1)

(a)Our Mishnah incorporates issues that concern others in the Din of Shevu'as Bituy, as well as issues that concern the Nishba himself. The four cases of Shevu'as Bituy listed by the Tana Kama that concern others are - 'I swear that I will give P'loni' and 'I swear that I will not give P'loni' - ' ... that I gave P'loni ' and ' ... that I did not give P'loni'.

(b)The Tana also incorporates 'Devarim she'Ein bahen Mamash' (also each consisting of the same four cases) - things that are neither good nor bad.

(c)One example of What are the two connotations of 'Devarim she'Ein bahen Mamash' is 'I swear that I will (or will not, did or did not) toss a pebble into the sea'. The other is - 'I swear that I will (or will not, did or did not) sleep (for a short period of time).

2)

(a)Rebbi Yishmael learns from "Lehara O Leheitiv" that - one is only Chayav a Korban Oleh ve'Yored for a Shevu'ah of the future, but not for one of the past (as we have already learned).

(b)He conceded to Rebbi Akiva that Devarim she'Ein bahen Mamash - are subject to a Korban Oleh ve'Yored.

(c)When the latter asked him for his source for his second statement he said it was a 'Ribuy ha'Kasuv' - "le'Chol asher Yevatei" ...

(d)... prompting Rebbi Akiva to ask that if so - the same Pasuk ought to include Shevu'os in the past as well, so why did he concede the one, and not the other?

3)

(a)The Beraisa weighs up Shevu'os and Nedarim. The Chumra of ...

1. ... Nedarim over Shevu'os is that - they are valid on a D'var Mitzvah (whereas Shevu'os are not).

2. ... Shevu'os over Nedarim is that - they take effect even on abstract issues (as we learned in our Mishnah [whereas Nedarim do not]).

(b)When the Tana says that Nedarim take effect on a Mitzvah, he is referring to where the Noder said (for example) - 'Konem Succah she'Ani Oseh', or 'Konem Lulav she'Ani Notel'.

4)

(a)When our Mishnah presents the case of ...

1. ... 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Etein le'Ish P'loni', he cannot be referring to giving Tzedakah to a poor man - since he is already Mushba ve'Omeid me'Har Sinai (via the Pasuk in Re'ei "Nason Titen lo"), in which case his Shevu'ah would not be valid.

2. ... 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ishan', he cannot be referring to never sleeping at all - because Rebbi Yochanan has already taught us that if someone swears that he will not sleep for three days, he is permitted to sleep immediately, and he receives Malkos ...

(b)... because, seeing as it is impossible to go three days without sleep, it is a Shevu'as Shav, which is not valid.

(c)Consequently, he must be referring ...

1. ... in the former case - to giving a gift to a wealthy man.

2. ... in the latter case - to not sleeping for less than three days.

5)

(a)If Reuven declares 'Shevu'ah she'Zarak (or she'Lo Zarak) P'loni Tz'ror le'Yam', Rav declares him Chayav Malkos for a Shevu'as Bituy (should he contravene his Shevu'ah), seeing as it is subject to both 'La'av ve'Hein'. Shmuel disagrees with him - because it is only subject to the past, but not to the future, since Reuven has no control over what Shimon does (which renders it a case of Shevu'as Shav, and not a Shevu'as Bituy).

(b)We try to link this Machlokes with the Machlokes Tana'im in our Mishnah - in which case, Rav will hold like Rebbi Akiva (who does not require a Shevu'ah Bituy to necessarily pertain to the past) and Shmuel like Rebbi Yishmael (who does).

(c)We reject this suggestion however, with the words 'Aliba de'Rebbi Yishmael Kuli Alma Lo P'ligi' - meaning that there is no question that Rav cannot conform to the opinion of Rebbi Yishmael (and that Rav's statement is therefore a Machlokes Tana'im).

