1)

(a)Our Mishnah defines a 'Shevu'as Shav' - as one that negates something that people know, such as swearing that a stone pillar is made of gold, or that a specific man is a woman (or vice-versa).

(b)The Tana rules that if someone swears that ...

1. ... he saw a flying camel - or that he saw a snake as large as the beam of the olive-press, he is guilty of a Shevu'as Shav, who is Chayav Malkos be'Meizid, but Patur be'Shogeg, and the same will apply to someone who swears that ...

2. ... he will not testify on Shimon's behalf, that he will not make a Succah or shake Lulav on Succos, or that he will not put on Tefilin, which all fall under the category of 'Nishba Levatel es ha'Mitzvah.

(c)What all these cases have in common is that - they all fall under the category of 'impossible'.

(d)The Tana rules that in a case where someone first swears that he will eat a loaf of bread, and then swears that he will not, in the event that he ...

1. ... eats it - he has transgressed the second Shevu'ah, which is a Shevu'as Shav.

2. ... does not eat it - he has transgressed the first Shevu'ah, which is a Shevu'as Bituy.

2)

(a)According to Ula, in order to transform the Shevu'ah from a Shevu'as Sheker into a Shevu'as Shav - three people must know what the pillar is really made of.

(b)The problem with the Lashon of our Mishnah 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ra'isi Gamal Pore'ach be'Avir' is that - it ought rather to have said 'Shevu'ah she'Ra'isi'.

(c)Abaye therefore amends it to read - 'Shevu'ah she'Ra'isi'.

(d)Rava explains that what he really said to say was - 'Ye'asru Kol Peiros she'be'Olam alai Im Lo Ra'isi ... ' (see Tosfos DH 'be'Omer').

3)

(a)We learned in a Beraisa that when Beis-Din make someone swear a Shevu'as ha'Dayanim, they specify that the Shevu'ah is not according to what he thinks, but according to what they think ('al Da'ateinu ve'al Da'as Beis-Din'). Initially we think that Beis-Din are afraid that he may abuse words, to give them meanings that he has adapted (like a debtor referring to the wooden cubes that he gave his creditor as money).

(b)Based on this Beraisa, Ravina asked Rav Ashi why, in the Mishnah of 'Gamal ha'Pore'ach be'Avir' too - we do not validate the Shevu'ah on the grounds that perhaps he saw a large bird, which he referred to as a 'flying camel'.

(c)Rav Ashi answered that what really concerned the Tana was an incident that occurred in Rava's Beis-Din (which it refers to as 'Kanya de'Rava') - where a guardian of money handed the owner a hollow cane filled with coins to hold for him whilst he swore that he had returned the deposit, with the intention of taking it back after the oath.

(d)With regard to the 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ra'isi Gamal Pore'ach ba'Avir' however - there is no reason to think that he meant anything other than what he said.

4)

(a)The Beraisa interprets the Pasuk in Nitzavim (in connection with the Shevu'ah that Moshe made Yisrael swear) "ve'Lo itchem Levad'chem" to mean that - Moshe told K'lal Yisrael that he was making them swear 'according to what he thinks and the thoughts of Hash-m (and not according to theirs).

(b)From the fact that Moshe needed to say that, we try to prove that - it would not have sufficed to make them swear that they would do whatever 'Elokim' said, because they might refer to other gods by the name 'Elohim' a Kashya on the previous statement.

(c)We refute the Kashya however, on the basis of - the Pasuk in Yisro "Elohei Kesef v'Elohei Zahav Lo Sa'asu lachem", from which we see that the Torah itself refers to other gods as 'Elohim' (in which case Moshe could not have said that).

(d)Moshe did not make them swear that they would keep the Torah (not because he was afraid that they would adapt the word 'Torah' to mean sins, but) - because Torah implies one Torah, whereas Yisrael was commanded to observe two Toros (the written and the oral).

5)

(a)He did not make them swear that they would keep ...

1. ... 'two Toros' - because that could be interpreted to mean 'Toras Chatas' and 'Toras Asham'.

2. ... 'the entire Torah' - because that could be interpreted to mean the Mitzvah of not worshipping Avodah-Zarah, which is considered equivalent to the entire Torah.

