1)

(a)Rebbi learned Shevu'os after Makos - because of the case cited there at the end of the Masechta where the Tana sentences someone two sets of Malkos for shaving his Pe'os, and five for shaving the corners of his beard, which bears a similarity to the 'Shetayim she'Hein Arba' in our Mishnah.

(b)Despite the fact that the opening Mishnah in Shabbos, which also deals with the two 'Yetzi'os' which are four, does not mention the three other cases of 'Shetayim she'Hein Arba', our Mishnah mentions it - because 'Yedi'os ha'Tum'ah' is similar to 'Shevu'os', inasmuch as (besides the similarity of 'Shetayim she'Hein Arba') both appear together in the Parshah of Korban Oleh ve'Yored. And once the Tana mentions two of the cases, it makes sense to insert the other two as well.

(c)And in spite of having opened with 'Shevu'os Shetayim she'Hein Arba', the Tana then goes on to discuss Yedi'os ha'Tum'ah first - because the details surrounding it are more brief, taking up only two chapters of the Masechta, as opposed to Shevu'os, which take up the remaining five.

2)

(a)We have a problem with establishing the author of our Mishnah, because ...

1. ... Rebbi Yishmael disagrees with the Mishnah's 'Shetayim she'Hein Arba' by Shevu'os - inasmuch as, in his opinion, the two cases of the past are not included in the Din of Korban Oleh ve'Yored.

2. ... Rebbi Akiva disagrees with the Mishnah's 'Shetayim she'Hein Arba' by Tum'ah - inasmuch as, in his opinion, one is not Chayav for He'elam Mikdash (only on He'elam Tum'ah).

(b)We reject the initial suggestion that either Tana could be the author, and two of the cases are Chayav a Korban Oleh ve'Yored, whereas two are indeed Patur - because, since the Tana presents all four cases in the same breath, as it were, we can assume that they all follow the same pattern and, in the case of 'Shetayim she'Hein Arba' of Mar'os Nega'im, all four cases are Chayav.

(c)To establish the Mishnah like Rebbi Yishmael, we therefore establish the case of Chayav le'she'Avar by Meizid and with regard to a Chiyuv Malkos (and not by Shogeg, with regard to Chiyuv Korban, as we learned until now).

3)

(a)The definition of ...

1. ... a Shevu'as Shav is - a Shevu'ah that changes a commonly-known fact (that a man is a woman or that a stone is gold).

2. ... a Shevu'as Sheker is - a false Shevu'ah, that changes something that is not commonly known (that he ate something when one didn't, or vice-versa).

(b)We learn from the fact that in Yisro, the Torah writes "la'Shav" twice that - a Shevu'as Sheker receives Malkos just like a Shevu'as Shav.

(c)Rava qualifies this however - by confining it to the past ('Achalti' or 'Lo Achalti' [the source for establishing our Mishnah like Rebbi Yishmael]).

(d)We would have thought that he is Patur from Malkos in such a case - because it is a 'La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh'. Note, that Malkos for a Shevu'as Shav (even though it is a 'La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh', is a 'Gezeiras-ha'Kasuv' as we will learn in the third Perek).

4)

(a)The problem with establishing 'Shevu'os Shetayim she'Hein Arba' by Malkos, with regard to the case of 'Shevu'os Shetayim' in the future, where one made a Shevu'ah to eat something, and then failed to do so is - that it is a 'La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh' (even though it is not incorporated in the D'rashah of "la'Shav", as we just explained), so why is it subject to Malkos?

(b)To answer this Kashya, we establish that Rebbi Yishmael holds - 'La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh, Lokin alav'.

(c)We reconcile this with the Sugya in 'Eilu Hein ha'Lokin' which rules that, according to Rebbi Yishmael, Chayvei Asei are not subject to Malkos, because the Torah writes "La'asos" (implying that he holds 'La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh, Ein Lokin alav') - by bearing in mind that a. it is not Rebbi Yishmael himself who is speaking there, and b. that our Sugya will later retract from this explanation, and reinstate our Mishnah by Korban, according to Rebbi.

5)

(a)In Makos we cited a Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish in connections with someone who takes an oath to eat a loaf of bread on that day and fails to keep it. According to Resh Lakish, he will not receive Malkos because it is a Hasra'as Safek. According to Rebbi Yochanan - because it is a La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh.

(b)This statement of Rebbi Yochanan clashes with his current interpretation of Rebbi Yishmael - inasmuch as the latter is a S'tam Mishnah, and Rebbi Yochanan always follows the ruling of a S'tam Mishnah.

(c)We answer - that Rebbi Yochanan found another S'tam Mishnah that holds 'La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh, Ein Lokin alav'.

(d)We refute the initial suggestion that the Mishnah concerned is the Mishnah in Makos 'Aval ha'Mosir be'Tahor ... Eino Lokeh' - on the grounds that the author there may well not be Rebbi Ya'akov (who, in a Beraisa, explains that Nosar does not receive Malkos because it is a 'La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh'), but Rebbi Yehudah who, in the same Beraisa, gives the reason as ...

(e)... 'La'av ha'Nitak la'Asei, Ein Lokin Alav'.

6)

(a)So we cite another S'tam Mishnah in support of Rebbi Yochanan's ruling. The Mishnah in the third Perek rules that if someone who declares 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal Kikar Zu, Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochlenah' and subsequently eats the loaf, he will receive - only one set of Malkos.

(b)We extrapolate from the Tana's following statement 'Zu Hi Shevu'as Bituy she'Chayavin al Zedonah Makos ve'Al Shigegasah Korban Oleh ve'Yored' - that a case of 'Ochal ve'Lo Achal' is not subject to Malkos at all, because it is a 'La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh'.

(c)We counter the Kashya why Rebbi Yochanan sees fit to rule like the later S'tam Mishnah and not like the earlier one - by asking how in the first place, Rebbi can contradict himself from one S'tam to another.

(d)We answer both Kashyos with one stroke - by explaining that, after writing the first S'tam (which holds 'La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh, Lokin alav'), Rebbi changed his mind, which is why he inserted the second one. And that is how Rebbi Yochanan rules.

(e)The reason that Rebbi declined to remove the first S'tam is - because it was already ingrained in the minds of the Talmidim. So he left it intact, relying that people would draw the obvious conclusions (that he retracted from the first S'tam, and that the Halachah is like the second one).