(d)... because if, even when the Shevu'ah does pertain to the future, the latter precludes a similar Shevu'ah in the past from a Shevu'as Bituy, how much more so where it does not.

(e)And we conclude they argue over the opinion of Rebbi Akiva. Rav maintains that the latter holds like him, whereas Shmuel maintains that Rebbi Akiva too, will agree with him - because (unlike the case in the Mishnah), the Shevu'ah cannot apply to the future, and therefore it will not apply to the past either.

6)

(a)So we try to link the Machlokes between Rav and Shmuel with the Machlokes cited in the next Mishnah, where the Tana Kama rules that someone who swears to contravene a Mitzvah and then breaks his word - is Patur (because his Shevu'ah is not valid).

(b)Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira rules that someone who swears to fulfill a Mitzvah and then breaks his word - is Chayav (because of Shevu'as Bituy) ...

(c)... 'Kal va'Chomer from a Shevu'as R'shus, which is valid even though it does not have the backing of a Shevu'ah at Har Sinai.

(d)The Rabbanan counter Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira's argument, in that - whereas a Shevu'as R'shus is 'be'Hein ve'La'av', a Shevu'as Mitzvah is not (and therefore it is not valid).

7)

(a)We now try to link the Machlokes between Rav and Shmuel with that of Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira and the Rabbanan - inasmuch as Rav, who does not require le'Haba and le'she'Avar, holds like Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira, who does not require 'Hein ve'La'av', and Sh'muel (who does ... ) holds like the Rabbanan (who do ... ).

(b)We conclude however, that they do not argue over Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira's opinion. Shmuel cannot possibly hold like Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira - because if the latter doesn't require Hein ve'La'av (where the Torah writes explicitly 'Lehara O Leheitiv'), then he certainly will not require 'Le'Haba and Le'she'Avar' (which we only learn from a 'Ribuy').

(c)Rav maintains that the Rabbanan will agree with him (and not require 'le'Haba' and 'le'she'Avar') - because unlike 'La'av ve'Hein' (which they require because it is written explicitly, as we just explained), it is only learned from a Ribuy.

8)

(a)Rav Hamnuna queries Shmuel from a Mishnah later in the Perek, which rules that if someone declares 'Lo Achalti Ha'yom, ve'Lo Hinachti Tefilin Ha'yom!' 'Mashbi'acha', ve'Amar 'Amen' - he is Chayav'.

(b)... posing a Kashya on Shmuel - from the case of Tefilin, which does not apply to the future (because it is a case of 'Nishba Levatel es ha'Mitzvah').

(c)We answer that the Mishnah is learned 'li'Tzedadin meaning that - we split the Mishnah into two in that 'Lo Achalti' is Chayav a le'Korban (because it is a Shevu'as Bituy), whereas 'Lo Hinachti Tefilin' receives Malkos (because it is a Shevu'as Shav).

9)

(a)The Tana there also discusses a case of Shevu'as Shav ('Nishba Leshanos es ha'Yadu'a le'Adam'). According to Shmuel - three people need to have known about it for it to fall under the category of Shevu'as Shav.

(b)Rava extrapolates from there that - if three people did not know about it ('Lo Nikar'), then it would be a Shevu'as Bituy, creating a Kashya on Shmuel - since such a Shevu'ah (that a stone pillar should become gold) does not pertain to the future.

(c)Rava himself answers the Kashya, by establishing 'Lo Nikar' (not as a Shevu'as Bituy, but) - as a Shevu'as Shav.

10)

(a)Abaye rules that if Reuven says to Shimon 'Shevu'ah she'Ani Yode'a Lach Eidus', and it turns out that he doesn't, he is not Chayav for Shevu'as Bituy, even according to Rav - because it is not 'be'Hein ve'La'av' (and Rav only argues with Shmuel by 'le'she'Avar u'Lehaba')

(b)He says about 'Shevu'ah ...

1. ... she'Yada'ti lach Eidus' or she'Lo Yada'ti lach Eidus' or ...

