1)

(a)Alternatively, the author of the Beraisa 'Shav ve'Sheker Echad Hein' is Rebbi Akiva, and the Beraisa is not talking about Malkos - but about Korban Oleh ve'Yored, which according to Rebbi Akiva, pertains to a Shevu'ah in the past as well as to the future (as we already learned).

(b)The problem with this explanation from the Beraisa itself, which describes Shevu'as Sheker as 'Nishba Lehachlif' (based on Rav Dimi Amar Rebbi Yochanan's interpretation of Shevu'as Shav) is that - this phrase implies a Shevu'ah to change something in the past ('Achalti, ve'Lo Achal' or vice-versa), whereas according to Rav Dimi, Shevu'as Sheker pertains to a Shevu'ah in the future ('Ochal. ve'Lo Achal ... ').

(c)So we amend the Beraisa to read 'Nishba u'Machlif', which means that - he swears that he will or won't eat, and then breaks his oath by doing the opposite.

2)

(a)Ravin Amar ... Rebbi Avahu disagrees with Rav Dimi's interpretation of Rebbi Yochanan. According to him, "ve'Lo Sishav'u vi'Shemi la'Shaker" is the Azharah for 'Achalti, ve'Lo Achal' (or vice-versa), and he interprets 'Sheker' to mean that - at the time that one makes the Shevu'ah, he has already lied.

(b)And he interprets ...

1. ... "Lo Yachel Devaro" as - a Shevu'ah in the future ('Ochal ve'Lo Achal' or vice-versa [as is implied by "Lo Yachel"]).

2. ... "Lo Sisa es Shem Hash-m Elokecha la'Shav" as - a Shevu'ah in the past which everyone knows is false the moment he makes it (where he swears that a stone pillar is made of gold).

3)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan quotes Rebbi Yehudah in the name of Rebbi Yossi, who states that Nishba, Meimar - someone who declares a Temurah [transfers the Kedushah of a Korban on to another animal]) and Mekalel es Chaveiro be'Shem (see Tosfos DH 'Chutz') are exceptions to ...

(b)... the principle - 'La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh, Ein Lokin Alav'.

(c)Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai learns Nishba from "Ki Lo Yenakeh Hash-m ... " (as we explained earlier). When Rav Papa asked Abaye that perhaps what the Pasuk means is that the sin is unpardonable, he replied that - if that were so, the Torah would have written simply "Ki Lo Yinakeh (without the word "Hash-m").

(d)And from the fact that the Torah writes "la'Shav" twice, according to Rebbi Avahu, Rebbi Yochanan learns - that Shevu'as Sheker is Chayav Malkos, too ('Im Eino Inyan li'Shevu'as Shav ... ').

4)

(a)Rebbi Avahu rejects the suggestion that Shevu'as Sheker refers to ...

1. ... 'she'Lo Ochal, ve'Achal' - because it is a La'av she'Yesh bo Ma'aseh', which is subject to Malkos even without a special Pasuk to incorporate it.

2. ... 'she'Ochal, ve'Lo Achal - either because it is a 'La'av she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh' (Rebbi Yochanan) or because it is a 'Hasra'as Safek' (Resh Lakish).

(b)Rebbi Avahu therefore establishes Shevu'as Sheker by - 'Achalti', ve'Lo Achal' or vice-versa.

(c)We know that this case is subject to Malkos - from the extra "la'Shav", as we just explained.

(d)We have proved from Rebbi Avahu's explanation - that Rebbi Yochanan considers 'Achalti ve'Lo Achal' (or vice-versa) to be a Shevu'as Sheker (as Ravin cited from Rebbi Yirmiyah earlier, who in turn, was merely referring to this interpretation of Rebbi Avahu).

5)

(a)Despite the fact that we decline to interpret the extra "la'Shav" as 'Ochal, ve'Lo Achal', because it is a La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh', we accept the interpretation of 'Achalti, ve'Lo Achal ... ' (which is also a La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh') - because the fact that the Torah includes Shevu'as Sheker via the word "la'Shav", indicates that Sheker, like Shav (for which the Torah prescribes Malkos despite the fact that is a La'av she'Ein bo Malkos'), can only refer to the past.

