1)

(a)Regarding the Pasuk in Shoftim "ve'Amdu Sh'nei ha'Anashim", the Gezeirah-Shavah "Shenayim" (Sh'nei) "Shenayim" from the Pasuk there "al-Pi Shenayim Eidim" teaches us that - the former Pasuk is speaking about the witnessesout the litigants) (and not ab.

(b)And from the word "Anashim" there we learn that - women are disqualified from testifying in Beis-Din.

(c)Consequently - women are not subject to the Din of Shevu'as ha'Eidus (which the Mishnah is now discussing[See Tos. Yom-Tov]).

2)

(a)From the Pasuk in ki Seitzei "Lo Yumsu Avos al Banim" we learn that - a father cannot be sentenced to death on the testimony of his son ...

(b)... and the same applies to all other relatives.

(c)Consequently, relatives (Pesulin) - are not subject to the Din of Shevu'as ha'Eidus.

3)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk "Al Tashes Rasha Eid" that - whoever falls under the category of Rasha may not testify in Beis-Din.

(b)Besides Chayvei Misos, this incorporates - a Gazlan ...

(c)... who is therefore not subject to Shevu'as Eidus either.

(d)When the Tana adds 'ba'Kesheirim ve'Lo ba'Pesulin', besides a king (See Tos. Yom-Tov), he is coming to exclude - whoever is Pasul mi'de'Rabbanan, such as ...

(e)... a gambler or - someone who indulges in pigeon-racing.

4)

(a)In contrast to Shevu'as Bituy and Shevu'as Shav, if others make them swear a Shevu'as ha'Eidus outside Beis-Din - they are Patur.

(b)The case of 'mi'Pi Acherim' is - where the claimant asks them to swear that they will come and testify on his behalf, and they reply that they are not witnesses (See Tos. Yom-Tov. See also Mishnah 3).

(c)Rebbi Meir maintains that if they swear of their own accord outside Beis-Din - they are Chayav (See Tos. Yom-Tov DH 've'she'Lo bi'Fenei Beis-Din').

(d)According to the Chachamim - either way, the Din of Shevu'as ha'Eidus only applies if they deny being witnesses inside Beis-Din (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

5)

(a)The Mishnah learns from the fact that the Torah does not write "ve'Ne'elam" in connection with Shevu'as ha'Eidus - that they are Chayav even be'Meizid.

(b)They must nevertheless be a Shogeg - with regard to the Korban.

(c)A complete Shogeg however - where they forgot that they witnessed the event (See Tos. Yom-Tov), and remembered only afterwards, is Patur ...

(d)... since they are Onsin (and the Pasuk "ve'Nishba al Sheker does not therefore apply to them).

(e)Someone who swears a Shevu'as ha'Eidus falsely is Chayav - a Korban Oleh ve'Yoreid.

6)

(a)The Mishnah lists two possible cases of Shevu'as ha'Eidus: One is where Reuven asks Shimon and Levi to testify in his behalf and they reply 'Shevu'ah she'Ein Anu Yod'in l'cha Eidus'. In the second case, they answer - 'Ein Anu Yod'in l'cha Eidus' ...

(b)... he then asks them to swear and they reply 'Amen' (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

(c)If Reuven asks Shimon and Levi to testify outside Beis-Din five times, and each time they deny knowledge of what occurred, before entering Beis-Din and admitting to what they had done - they are Patur from Shevu'as ha'Eidus ...

(d)... because a denial outside Beis-Din is not considered a denial.

7)

(a)They will be Chayav five Korbanos however - if their denial takes place in Beis-Din (See Tiferes Yisrael & Tos. Yom-Tov).

(b)We learn from the words "le'Achas me'Eileh", in the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with the Korban Oleh ve'Yored) "Vehayah ki Ye'sham le'Achas me'Eileh" that the witnesses are Chayav one Korban for each denial (in the current case).

(c)They will be Chayav only one Korban however - if Reuven makes them swear five times in Beis-Din before they deny it.

8)

(a)Rebbi Shimon attributes the latter ruling to the fact that Shimon and Levi are not able to admit in between each one - because since, had they issued their denial after the first time, they would not have been permitted to change their minds ('Keivan she'Higid, Shuv Eino Chozer u'Magid'), all the subsequent claims and denials Are in vain ...

(b)... which is not the case in the previous rulings, since each denial to come to Beis-Din and testify is a separate claim and the denials are therefore valid.

9)

(a)The Mishnah rules that whereas if two witnesses deny having witnessed the transaction at the same time - they are both Chayav, if they deny it one after the other - the first witness is Chayav, the second one, Patur ...

(b)... because, once the first witness denies having seen anything, the second witness' testimony is ineffective (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

(c)'At the same time' means - 'within 'Toch K'dei Dibur' (See Tos. Yom-Tov) of each other.

(d)If one of them denies and the other admits to having witnessed it then - the former is Chayav and the latter, Patur (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

10)

(a)In a case where two pairs of witnesses, one after the other, deny having witnessed the transaction, the Tana declares the second pair Chayav, too - because their testimony is effective even without the testimony of the first pair.

(b)The problem with the fact that the first pair are Chayav is that - seeing as at the time, there is a second pair ready to testify (See Tos. Yom-Tov DH 'Sh'teihem Chayavin'), their denial did not cause any loss to either of the litigants?