2. ... He'adti' or 'Lo He'adti' that - Rav and Shmuel argue over that (seeing as it does not apply to the future (as we learned above).

(c)Even though the Torah writes Shevu'as Bituy and Shevu'as Eidus under the same La'av in Vayikra, we have no problem with the Torah mentioning the latter independently, according to Shmuel - because Shevu'as Bituy will not apply to Shevu'as ha'Eidus anyway (seeing as it does not pertain to the future).

(d)The problem, according to Rav (who does not require 'le'she'Avar u'le'Haba' is - seeing as the Nishba is already Chayav because of Shevu'as Bituy, why does the Torah then need to add Shevu'as ha'Eidus?

11)

(a)The Rabbanan in front of Abaye tried to answer the Kashya - by declaring him Chayav both Shevu'as Bituy and Shevu'as ha'Eidus.

(b)Abaye retorted - that the Torah specifically precludes such a ruling from the word "le'Achas" (in the Pasuk "Vehayah ki Ye'sham le'Achas me'Eileh"), which precludes being Chayav for two Shevu'os simultaneously.

(c)So Abaye answers the Kashya on Rav with a Beraisa, which states 'be'Chulan Ne'emar "ve'Ne'elam", ve'Ka'n Lo Ne'emar "ve'Ne'elam", by which the Tana means - that in connection with all the cases of Shevu'as Bituy, the Torah writes "ve'Ne'elam" (confining the Chiyuv Korban Oleh ve'Yored to a case of Shogeg), whereas by Shevu'as ha'Eidus it does not, thereby equating Meizid like Shogeg, which explains why the Torah needs to add Shevu'as ha'Eidus.

(d)When the Rabbanan suggested that perhaps "Achas" pertains specifically to Meizid, who will therefore be Chayav only one set of Malkos (for Shevu'as Eidus), but not to Shogeg, who will be Chayav two Korbanos (a Korban Oleh ve'Yored for Shevuas Bituy as well), Abaye replied that - Meizid does not require the D'rashah of "Achas", seeing as Meizid is not subject to Shevu'as Bituy anyway.

12)

(a)According to Rava, we do not need "Achas" to teach us that Shevu'as Eidus is not Chayav because of Shevu'as Bituy as well - because it is a 'Davar she'Hayah bi'Chelal ve'Yatza Lidon be'Davar he'Chadash I Atah Yachol Lehachziro li'Chelalo ... ' ...

(b)... which means that, seeing as the Torah introduced the Chidush of Shevu'as ha'Eidus to the existing case of Shevu'as Bituy, one is no longer Chayav for Shevu'as Bituy (unless the Torah would specifically reinstate it).

(c)According to Rava, "Achas" comes to teach us that - if someone says 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal', and then eats wheat bread, barley bread and spelt bread, he will only receive one set of Malkos.

13)

(a)Abaye disagrees with Rava. According to him, the Shevu'as Bituy is not automatically precluded from a case of Shevu'as Eidus. Despite the fact that the Torah anyway writes "Achas", the difference between Abaye and Rava will be - in a case where Shevu'as Eidus is not applicable (if the Nishba was Pasul le'Eidus or where he declared the Shevu'ah outside Beis-Din). In such a case, he will be Chayav because of Shevu'as Bituy according to Abaye, but not according to Rava.

(b)This creates a problem with Abaye's earlier statement 'Shevu'ah she'Ani Yode'a Lach Eidus ve'Ishtakach de'Lo Yada Patur, Ho'il ve'Leiseih be'Eini Yode'a' - which implies that in a case of Shevu'as ha'Eidus, there is no Shevu'as Bituy at all (whereas we just explained that there is).

(c)Initially, we reply - that Abaye retracted from that statement.

(d)Alternatively - we attribute one of Abaye's two statements to Rav Papa (and Abaye never actually said it at all).