(b)The Beraisa rules that, in a case where someone says 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal Kikar Zu, Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochlenah, Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochlenah, ve'Achlah', assuming he transgresses ...

1. ... be'Meizid - he will receive only one set of Malkos.

2. ... be'Shogeg - he is obligated to bring a Korban Oleh ve'Yored.

(c)In the case of Meizid, he does not receive three sets of Malkos - because of the principle 'Ein Shevu'ah Chalah al Shevu'ah'.

6)

(a)Rebbi Yirmiyah extrapolates from the wording of the Beraisa 'Zu hi Shevu'as Bituy she'Chayavin al Zedonah Makos ve'al Shigegasah Korban Oleh ve'Yored' that - 'Achalti' and 'Lo Achalti' are Patur from Malkos (a Kashya on Rebbi Avahu, who just learned that they are Chayav).

(b)To answer the Kashya, Rebbi Avahu interprets the Beraisa's inherent inference - that 'Achalti' and 'Lo Achalti' are Patur (not from Malkos, but) from a Korban.

(c)And the author of the Beraisa (who holds that 'Achalti' and 'Lo Achalti' are not subject to a Korban, but that they do receive Malkos) is - Rebbi Yishmael (as we learned in the first Perek).

7)

(a)The Seifa of the Beraisa states 'Zu Hi Shevu'as Shav she'Chayavin al Zedonah Makos ve'al Shigegasah Patur' - in a case of Shevu'as Shav (where he changed something that everyone knew to be a fact [as we explained earlier]).

(b)Rebbi Yirmiyah again queries Rebbi Avahu from here - because he again assumes that the Beraisa is coming to preclude 'Achalti' and 'Lo Achalti' from Malkos.

(c)Rebbi Avahu however, again explains that - the Beraisa is coming to incorporate 'Achalti' and 'Lo Achalti' in the Din of Korban ...

(d)... like Rebbi Akiva (who holds that 'Achalti' and 'Lo Achalti' do not receive Malkos, but that they are subject to a Korban, as we explained in the first Perek).

8)

(a)The problem with this is - how we can establish the Reisha of the Beraisa like Rebbi Yishmael, and the Seifa, like Rebbi Akiva.

(b)We finally accept the latter interpretation of the Seifa, but not our earlier interpretation of the Reisha (establishing Rebbi Akiva as the author of the Beraisa), and the Reisha comes to preclude (not 'Achalti' and 'Lo Achalti' from a Korban, but) 'Ochal, ve'Lo Achal' from Malkos.

(c)And the reason that we preclude 'Ochal, ve'Lo Achal' in the Reisha and not 'Achalti, ve'Lo Achal' (see Hagahos ha'Bach) - is because, since the Reisha is talking about the future ('Lo Ochal, ve'Achal'), it is more likely to also preclude a case that pertains to the future.

9)

(a)We suggest that perhaps Rebbi Akiva, who sentences 'Lo Ochal, ve'Achal Kol she'Hu' to Malkos, holds like Rebbi Shimon, who holds (in the Mishnah in Makos) that - the 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai' of 'Shiurin' is confined to the realm of Korbanos, but does not extend to Malkos.

(b)In that case, the reason that Rebbi chose to present the Machlokes specifically here in the case of Shevu'ah is - to teach us the extent of the Rabbanan's opinion, inasmuch as, even though had the person who declared the Shevu'ah specified a 'Kol she'Hu', he would have been Chayav Malkos, now that he did not, they exempt him from Malkos.

(c)Alternatively - (Rebbi Akiva does not on principle, hold like Rebbi Shimon, and) Rebbi only cites the Machlokes here, to teach us that, due to the fact that if the Nishba had specified a 'Kol she'Hu', he would have been Chayav, Rebbi Akiva renders him Chayav even if he did not (but not anywhere else).