(b)Despite the fact that making them swear that they would keep 'Mitzvah' implies one Mitzvah, Moshe did not make them swear that they would keep ...

1. ... 'Mitzvos' - since that could refer to two Mitzvos.

2. ... 'all the Mitzvos' - since this could refer to the Mitzvah of Tzitzis, which is considered equivalent to all the Mitzvos.

(c)In fact, to solve the current problem, Moshe might have made Yisrael swear - that they will observe 'all the Taryag Mitzvos'.

6)

(a)And we solve our initial problem by creating another one. The problem with Moshe's wording 'al Da'ati ve'Al Da'as ha'Makom' is - having said 'al Da'ati', why he needed to add 've'al Da'as ha'Makom'?

(b)The reason that Moshe found it necessary to say it was - in order to turn the Shevu'ah into a 'Neder al Da'as Acherim', to prevent Yisrael from annulling it (see Tosfos 'DH Ki Heichi').

7)

(a)The man-eating snake that lived in the days of Shavur Malka (King of Persia) was so big - that it was able to swallow thirteen stables-full of hay.

(b)They destroyed it - by adding a variety of animals to the huge bundles of hay that they prepared for it, among which they hid burning coals which burned out the snake's stomach when it swallowed them.

(c)To reconcile this with our Mishnah, which declares a Shevu'ah that someone saw a snake the size of the beam of the olive-press, a Shevu'as Shav we establish that the Tana is speaking - where the Nishba added that it was speckled too ...

(d)... not only on its neck (or on its stomach, 'Gechono', as some Rishonim explains) which all snakes are, but also on its back.

8)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah regarding someone who swears 'Shevu'ah she'Ochal Kikar Zu, Shevu'ah she'Ochlenah', that if he does not eat it, he has transgressed a Shevu'as Bituy. The problem with this statement is - why the Nishba does not also transgress Shevu'as Shav the moment he declares 'Shevu'ah she'Ochlenah'.

(b)Rebbi Yirmiyah therefore amends the Mishnah to read - 'Lo Achlah, Avrah *Af* al Shevu'as Bituy'.

9)

(a)Our Mishnah - incorporates 'men and women', 'relatives and strangers', 'Kesheirim and Pesulim', 'in front of Beis-Din and outside Beis-Din in the Din of Shevu'as Bituy.

(b)And the same applies to Shevu'as Shav, too.

(c)The Tana finds it necessary to menton this is - because the following Mishnah will draw a distinction in all of these cases with regard to Shevu'as Eidus.

10)

(a)The other detail mentioned by the Tana that pertains to both Shevu'as Bituy and to Shevu'as Shav is - 'mi'Pi Atzmo' (that it must be from his own mouth and not from somebody else's).

(b)The Tana says in the Seifa that 'Mushba mi'Pi Acherim is Chayav' ...

1. ... provided he responds 'Amen' ...

2. ... but if he merely mimics the Nishba by repeating 'Achalti' or 'Lo Achalti'), he is Patur.

11)

(a)Shmuel states that if someone answers 'Amen' after a Shevu'ah - it is as if he declared the Shevu'ah himself.

(b)And he said this - regarding any kind of Shevu'ah, even ...

1. ... a Shevu'as Bituy (which needs to be verbalized).

2. ... Shevu'as ha'Eidus which he made outside Beis-Din, and which is valid, according to Rebbi Meir.

12)

(a)Rav Papa Amar Rava supports Shmuel's statement from an apparent discrepancy between two statements of Rebbi Meir. In the next Mishnah, Rebbi Meir confines 'mi'Pi Acherim' by Shevu'as Eidus to in front of Beis-Din. In a Beraisa however, he rules that - 'Mushba mi'Pi Acherim is also acceptable, provided he answers 'Amen'.

(b)Rav Papa Amar Rava resolves the contradiction - by applying Shmuel's principle, because it is only by responding to a Shevu'ah with 'Amen' that Mushba mi'Pi Acherim is considered as if he had declared the Shevu'ah himself (like Shmuel).

(c)Ravina Amar Rava makes the identical point from our Mishnah - which first requires 'mi'Pi Atzmo' (by Shevu'as Bituy and Shevu'as Shav), and then incorporates 'Mushba mi'Pi Acherim' where the Mushba responds with 'Amen'.