sleep (or not sleep).

(Mishnah): Oaths of Bituy apply to one's own things, and to other people's; they apply to tangible and intangible things. The following are oaths of Bituy;

He swore 'I will give (or not give) to Ploni', 'I gave (or did not give) to Ploni', 'I will (or will not) sleep', 'I slept (or did not sleep)', 'I will (or will not) throw a rock into the sea', 'I threw (or did not throw) a rock into the sea.'

R. Yishmael says, one is liable (a Korban) only for oaths regarding the future - "Lehara Oh Leheitiv."

R. Akiva: If so, he should be liable only for doing good or evil. What is the source to include neutral things (e.g. throwing a rock into the sea)?

R. Yishmael: The Torah includes this ("l'Chol Asher Yivatei").

R. Akiva: This includes also oaths about the past!

(Gemara - Beraisa): In some ways, Nedarim are more stringent than Shevu'os. In some ways, Shevu'os are more stringent.

A stringency of Nedarim over Shevu'os is that Nedarim take effect on Mitzvos, just like on optional matters, but Shevu'os do not;

A stringency of Shevu'os over Nedarim is that Shevu'os take effect on intangible things just like on tangible things, but Nedarim do not.

(Mishnah): If Reuven swore 'I will give (or not give) to Ploni... '

Question: What does this mean?

Suggestion: It refers to giving Tzedakah to a poor person.

Rejection: The oath (that Yisrael accepted on Sinai) already obligates him - "Nason Titen Lo" (so his oath does not takes effect)!

Rather, it refers to a gift to a rich person.

(Mishnah): 'I will (or will not) sleep.'

Question: R. Yochanan taught that if one swears 'I will not sleep for three days', we lash him (for a Shav oath) and he may sleep immediately!

Answer: That is when he specified three days. Here, he did not specify (Rashba - he intends, 'I will not sleep until I must') R. Chananel, Rosh - he specified one or two days).

(Mishnah): 'I will (or will not) throw a rock into the sea.'

(Rav): If one said 'I swear that Ploni threw (or did not throw) a rock into the sea', he is liable (for an oath of Bituy if this is false);

(Shmuel): He is exempt.

Rav obligates. Since the oath applies in the positive and negative, it is Bituy;

Shmuel exempts. Since it does not apply to the future, it is not Bituy.

Suggestion: They argue like the following Tana'im argue.

(Mishnah - R. Yishmael): One is liable for oaths of Bituy only for the future;

R. Akiva: If so, he should be liable only for doing good or evil. What is the source to include neutral things (e.g. throwing a rock into the sea)?

R. Yishmael: The Torah includes this ("l'Chol Asher Yivatei").

R. Akiva: This includes also oaths about the past!

Rav holds like R. Akiva, and Shmuel holds like R. Yishmael.

Rejection: Indeed, we must say that Rav holds like R. Akiva;

R. Yishmael cannot agree to Rav's law, for R. Yishmael exempts (all) oaths of the past, even those that could apply to the future, and all the more oaths that could not apply to the future!

However, R. Akiva could agree to Shmuel's law;

We know that R. Akiva obligates only for oaths of the past that could apply to the future. Perhaps he exempts for oaths that could not apply to the future!

Suggestion: Rav and Shmuel argue like the following Tana'im do.

(Mishnah): If one swore not to fulfill a Mitzvah and he fulfilled it, he is exempt;

If he swore to fulfill a Mitzvah and did not fulfill it, he is exempt.

One might have thought to obligate, like R. Yehudah ben Beseira.

R. Yehudah ben Beseira says, if one is liable for (transgressing) an oath about Reshus (something optional), which he is not forced to do due to the oath of Sinai, and all the more so for an oath to fulfill a Mitzvah, which he is must fulfill due to the oath of Sinai!

Chachamim: No. He is liable for an oath about Reshus, because such an oath could be made in the positive or negative;

He is exempt for an oath to fulfill a Mitzvah, because such an oath can be made only in the positive, but not in the negative!

Rav holds like R. Yehudah ben Beseira, and Shmuel holds like Chachamim.

Rejection: Indeed, we must say that Shmuel holds like Chachamim.