10)

(a)Even assuming that Rebbi Akiva holds like Rebbi Shimon, when the Rabbanan in our Mishnah asked him 'Heichan Matzinu Kol Shehu she'Hu Chayav ... ', rather than answer them that he holds like Rebbi Shimon, he preferred to answer 'Heichan Matzinu bi'Medaber she'Hu Chayav ... ', to try to convince them to concede to him at least in the case of Shevu'ah.

(b)Rebbi Akiva rules in the Mishnah in Nazir that - if a Nazir soaked his bread in wine he is Chayav even if the Shi'ur of a 'k'Zayis' is complemented by the bread (because of the principle 'Heter Mitztaref le'Isur', which applies at least in the case of Nazir).

(c)This proves - that Rebbi Akiva does not hold like Rebbi Shimon, who would not need to come on to 'Heter Mitztaref le'Isur' for the Nazir to be Chayav (thereby refuting the alternative interpretation of Rebbi Akiva).

11)

(a)We also refute the previous answer from the Mishnah later in the Perek, where the Tana Kama sentences someone who declares 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal' and who eats Neveilos and T'reifos ... ' to Malkos. Rebbi Shimon rules - that he is Patur.

(b)The problem with the Tana Kama's ruling is - why, seeing as his Shevu'ah covers things that the Torah has already forbidden, it takes effect at all (due to the fact that he is 'Mushba ve'Omeid me'Har Sinai' [and as we have already learned 'Ein Shevu'ah Chalah al Shevu'ah']).

(c)Rav, Shmuel and Rebbi Yochanan establish the Mishnah when he incorporated permitted foods in his Shevu'ah - turning it into an Isur Kolel.

(d)And the basis of the Machlokes between the Chachamim and Rebbi Shimon will then be - whether 'Isur Chal al Isur be'Kolel' by Shevu'os (the Rabbanan) or not (Rebbi Shimon).

12)

(a)Resh Lakish disagrees with the previous group of Amora'im. He establishes the Mishnah by 'Kol she'Hu' - according to the Rabbanan, at least, if he specified it; according to Rebbi Akiva, even if he didn't.

(b)We prove from Resh Lakish that Rebbi Akiva does not hold like Rebbi Shimon (in cases other than Shevu'ah) - because according to Rebbi Shimon (who does not require a Shi'ur for anything), he would already be Mushba ve'Omeid me'Har Sinai even on 'Kol she'Hu' of Neveilos and T'reifos.

(c)The Rabbanan in our Mishnah asked Rebbi Akiva where we find that one is Chayav for a 'Kol she'Hu'. Rebbi Akiva did not answer that we find it ...

1. ... by an ant (for which one receives Malkos even if it is not the size of a 'k'Zayis') - because, due to its Chashivus, a 'Beryah' (a complete creature) is different.

2. ... by Hekdesh - because even though it does not require a 'k'Zayis', it does require the Shi'ur of a P'rutah.

3. ... by Mefaresh (someone who specifies a 'Kol Shehu' in the case of a Shevu'ah) - because, by virtue of the person's declaration, it is Chashuv, in which case it is in the same category as a Beryah.

13)

(a)We ask why Rebbi Akiva did not answer that we find a 'Kol Shehu' by dust, which we initially take for granted, does not require a Shi'ur - because it is not edible.

(b)We try to refute the Kashya and resolve Rava's She'eilah - whether dust requires a Shi'ur or not, simultaneously.

(c)We attempt to achieve this double feat - by trying to extrapolate from the Rabbanan's Kashya that dust does require a Shi'ur after all, thereby resolving Rava's She'eilah as well.

(d)We reject this answer however - by negating the original Kashya, on the grounds that the Machlokes between the Rabbanan and Rebbi Akiva evolves exclusively around things that are edible.

(e)And we conclude that Konamos (Nedarim) are also considered 'Mefaresh' - because, since a Neder ('Konem Kikar Zu alai') does not contain a Lashon of 'Achilah' (the basis of a k'Zayis'), it is also considered 'Mefaresh'.