(Mishnah): If one said 'I impose an oath on you if you will not testify that Ploni promised to give to me 200 Zuz, and he did not give to me', they (the witnesses) are exempt (for even if this is true, Ploni need not give);

One is liable only for a claim of money that must be paid, similar to a deposit.

If he said 'I impose an oath on you that you will testify for me after you will see testimony', they are exempt, for the oath preceded (seeing) the testimony.

If he said in the Beis ha'Keneses 'I impose an oath on (all of) you, that if you know testimony for me you will testify', they are exempt, (for he did not specify the witnesses);

If he said 'I impose an oath on you, Ploni and Almoni, that if you know testimony for me you will testify', and they swore that they do not, and they had heard testimony from another witness, or one of them was a relative or an invalid witness, they are exempt;

If Reuven (the claimant) sent his slave to ask the witnesses to testify, or the defendant made them swear, they are exempt, because Reuven did not ask them to testify.

(Gemara - Beraisa) Suggestion: If he said 'I impose an oath on you if you will not testify that Ploni promised to give to me 200 Zuz, and did not give to me', perhaps they (the witnesses) are liable!

Rejection: "Secheta-Secheta" teaches that they are liable only for a case similar to Shevu'as ha'Pikadon, i.e. when there is a claim of money (that must be paid).

(Mishnah): If he said 'I impose an oath on you that you will testify for me after you will see testimony, etc.

(Beraisa) Suggestion: If he said 'I impose an oath on you that you will testify for me after you will see testimony', perhaps they are liable!

Rejection: "V'Sham'ah Kol Alah v'Hu Ed" - he must already be a witness at the time of the oath.

(Mishnah): If he said in the synagogue 'I impose an oath on (all of) you... '

(Shmuel): Even if there are witnesses among them, they are exempt.

Objection: This is obvious!

Answer: The Chidush is, even if they are right by him they are exempt;

One might have thought that this is like specifying them. Shmuel teaches that this is not so.

Support (Beraisa) Suggestion: If one saw a throng of people and witnesses were among them, and said 'I impose an oath on you that you will testify for me if you know testimony', perhaps they are liable!

Rejection: "V'Hu Ed" - he must specify the witnesses;

Suggestion: Perhaps even if he said '(I impose an oath on) you that are standing here' they are exempt!

Rejection: "V'Hu Ed" - since he specified the witnesses, they are liable.

(Mishnah): 'I impose an oath on you, Ploni and Almoni... '

(Beraisa) Suggestion: If he said 'I impose an oath on you, Ploni and Almoni, that if you know testimony for me you will testify', and they heard testimony from another witness, or one of them was a relative or an invalid witness, perhaps they are liable!

Rejection: "Im Lo Yagid v'Nasa Avono" - the witnesses must be Kosher to testify.

(Mishnah): He sent his slave...

(Beraisa) Suggestion: If he sent his slave to ask the witnesses to testify, or the defendant made them swear, perhaps they are liable!

Rejection: "Im Lo Yagid v'Nasa Avono" teaches that they are exempt.

Question: How does the verse teach this?

Answer (R. Elazar): The word 'Lo' is written with an 'Aleph' and 'Vav', suggesting that we read it both ways, 'Im Lo Lo Yagid (if he will not tell to him).'

(Mishnah): If he said 'I impose an oath on you', (or) 'I command you', 'I forbid you', they are liable;

If he made them swear by Heaven and earth, they are exempt;

If he made them swear by any of the following, they are liable: 'Aleph-Dalet' (and 'Nun-Yud', the way we pronounce Hash-m's name'), 'Yud-Kei' (Rashi - Hash-m's four-letter name itself; Tosfos ha'Rosh - the first two letters of it), Shakai, Tzevakos, Chanun, Rachum, Erech Apayim, Rav Chesed, or any Kinuy (name that refers to Hash-m).

R. Meir says, one who curses Hash-m with any of these names is liable (Misas Beis Din);

Chachamim exempt.

R. Meir says, one who curses his parents with any of these names is liable (Misas Beis Din);

Chachamim exempt.

