1)

(a)When the Beraisa says 'Mivta, Shevu'ah; Isar, Shevu'ah', it means that - 'Mivta Kikar Zu alai' is considered a Shevu'ah. Consequently, if he then eats the loaf, he will have to bring a Korban Oleh ve'Yored, and the same applies to someone who says 'Isar Kikar Zu alai'.

(b)If 'Mivta' and 'Isar' would be considered a Neder - they would not be subject to a Korban Oleh ve'Yored.

(c)The problem with the continuation of the Beraisa 'Isur, Isar, Im Atah Omer Isar, Shevu'ah, Chayav, ve'Im La'av, Patur' is that - having said that 'Isar' is a Lashon Shevu'ah, why does the Tana then express doubts as to whether it is or isn't?

2)

(a)Abaye therefore explains the Beraisa by substituting 'Isar Shevu'ah' with 'Isar Mitfis bi'Shevu'ah' - which means that when the Noder says 'Isar Kikar Zu alai', it is as if he had made a Shevu'ah on a loaf of bread, and then transferred the Isur on to the loaf in front of him (which is known as 'Matfis bi'Shevu'ah').

(b)The Tana's Chidush is that - 'Matfis bi'Shevu'ah' is considered as if he had made an express Shevu'ah (in which case he is subject to a Korban Oleh ve'Yored, should he break it).

3)

(a)Initially, we learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... the word "Levatei" (in the Pasuk in Vayikra "O Nefesh ki Sishava Le'vatei bi'Sefasayim") that - Mivta is a Lashon Shevu'ah.

2. ... the word "Isar" (in the Pasuk in Matos "Kol Neder ve'Chol Shevu'as Isar") that - Isar too is a Lashon Shevu'ah.

3. ... the word "Asrah" (in the Pasuk there "O Asrah Nafshah bi'Shevu'ah") that - Isar is actually considered Matfis bi'Shevu'ah (as we just explained).

(b)The problem with this is that - if that is so, then the Pasuk "le'Chol asher Yevatei ha'Adam bi'Shevu'ah" implies that also Mivta is considered Matfis bi'Shevu'ah.

(c)Therefore, Abaye learns from the Pasuk "ve'Im Hayo Yih'yeh le'Ish u'Nedarehah alehah, O Mivta Sefasehah" - that Mivta is a Lashon Shevu'ah.

(d)This source is better than the previous one - inasmuch as it mentions Mivta as an alternative to Neder, without mentioning Shevu'ah specifically.

4)

(a)Rava interprets the Beraisa differently. According to him, the original wording 'Mivta Shevu'ah, Isar Shevu'ah' remains intact, and he interprets the continuation 'Isro Isar, Im Atah Omer Isar Shevu'ah ... ' to mean that in fact, an 'Isar' can be a Neder and it can be a Shevu'ah, depending on the Lashon that one uses ('Isar she'Lo Ochal Kikar Zu' is a Shevu'ah, 'Isar Kikar Zu alai', a Neder).

(b)And he learns it from the Pasuk in Matos "ve'Im Beis Iyshah Nadarah, O Asrah Isar al Nafshah bi'Shevu'ah" - which deliberately places Isar in between Neder and Shevu'ah, to teach us this distinction.

(c)Rava holds that - 'Matfis bi'Shevu'ah, La'av ke'Motzi Shevu'ah mi'Piv Dami' (Matfis bi'Shevu'ah is not considered as if one had actually declared a Shevu'ah), in which case it is not subject to a Korban Oleh ve'Yored.

(d)The basis of the Machlokes between Abaye and Rava is not a new one. Their original Machlokes is - whether 'Matfis Shevu'ah ke'Motzi Shevu'ah mi'Piv Dami' (Abaye), or ' ... La'av ke'Motzi mi'Piv Dami' (Rava).

5)

(a)We query Rava from a Beraisa, which cites four cases of 'Isar that is said in the Torah'. Two of the cases that the Tana gives to describe Isar are 'she'Lo Ochal Basar ve'she'Lo Eshteh Yayin ke'Yom she'Meis bo Aviv, ke'Yom she'Meis bo P'loni' (or 'Rabo'). The other two are - 'ke'Yom she'Neherag Gedalyah ben Achikam' and 'ke'Yom she'Ra'ah Yerushalayim be'Churbanah'.

(b)Shmuel adds the condition that - he had in fact, made a Neder on those four occasions.

(c)This Beraisa conforms to Abaye's opinion - because if Hatfasah of a Neder is a Neder (see Tosfos DH 'mi'de'Matfis'), Hatfasah of a Shevu'ah ought also to be a Shevu'ah.

(d)The problem with Rava who holds that Hatfasah of a Shevu'ah is not considered a Shevu'ah - Hatfasah of a Neder should not be considered a Neder either?

