1)

(a)The Beraisa requires Shevu'as ha'Dayanim to be said - in whichever language the Nishba understands.

(b)Beis-Din tell the Nishba before he swears that - when Hash-m announced "Lo Sisa es Shem Hash-m Elokecha la'Shav", the whole world shook.

(c)The Torah writes "ve'Nakeh" by other sins (in Ki Sisa in the thirteen Midos of Rachamim) - but "Lo Yenakeh" by Shevu'as Shav.

(d)Someone who commits other sins is subject to ...

1. ... personal punishment, whereas someone who sins by making a Shevu'as Shav - subjects his family and even the entire world to different levels of punishment (as we shall see).

2. ... Mechilah up to two or three generations, someone who sins by making a Shevu'as Shav - is punished immediately.

2)

(a)When rhe Pasuk in Zecharyah (with regard to someone who swears falsely) writes "u'Va'ah el Beis ha'Ganav ve'el Beis ha'Nishba bi'Shemi la'Shaker ve'Lanah be'Soch Beiso ve'Chilatu, ve'es Eitzav ve'es Avanav", "Ganav" refers to - Reuven who 'steals the minds of people', by claiming that Shimon owes him money and causes him to swear that he doesn't.

(b)The significance of 'the destruction of the stones' is that - even something that is virtually indestructible ('fire and water cannot destroy it') will be destroyed as a result of a Shevu'as Shav.

(c)When the Tana rules that a defendant who declines to swear 'Potrin Oso Miyad', he means that - Beis-Din make him pay immediately and send him home (before he has a chance to change his mind).

(d)The Tana quotes the Pasuk in Korach (which is written in connection with Korach and his congregation) "Suru Na me'Al ha'Anashim he'Resha'im ha'Eileh" - in connection with a litigant who opts to swear, because it is preferable to avoid swearing if possible, and rather to pay.

3)

(a)If a litigant chooses to swear, they warn him - that he is swearing according to the Da'as (understanding) of Hash-m and that of Beis-Din (to ensure that he does not 'fiddle' his oath [like the case of 'Kanya de'Rava' (in 'Shevu'os Shetayim' Basra, as we explained there]).

(b)Moshe Rabeinu too incorporated everyone in the Shevu'ah of Sinai (according to the Da'as of Hash-m and his own Da'as, negating any counter thoughts that they may have had in their hearts) in the Pasuk "ve'Lo Itchem Levad'chem Anochi Koreis es ha'Alah ha'Zos ... ". We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "ve'es asher Einenu Poh Imanu ha'Yom" that - this includes even future generations whose Neshamos stood at Har Sinai even if they themselves did not, and even Geirim (converts), whose Mazel' stood there (see Agados Maharsha).

2. ... "Kiymu ve'Kiblu ha'Yehudim" that - the Shevu'ah also extends to Mitzvos which the Rabbanan would later instigate, such as Mikra Megilah ...

(c)... from the D'rashah 'Kiymu Mah she'Kiblu K'var', meaning that they applied the Shevu'ah of Har Sinai to the new Mitzvah of Mikra Megilah.

(d)Commenting on the Beraisa that we learned earlier, t 'Af Hi (Shevu'as ha'Dayanim) bi'Leshonah Ne'emrah', we quote a Mishnah in Sotah - which permits Viduy Ma'aser, K'ri'as Sh'ma, Tefilah, Birchas ha'Mazon, Shevu'as ha'Eidus ...

(e)... and Shevu'as ha'Pikadon to be said in any language that one understands.

4)

(a)We cannot attribute the world 'shaking' when "Lo Sisa" was said to the fact that it ...

1. ... was said at Sinai - because why did the world not then shake when the other nine Dibros were said.

2. ... falls under the category of stringent matters - because the Beraisa defines all Aseis and Lo Sa'aseh's (including Shevu'os Shav) as 'Kalos', restricting Chamuros to Chayvei Kareis and Miysos Beis-Din.

(b)The whole world trembled - because a. the Torah wrote in connection with it ''Lo Yenakeh'' and b. because the Nishba's family and the whole world stand to receive punishment for the false Shevu'ah.

(c)When the Torah writes "Lo Yenakeh" with regard to other sins ("ve'Nakeh Lo Yenakeh"), it is to teach us Rebbi Elazar's D'rashah - 'Menakeh Hu le'Shavim (those who do Teshuvah) ve'Eino Menakeh le'she'Einan Shavim' ...

(d)... implying that with regard to Shevu'as Shav, even Shavim do not get off without punishment [see Agados Maharsha]).