One who curses himself or another person with any of these names transgresses a Lav;

'Hashem should strike you (if you will not testify for me)' is the Alah (curse) that the Torah refers to;

R. Meir says, if he said 'Hashem should not strike you', 'Hashem should bless you', or 'Hashem should do good to you (if you will testify for me)', they are liable;

Chachamim exempt.

(Gemara) Question: What is the meaning of 'I impose an oath on you...'?

Answer #1 (Rav Yehudah): 'I impose an oath on you' refers to the oath mentioned in the Torah. 'I command you' refers to the command mentioned in the Torah (in the Parshah of vows). 'I forbid you' - refers to the Isur mentioned in the Torah.

Question (Abaye): R. Chiya taught that if he said 'Kovalchem (I put you in fetters)', they are liable;

We do not find this expression in the Torah!

Answer #2 (Abaye): Rather, each of these expressions ('I impose an oath, I command, I forbid, I put you in fetters') is with an oath (and Hash-m's name).

(Mishnah): With 'Aleph-Dalet', 'Yud-Kei', Shakai, Tzevakos, Chanun, Rachum, Erech Apayim, Rav Chesed...

Inference: Chanun and Rachum are (Kodesh) names of Hash-m.

Contradiction (Beraisa): Some names of Hash-m may be erased. Other names that refer to Him may not;

The following may not be erased - Kel, Eloka, Elokim, Elokeichem, Echyeh Asher Echyeh, 'Aleph-Dalet', 'Yud-Kei', Shakai, and Tzevakos.

The following may be erased - ha'Gadol, ha'Gibor, ha'Nora, ha'Adir, ha'Chazak, ha'Amitz, ha'Izuz, Chanun, Rachum, Erech Apayim, and Rav Chesed.

Answer (Abaye): In our Mishnah, he refers to the One Who is Chanun (gracious) or Rachum (merciful).

Question (Rava): If so, an oath 'by Heaven and earth' should be valid. He refers to 'the Owner of Heaven and earth'!

Answer (Abaye): No. Nothing else is called Chanun (or Rachum), so surely he means 'the One Who is Chanun (or Rachum)';

Regarding Heaven and earth, he made them swear by Heaven and earth themselves!

(Beraisa): If one wanted to write 'Elokim', once he writes 'Aleph-Lamed', these letters (are themselves a name of Hash-m. They are Kodesh, and they) may not be erased. The same applies to 'Yud-Kei' of Hash-m's name;

If he wrote 'Shin-Dalet' from Shakai, ('Aleph-Dalet' from Adon-i - R. Chananel's text puts this in the previous clause, it may not be erased), or 'Tzadi-Beis' from Tzevakos, these letters may be erased;

R. Yosi says, the entire word 'Tzevakos' may be erased, for it is not a name of Hash-m. It refers to Yisrael - "Tziv'osai Es Ami Vnei Yisrael."

(Shmuel): The Halachah does not follow R. Yosi.

(Beraisa): Any letters appended to Hash-m's name, whether before or after it, may be erased;

If 'Lamed', 'Beis', 'Vav', 'Mem', 'Shin', 'Hei', or 'Kaf' is prefixed to Hash-m's name, it may be erased.

The letters 'Nun-Vav', 'Hei-Mem', or 'Chaf-Mem' suffixed to 'Elokei' may be erased.

Others say, letters suffixed may not be erased, because Hash-m's name that precedes them makes them Kodesh.

(Rav Huna): The Halachah follows Others.

All the occurrences of Hash-m's name ('Aleph-Dalet') written regarding Avraham are Kodesh, except for "Adonai Im Na Matzasi Chen b'Einecha" (he was addressing the man (really, angel) in the middle).

Chanina ben Achi R. Yehoshua and R. Elazar ben Azaryah say, even this is Kodesh.

Question: Rav Yehudah taught that hosting guests is greater than receiving the Divine Presence. Like whom is this?

Answer: It is like Chanina and R. Elazar. (Avraham interrupted speaking to Hash-m in order to host guests.)