R. Yehudah ben Beseira obligates an oath even if it does not apply to the negative, and all the more so if (it applies to the negative but) not to the future!

However, Chachamim could agree to Rav's law.

Chachamim say that one is liable only for an oath that could be made in the positive or negative, like we explicitly learn from "Lehara Oh Leheitiv";

Perhaps they do not require that it can be in the past or future, since this is not explicit in the Torah. We learn Shevu'as Bituy in the past only through expounding.

Question (against Shmuel - Rav Hamnuna - Mishnah): If Reuven said 'I did not eat today', or 'I did not don Tefilin today', and Shimon said 'I impose an oath on you', and Reuven answered 'Amen', he is liable (if he lied).

Granted, he is liable for 'I did not eat', for he could swear for the future (I will eat);

However, why is he liable for 'I did not don Tefilin'? He could not swear 'I will not don Tefilin', for the oath of Sinai obligates him to don Tefilin!

Answer (Rav Hamnuna): There are different liabilities for the two oaths;

For 'I did not eat', he is (even) liable to bring a Korban (if he did not know the punishment for swearing falsely);

For 'I did not don Tefilin', he is lashed (if he was warned not to swear falsely and did so b'Mezid).

Question (against Shmuel - Rava - Mishnah): Shevu'as Shav is swearing to negate what people know to be true, e.g. about a stone pillar that it is of gold.

(Ula): He is liable only if three people know that this is false.

Inference: If people do not know, this is Bituy, even though it does not apply to the future (to say 'it will be of gold')!

Answer (Rava): (Ula means that) if people know, the oath is Shav;

If people do not know, this is a false oath (but he is not liable for Bituy).

(Abaye): Rav admits that if one swore falsely 'I know testimony for you', he is exempt, because the negative version of this (I do not know testimony for you) is not Bituy, rather Shevu'as ha'Edus.

Rav and Shmuel argue about 'I knew testimony for you' and 'I did not know testimony for you' (in situations where the testimony is no longer needed), and about 'I testified for you' and 'I did not testify for you.' (Rav obligates, and Shmuel exempts. These oaths apply to the positive and negative, but not to the future. It is not in his control to know testimony or not, and if he knows, he is commanded to testify.)

According to Shmuel, 'I do not know testimony for you' is not Bituy, since it does not apply to the future. This is why the Torah had to write the Parshah of Shevu'as ha'Edus, to obligate a Korban for this.

Question: According to Rav, it is Bituy even though it does not apply to the future. Why did the Torah need to write the Parshah of Shevu'as ha'Edus to obligate a Korban?

Answer #1 (Rabanan): This obligates him a second Korban.

Rejection (Abaye - Beraisa): "L'Achas me'Eleh" - he brings only one Korban.

Question: How does Abaye answer?

Answer #2 (Beraisa): Regarding the other transgressions for which one brings an Oleh v'Yored, it says 'v'Ne'elam', but not regarding Shevu'as ha'Edus. This teaches that one brings a Korban for Shevu'as ha'Edus even if he was Mezid.

Suggestion (Rabanan): Perhaps he brings one Korban if he sinned b'Mezid, and two if he sinned b'Shogeg!

Rejection (Abaye): I already taught "l'Achas me'Eleh" - he brings only one Korban;

This teaches when he sinned b'Shogeg. If he was Mezid, he cannot bring a Korban for Bituy, and no verse is needed to exclude bringing two Korbanos.

(Rava): "L'Achas me'Eleh" is not needed for Shevu'as ha'Edus. (Rather, it teaches about one who swore not to eat and ate three types of food);

Whenever the Torah gives new laws to a particular case that was part of a general rule (e.g. 'I do not know testimony for you', which was a Shevu'ah of Bituy, was given the name and special laws of Shevu'as ha'Edus), the laws of the general rule no longer apply.

Inference: Abaye holds that it is also considered Bituy.

Question: Abaye said that Rav admits that 'I know testimony for you' is exempt (from Bituy) because 'I do not know testimony for you' is not Bituy!

Answer #1: Abaye retracted from saying that Rav admits.

Answer #2: One of these two teachings was actually said by Rav Papa (and mistakenly attributed to Abaye).