6)

(a)Rava amends the Lashon 'Eizehu Isar ha'Amur ba'Torah' to read - 'Eizehu Isar Neder ha'Amur ba'Torah' (with reference to Neder, and not to Matfis be'Neder, as we thought until now) ...

(b)... and the Chidush of the Beraisa stems from the Pasuk "Ish ki Yidor li'Nedor Neder la'Hashem" from which we learn that - a Neder only takes affect if one connects it to something that is forbidden through a Neder (but not that is intrinsically forbidden [such as Neveilah]).

(c)And the Chidush lies, not in the case of 'ke'Yom she'Meis bo Aviv' (which is obviously a Davar ha'Nadur), but in that of 'ke'Yom she'Neherag bo Gedalyah ben Achikam' - which, the Tana is coming to teach us, takes effect, even though it is forbidden to eat on that day anyway, because a Neder is effective on a Mitzvah (the Mitzvah to fast on Tzom Gedalyah [even though a Shevu'ah is not]).

(d)We reject the Lashon that attributes the Neder taking effect to the fact that the prohibition is only mi'de'Rabbanan - because the Neder would take effect, even if fasting on Tzom Gedalyah would be a Mitzvah min ha'Torah, for the reason that we just explained.

(e)Rebbi Yochanan too, learned like Rava, because when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael, he quoted him as saying - 'Mivta Lo Ochal lach, Isar Lo Ochal lach, Shevu'ah'.

7)

(a)The basic difference between the Lashon 'Sheker' and that of 'Shav' is that - the former implies breaking one's word, whereas the latter implies deviating from the truth, with no practical consequences.

(b)When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, quoting Rebbi Yochanan, he therefore referred to ...

1. ... Shevu'as Sheker as - a Shevu'ah in the future ('Ochal, ve'Lo Achal'), whose Azharah is - the Pasuk in Kedoshim "ve'Lo Sishav'u vi'Shemi la'Shaker".

2. ... Shevu'as Shav as - a Shevu'ah in the past ('Achalti, ve'Lo Achal'), whose Azharah is - the Pasuk in Yisro "Lo Sisa es Shem Hash-m Elokecha la'Shav".

(c)The significance of this distinction is that - one only receives Malkos, if the witnesses who warn the sinner quote the appropriate Pasuk.

(d)And Rav Dimi learns from the Pasuk in Matos "Lo Yachel Devaro" - the Azharah for Konamos (which are considered Nedarim [though Ravin will dispute this later in the Sugya]).

8)

(a)We query Rav Dimi from the Beraisa 'Shav ve'Sheker Echad Hein'. If both really refer to the past - 'Shav' would refer to a case where everybody knows the Shevu'ah to be false, whereas 'Sheker' refers to things that the public does not know about.

(b)We conclude that in fact, Shav refers to the past and Sheker, to the future (like Rav Dimi Amar Rebbi Yochanan explained), and when the Tana says 'Echad hyein', he means that - Hash-m said ''Shav" and "Sheker" simultaneously.

(c)And we support this answer with a Beraisa, which says the same (that Hash-m 'performed the impossible') - regarding "Zachor and "Shamor" (see Agados Maharsha [see also Rabeinu Chananel]).

9)

(a)We query the comparison between "Zachor" and "Shamor" on the one hand, and 'Shevu'as Sheker' and 'Shevu'as Shav' on the other - on the grounds that the former at least, teaches us something, but what is there to learn from the latter?

(b)We learn from the fact that "Shamor" and "Zachor" were said simultaneously (which is treated like a 'Hekesh') that - just as women are Chayav to keep ''Shamor" (the prohibition of working on Shabbos) so too, are they Chayav to keep "Zachor" (the Mitzvah of reciting Kidush when Shabbos comes in).

(c)We object to the suggestion ('K'lapei Laya?') that here too, we learn Shevu'as Sheker from Shevu'as Shav regarding Malkos - because if anything, it is Shevu'as Sheker that ought to be subject to Malkos (since it incorporates a case where an act is performed ['Lo Ochal, ve'Achal']), whereas Shevu'as Shav (in the past), is a La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh.

(d)So we amend the answer to read that - it is Shevu'as Shav that we learn from Shevu'as Sheker.

10)

(a)We learn Malkos by Shevu'as Shav, from the Pasuk "Ki Lo Yenakeh Hash-m ... " - by inference, since the Pasuk implies that Hash-m will not let the person who swore off the hook, but Beis-Din will, if he is warned by two witnesses and receives Malkos.

(b)This D'rashah is not obvious - because if not for the Hekesh (see Tosfos 'ka Mashma Lan'), we would have interpreted the Pasuk like Rav Papa, who suggested to Abaye that "Lo Yenakeh Hash-m" means that the sinner is unpardonable.