(Mishnah - R. Yishmael): One is liable (a Korban) only for oaths about the future - "Lehara Oh Leheitiv."

(Beraisa - R. Akiva) Question: "Lehara Oh Leheitiv" connotes oaths of doing harm (to oneself) or benefiting. What is the source to include 'neutral' oaths?

Answer: We learn from "Oh Nefesh."

Question: "Lehara Oh Leheitiv" connotes oaths of the future. What is the source to include oaths of the past?

Answer: We learn from "L'Chol Asher Yevatei."

R. Yishmael says, "Lehara Oh Leheitiv" teaches only oaths of the future.

R. Akiva: What is your source for neutral oaths?

R. Yishmael: Extra words in the verse ("l'Chol Asher Yevatei") include them.

R. Akiva: Just like they include neutral oaths, they include also oaths of the past. (End of Beraisa)

Question: How can R. Yishmael answer R. Akiva's challenge?

Answer (R. Yochanan): R. Yishmael learned from R. Nechunyah ben Hakaneh, who expounds according to Klal u'Frat (general terms and specific terms). R. Akiva learned from Nachum Ish Gam Zu, who expounds according to Ribuy and Mi'ut (inclusions and exclusions);

(Beraisa - R. Akiva): "Oh Nefesh Ki Sishava" is a Ribuy. "Lehara Oh Leheitiv" is a Mi'ut. "L'Chol Asher Yevatei" is another Ribuy;

From a Ribuy, Mi'ut, Ribuy we (initially) include everything, then we exclude one thing, other cases oaths about Mitzvos (Tosfos - also, oaths that do not apply in the positive and negative, and (according to Shmuel) oaths that do not apply to the future).

R. Yishmael expounds according to Klal u'Frat. "Oh Nefesh..." is a Klal. "Lehara Oh Leheitiv" is a Prat. "L'Chol Asher Yevatei" is another Klal;

From a Klal u'Frat u'Chlal we include things similar to the specific, i.e. in the future;

The Klal includes 'neutral' oaths. The Prat excludes oaths, even of benefit or harm, in the past.

Question: Why not say the contrary (and include oaths of the past, but exclude 'neutral' oaths)?

Answer #1 (R. Yitzchak): They should resemble "Lehara Oh Leheitiv", i.e. the Isur (of a false oath) is due to "Lo Yachel Devaro";

The Isur of false oaths of the past is due to "Lo Seshakeru."

Answer #2 (R. Yitzchak bar Avin): "Ki Sishava Levatei" - the Shevu'ah must precede the Bituy (the action he swears about), and not vice-versa;

This excludes 'I ate' or 'I did not eat', for the action preceded the oath.

(Beraisa): "Ha'Adam bi'Shvu'ah" excludes Ones. "V'Nelam" excludes Mezid. "Mi'Menu" - he forgot the oath.

Suggestion: Perhaps he is liable even if he forgot that this is the item he swore about!

Rejection: "Bi'Shvu'ah v'Nelam" - he is liable for forgetting the oath, but not for forgetting the item.

Question: The Beraisa said that "ha'Adam bi'Shvu'ah" excludes Ones. What is the case?

Answer: It is like the case of Rav Kahana and Rav Asi;

After learning from Rav, they argued about what Rav said. Each swore 'this is what Rav said.' Later Rav said like one of them. The other was worried that he had sworn falsely.

Rav: Don't worry. This was Ones. (You swore what you believed was the truth.)

(Beraisa): "Bi'Shvu'ah v'Nelam" - he is liable for forgetting the oath, but not for forgetting the item.

Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael laughed at this;

It is possible to forget the oath and remember the item, e.g. he swore not to eat wheat bread, and thought that he swore 'I will eat', and knowingly ate it;

Objection: How can one remember the oath and forget the item?!

Suggestion: He swore not to eat wheat bread, and thought that he swore not to eat barley bread;

He remembered the oath (that he would not eat), but he forget which item he swore about.

Rejection: Since he forgot which item he swore about, he forgot the oath!

(R. Elazar): The text of the Beraisa is mistaken. Any case of forgetting the item must entail forgetting the oath.

Rebuttal (Rav Yosef): One can forget the item without forgetting the oath!

He swore not to eat wheat bread, and took what he thought was barley bread, but really it was wheat bread!

Question (Abaye): He is liable for what he ate. He did not know that he was eating what he swore about! (A second version in the Gemara asks this same question in different words.)

Answer (Rav Yosef): Since he would not have eaten had he known that it was wheat, this is called forgetting the item.