5)

(a)With regard to the Pasuk "Vesamti Ani es Panai ba'Ish ha'Hu u've'Mishpachto" Rebbi Shimon explains in a Beraisa that - when there is a tax-collector (who were generally thieves) or a robber in the family, it usually means that his family are in the know and cover up for him, and that is the situation to which the Torah is referring.

(b)We reconcile the above Beraisa, which distinguishes between Shevu'as Shav (for which the family is punished too) and other sins (for which they don't), by quoting Rebbi in a Beraisa - who Darshens "Ve'hichrati Oso" 'Oso be'Hikareis, ve'Lo Kol ha'Mishpachah be'Hikareis' (they receive a lesser punishment), whereas by Shevu'as Shav, the family receive the same punishment as the sinner.

(c)From the Pasuk in Ki Savo (in the Tochachah) "Ve'Chashlu Ish be'Achiv" we Darshen that - each Jew is responsible for another Jew's sins, and is therefore punished together with the sinner.

(d)And we reconcile it with the Beraisa that distinguishes between Shevu'as Shav, for which the whole world gets punished too, and other sins, for which they don't - by restricting the Pasuk in the Tochachah to when one is able to stop the sinner from sinning, whereas by Shevu'as Shav, the world is punished even when one is not.

6)

(a)The Resha'im in the Nishba la'Shav's family share in his fate, and those of the world receive a heavy punishment, whereas when it comes to other sins, the Resha'im ...

1. ... in the sinner's family - receive a heavy punishment.

2. ... of the world - receive a light punishment.

(b)And whereas the Tzadikim both in the Nishba la'Shav's family and in the rest of the world receive a light punishment, when it comes to other sins, the Tzadikim ...

1. ... in the sinner's family and ...

2. ... of the world - are not punished at all (see Agados Maharsha).

(c)Rebbi Shimon bar Tarfon in a Beraisa cites the Pasuk in "Mishpatim (in connection with someone who is looking after a Pikadon) "Shevu'as Hash-m Tih'yeh bein Sheneihem"). He extrapolates from the word "Sheneihem" - that the owner shares responsibility in the false Shevu'ah that the Shomer makes ...

(d)... because he ought to have chosen a more reliable person to look after his property, thereby avoiding the ensuing Chilul Hash-m.

7)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that the minimum claim for which a 'Modeh be'Miktzas' is Chayav a Shevu'ah is two Kesef. When Rav says 'Kefiras Ta'anah Sh'tei Kesef', he means that - the denial must be at least two Kesef over and above the admission of a P'rutah (in which case the initial claim must be at least two Kesef plus a P'rutah).

(b)According to Shmuel - the initial claim needs to be only two Kesef, and the defendant is Chayav a Shevu'ah whether he admits to or denies a P'rutah.

(c)Rava says that our Mishnah supports Rav, and the Pesukim, Shmuel. He extrapolates from our Mishnah 'ha'Ta'anah Sh'tei Kesef ve'ha'Hoda'ah Shaveh P'rutah' (as well as from the Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a, 'Chamishah P'rutos hein, ha'Ona'ah ... ve'ha'Hoda'ah') that - the Tana clearly does not include the Kefirah (the denial) in the list of things that require a P'rutah, as it ought to have done according to Shmuel.

8)

(a)The Pasuk writes in Mishpatim (in connection with the Shomer Chinam) "Ki Yiten Ish el Re'eihu Kesef O Keilim Lishmor". We learn from ...

1. ... "Keilim" that - like Keilim (plural) the claimant must claim at least two Kesef.

2. ... "Kesef" that - whatever the claimant demands, it must be something that is Chashuv, in order to extract a Shevu'ah from the defendant.

(b)We reject the Lashon 'Af Keilim Davar Chashuv' - because this D'rashah applies only to articles that are not Keilim (such as food, as we will see later).

(c)We already learned that "Ki hu Zeh" (the continuation of the current Pasuk) is the source for the Shevu'ah of 'Modeh be'Miktzas'. Rava now supports Shmuel from the Pasuk - which seems to be saying that as long as the defendant admits to a P'rutah out of a claim of two Kesef, he is Chayav a Shevu'ah.

(d)Rav will counter this proof however - from the fact that we need "Ki hu Zeh" to teach us Modeh be'Miktzas (and not to connect the admission to the claim of two Kesef).