The occurrences of 'Adonai' written regarding Lot are Chol. Only "Al Na (Hash-m)... Lehachayos Es Nafshi" is Kodesh;

He addressed Hash-m, Who can kill or keep alive.

All the occurrences of Hash-m's name regarding Navos are Kodesh. Those regarding Michah are Chol;

R. Eliezer says, the names 'Yud-Kei' regarding Michah are Kodesh. The names 'Aleph-Lamed' are not, except for "Beis ha'Elokim b'Shilo."

R. Eliezer says, all the occurrences of Hash-m's name written in the war against Binyamin are not Kodesh;

R. Yehoshua says, they are Kodesh.

R. Eliezer: They cannot be Kodesh. Had Hash-m promised Bnei Yisrael victory, he would have fulfilled it (the first time)!

R. Yehoshua: Hash-m did not promise victory, for they did not ask about this, until the last time. (Then, He promised and fulfilled.)

Every 'Shlomo' in Shir ha'Shirim refers to Hash-m (the Owner (or Maker) of Shalom), except for "ha'Elef Lecha Shlomo" - Shlomo had 1000 servants;

"U'Masayim l'Noterim Es Piryo" refers to Chachamim.

Some say, also "Hinei Mitaso Shel Shlomo" is Chol.

Question: Shmuel taught that a king who conscripts a sixth of the population for his work (Rashi; Tosfos - who kills a sixth of the world in optional wars; Rashba - who executes a sixth of his subjects) is not punished - "ha'Elef Lecha Shlomo" (1000 for Hash-m) and "u'Masayim l'Noterim Es Piryo" (200 for the king);

This is not like either Tana (both agree that "ha'Elef Lecha Shlomo" is Chol)!

Correction: Rather, some say that "ha'Elef Lecha Shlomo" is Kodesh, and "Hinei Mitaso Shel Shlomo" is Chol. Shmuel holds like this latter Tana.

Every 'Malkiya' in Daniel is Chol, except for ('Melech' in) "Ant Malka Melech Malkaya..."

Some say, also the following is Kodesh - "Mari Chelma l'Sanach u'Fishrei l'Arach";

Daniel would not say this to Nebuchadnetzar, who hated Yisrael, for if so, Daniel would curse Yisrael!

The first Tana holds that surely Nebuchadnetzar hated also some Nochrim (and Daniel cursed them).

(Mishnah): If he made them swear by any Kinuy of Hash-m, they are liable.

Contradiction (Beraisa): It says (in Parshas Sotah) "l'Alah veli'Shevu'ah", but it already says "bi'Shvu'as ha'Alah"!

It is extra to make a Gezerah Shavah to teach about 'Alah' written about Shevu'as ha'Edus. Just like the Alah of Sotah is a Shevu'ah with Hash-m's name, also that of Shevu'as ha'Edus.

Resolution (Abaye): That Beraisa is R. Chanina bar Idi (and our Mishnah is Chachamim);

(Beraisa - R. Chanina bar Idi): The Torah commands to swear (Rashi - Shevu'as ha'Shomerim; R. Chananel - the oath of Sotah) and not to swear (falsely). It commands to curse (a Sotah), and not to curse (Hash-m or people);

Just like we are commanded to swear and curse with Hash-m's name, we are commanded not to swear and curse with Hash-m's name.

Question: How do Chachamim learn?

If also they learn the Gezerah Shavah, also they should require Hash-m's name!

If they do not learn the Gezerah Shavah, what is their source that Alah is an oath?

Answer: (They do not learn the Gezerah Shavah.) They learn that Alah is an oath as follows;

(Beraisa): 'Alah' means oath, as it says about a Sotah "v'Hishbi'a... bi'Shvu'as ha'Alah."

Question: We cannot learn from there, there it says "Shvu'as ha'Alah'!

Answer: Rather, "v'Hishbi'a... bi'Shvu'as ha'Alah" teaches that Alah is with an oath;

"V'Sham'ah Kol Alah" teaches that ('Alah' written without Shevu'ah is like Alah with Shevu'ah, and - Rashi deletes this from the text) Shevu'ah without Alah is like Shevu'ah with Alah.