Question (Rava): If he forget the item and the oath, what is the law?

Answer #1 (Rav Nachman): Since he forgot the oath, he is liable.

Question: Why not say the contrary, since he forgot the item, he is exempt!

Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): It depends. If he would have refrained had he remembered the oath, this is like forgetting the oath, and he is liable;

If he would have refrained had he remembered the item, this is like forgetting the item, and he is exempt.

Objection (Ravina): If he only remembered one of them, he would not refrain!

Answer #3 (Ravina): Rather, the law is the same in both cases. (Rashi - he is exempt; Rashba - Ravina did not decide what the law is.)

Question (Rava): When does one bring a Korban for an oath of Bituy of the past?

If he intentionally swore falsely, he is Mezid!

If he believed that he swore truthfully, he is Ones!

Answer (Rabah): He swore falsely, knowing that this is forbidden, but he did not know whether a Korban is brought for such oaths.

Suggestion: This is like Munvaz, who says that if one knowingly sinned, unaware that a Korban is brought for this transgression, he must bring a Korban.

Rejection: It is even like Chachamim.

Chachamim argue only about Korbanos for other Mitzvos;

We learn from idolatry that Korbanos are brought only for transgressions punishable by Kares (if done b'Mezid);

The Korban for Shevu'as Bituy is a Chidush. Since this is only a Lav, Chachamim agree that forgetting the Korban suffices to obligate a Korban.

Question (Ravina): If one swore not to eat a loaf, and later was in danger of starving and ate it (forgetting that he swore not to eat it), what is the law?

Objection: If he is in danger, he was permitted to eat it. He did not transgress!

Version #1 - Rashi - Correction: Rather, if he swore not to eat a loaf, and was suffering great hunger and ate it, forgetting his oath), what is the law?

Version #2 - Tosfos - Correction: Rather, if he swore not to eat a loaf, and was pained that he remembered his oath (he wished he had forgotten it, for then he could eat it), and ate it, what is the law?

Version #3 - Rambam - Correction: Rather, if he swore not to eat a loaf, and was suffering great hunger and ate it, thinking that this is permitted (due to his pain), what is the law? (end of Version #2)

Answer (Rava - Beraisa): If one would have refrained had he known that he is transgressing, he brings a Korban. One who would have transgressed anyway does not. (Since he would have eaten it anyway (Tosfos - wanted to eat it), he is exempt.)

(Shmuel): It does not suffice to think the oath. He must say it - "Levatei bi'Sfasayim."

Question (Beraisa): "Bi'Sfasayim" - not in the heart;

Question: What is the source (that it is an oath) even if he resolved in his heart?

Answer: We learn from "l'Chol Asher Yevatei."

Objection: This contradicts the Reisha, which said that an oath in the heart is not an oath!

Answer #1 (Rav Sheshes): "Bi'Sfasayim" excludes one who resolved to say an oath, and never uttered it;

If he resolved to accept an oath in his heart, this is binding.

This understanding of the Beraisa argues with Shmuel!

Answer (for Shmuel, and Answer #2 to explain the Beraisa - Rav Sheshes): "Bi'Sfasayim" excludes one who wanted to swear 'I will not eat wheat bread', and he mistakenly said 'I will not eat barley bread';

Question: If he wanted to swear 'I will not eat wheat bread', and he mistakenly swore 'I will not eat bread', what is the source that this is an oath?

Answer: We learn from "l'Chol Asher Yevatei."

Question (Beraisa): "Motzei Sefasecha Tishmor" refers to what he uttered (vows to bring Korbanos);

Question: What is the source (that it is a vow) even if he decided in his heart?

Answer: "Kol Nediv Lev" (donated towards the Mishkan).

Answer: Speech is not needed to make Hekdesh, like we learn from "Kol Nediv Lev", but it is needed for an oath.

Question: We should learn that the same applies to oaths!

Answer #1: We do not learn, because Terumah and Kodshim are Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'in k'Echad (two verses, one of which teaches something that could have been learned from the other, in this case that deciding in the heart is enough). They do not teach about other laws. (Rashi - this refers to Terumas (donations to) ha'Mishkan and Korbanos; Tosfos - it is Terumah (of grain) and Korbanos; R. Chananel, Tosfos ha'Rosh - it is Terumah (of grain) and donations to the Mishkan. For each of these, a Torah verse teaches that speech is not needed.)

Question: This is like the opinion that Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'in k'Echad do not teach about other laws;

According to the opinion that Shnei Kesuvim do teach about other laws, how can we answer?

Answer #2: We do not learn laws of Chulin (oaths) from Kodshim.