9)

(a)Shmuel counters Rav with the fact that the Torah writes "Hu" and "Zeh", one to teach us 'Modeh be'Miktzas, the other, that he swears on a claim of two Kesef, whereas Rav learns from the second D'rashah 'Modeh mi'Miyn ha'Ta'anah' by which he means that - the defendant only swears if he admits to part of the same species that is being claimed from him (as we learned in our Mishnah ['Ta'ano Chitin, ve'Hodeh lo bi'Se'orin, Patur]').

(b)The Pasuk will continue to support Shmuel even then however - because, when all's said and done, the claim is two Kesef and the admission a P'rutah (and no mention is made of an independent Kefirah.

(c)We therefore change Rav's source to "Kesef", which is superfluous - because we already know that there is no Shevu'ah on less than two Kesef from "Keilim".

(d)And Shmuel learns from "Kesef" - Davar Chashuv (see Tosfos).

10)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah 'Sh'tei Kesef Yesh li be'Yadcha. Ein lach be'Yadi Ela P'rutah, Patur'. Initially - we establish the Mishnah by 'Shaveh' (objects to the value of Sh'tei Kesef and a P'rutah, and not the actual coins themselves), thereby posing a Kashya on Shmuel - since the reason that the Mishnah exempts him from a Shevu'ah can only be because there was no Kefirah of two Kesef.

(b)Shmuel will establish the Mishnah - by coins that are worth two Kesef and a P'rutah, and the reason that he is Patur is because it is a case of 'Ta'ano Chitin ve'Hodeh lo bi'Se'orin' (as we explained in the Mishnah).

(c)Based on what we just said, we query Shmuel from the Seifa, where Reuven claims from Shimon two Kesef and a P'rutah, Shimon admits to a P'rutah, and the Tana rules Chayav. This would be no problem if the Mishnah was speaking in a case of Shaveh - because then it would be a classical case of 'Modeh be'Miktzas'. Now however, that Shmuel has established our Mishnah by the actual coins, why is he Chayav? Why is it not a case of 'Ta'ano Chitin ve'Hodeh lo bi'Se'orin, which is Patur?

(d)This Kashya is no problem however, on Shmuel of all people- - because Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel has already ruled in such a case 'Ta'ano Chitin u'Se'orin, ve'Hodeh lo be'Echad Meihen, Chayav'.

11)

(a)We support this answer from the Seifa 'Litra Zahav Yesh li be'Yadcha; Ein lach be'Yadi Ela Litra Kesef, Patur' - which is fine as long as the Tana is speaking about pieces of gold and silver. But if it is referring to 'Shaveh', why will the defendant be Patur, since it is a regular case of 'Modeh be'Miktzas'?

(b)Rav (who establishes the Mishnah by Shaveh) will establish the Seifa - by gold and silver (even though the rest of the Mishnah is speaking about 'Shaveh'), because the fact that the claimant asked for a weight, makes it evident that this section is not.

12)

(a)We try to prove Rav right from the Seifa 'Dinar Zahav li be'Yadcha; Ein l'cha be'Yadi Ela Dinar Kesef ... u'Perutah, Chayav ... ' - which will make sense if Reuven is claiming from Shimon Shaveh Dinar Zahav, and Shimon admits to Shaveh Dinar Kesef; but if they are referring to actual coins, Shimon ought to be Patur from a Shevu'ah, because it is 'Ta'ano Chitin ve'Hodeh Lo Se'orin'.

(b)Rebbi Elazar establishes the Seifa according to Shmuel - where Reuven claimed a minted coin of gold and Shimon admitted to the minted coin but claimed that it had been a silver one (which is considered Miyn Hoda'ah, since they were concerned with the coin and not with the weight [see Tosfos DH 'be'To'ano']).

(c)And the Chidush is that - a P'rutah is considered a coin (even though it is made of copper, as opposed to a Dinar [and all the other coins mentioned in the Mishnah]).

13)

(a)The conclusion of the Mishnah 'she'ha'Kol Miyn Matbe'a Achas' seems to support Rebbi Elazar's interpretation of the Mishnah according to Shmuel. Rav - will amend the Lashon to 'she'ha'Kol Din Matbe'a Achas', meaning that even the admission of the smallest coin in the list (a mere Perutah) will obligate the defendant to swear (see Tosfos DH 'she'ha'Kol').

(b)We cannot assume that Rebbi Elazar will establish the entire Mishnah where the owner claimed money (and not 'be'Shaveh') like Shmuel. He only establishes the Seifa like him because the Lashon 'she'ha'Kol Miyn Matbe'a Achas' bears out his explanation. The rest of the Mishnah owever, he may well explain like Rav.