(c)The Gemara answers that the Mishnah speaks about a case where the wives of the second pair were related to each other - and were Gos'sin (on their death-beds [See Tos. Yom-Tov]) at the time when the first pair issued their denial (Ibid.).

(d)And the Chidush is that - despite the principle 'Rov Gos'sin le'Misah' (the majority of Gos'sin die), we do not consider their wives dead and them as Kasher witnesses, in which case the first pair would be Patur ...

(e)And the reason that the first pair of witnesses are Chayav is - because since the wives were alive at the time that they issued their denial, they were in effect, the only witnesses. Note that the wives (or at least one of them) were no longer alive when their husbands (the second witnesses) issued *their* denial.

11)

(a)In a case where Reuven places a Shevu'ah on two witnesses if they don't come and testify that Shimon has a Pikadon of his, a Sesumes Yad, an article that he stole from him and one belonging to him that he found, 'Sesomes Yad' is - a loan.

(b)In the event that they reply ...

1. ... 'Shevu'ah (See Tos. Yom-Tov) she'Ein Anu Yod'in l'cha Eidus!' - they are Chayav to bring one Korban.

2. ... 'Shevu'ah she'Ein Anu Yod'in she'Yesh l'cha be'Yad P'loni Pikadon, Sesumes Yad Gezel va'Aveidah' - they are Chayav to bring four Korbanos, one for each item (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

(c)By the same token, if Reuven would place a Shevu'ah on the witnesses if they don't come and testify that Shimon has of his a Pikadon consisting of wheat, barley, and spelt, in order to be Chayav ...

1. ... one Korban, they would have to reply - 'Shevu'ah she'Ein Anu Yod'in l'cha Eidus'.

2. ... three Korbanos, they would have to reply - 'Shevu'ah she'Ein Anu Yod'in she'Yesh l'cha be'Yad P'loni Chitin, u'Se'orin ve'Kusmin'.

(d)The Mishnah sees fit to present two cases with identical rulings - one regarding one species incorporating a number of claims, the other regarding one claim incorporating a number of species.

12)

(a)In a case where Reuven says to the witnesses 'Mashbi'a Ani Aleichem ... she'Yesh li be'Yad P'loni K'nas' - they are Patur (See Tos. Yom-Tov, end of DH 'Nezek ... ').

(b)And when the Mishnah declares them Chayav in the case of ...

1. ... 'Chatzi Nezek' - it is referring to Chatzi Nezek Tzeroros (where Shimon's animal kicked up stones that caused damage) which is actually Mamon (See also Tos. Yom-Tov).

2. ... 'Tashlumei Kefel' or 'Arba'ah va'Mishah' - they are Chayav on account of the Keren (the principal, which is Mamon).

3. ... 'she'Anas Ish P'loni es Biti' or 'Pitah es Biti' - they are Chayav on account of Boshes (the embarrassment) and P'gam (her decrease in value [which are Mamon] See also Tos. Yom-Tov).

13)

(a)If he asks them to testify in a case where the other litigant is Chayav Misah - they are Patur too.

(b)And when the Tana declares them Chayav in a case where his ...

1. ... son struck him (a sin which carries the death-penalty) - it speaks where he did not make a wound (in which case he is Chayav Mamon, but not Misah).

2. ... friend wounded him or set fire to his hay-stack on Yom Kipur (for which one is Chayav Kareis) - because the Chiyuv Kareis (as opposed to Misah) does not exempt the sinner from the obligation to pay (See Tos. Yom-Tov DH 'Nezek ... ').

14)

(a)If Reuven places a Shevu'ah on the witnesses if they don't testify that he, or his friend (See Tos. Yom-Tov) is a Kohen or a Levi, is not a ben Gerushah or a ben Chalutzah, they are not subject to a Shevu'ah - because Shevu'as ha'Eidus applies exclusively to a case that involves a monetary claim.

(b)When the Tana adds 'she'Anas Ish P'loni es Bito u'Pitah es Bito', 'Bito' refers to - the 'Ish P'loni Kohen' mentioned in the previous cases.

(c)There too, the witnesses are not subject to a Shevu'ah - because for them to be Chayav, they must hear the request to swear from the claimant directly.

15)

(a)To explain the Chidush, the Gemara establishes the previous case where Ish P'loni wrote Reuven a Harsha'ah - 'giving him a mandate to claim the money as if it was his own.

(b)Consequently, if the Tana was discussing a regular monetary claim (such as a loan) - the witnesses would be Chayav.

(c)And the reason that they are Patur in this case is - because since Ish P'loni never owned the money, it is considered like a gift, which is not subject to a Harsha'ah (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

16)

(a)In a case of 'she'Chaval bi B'ni' (as opposed to 'she'Hikani B'ni, in Mishnah 6), the witnesses are not subject to a Shevu'ah - since the son is Chayav Misah (in which case there is no monetary claim).

(b)The Tana finally rules that if Reuven places a Shevu'ah on the witnesses to come and testify that P'loni wounded him or burned his haystack on Shabbos, they are Patur - because even if they testified, P'loni would be Chayav Misah (and therefore Patur from paying).

17)

(a)In a case where Reuven wants the witnesses to testify that Shimon promised to give him two hundred Zuz - the Mishnah declares them Patur ...

(b)... because even if the witnesses would have testified, Shimon would not have been obligated to pay.

(c)The Tana learns this via a Gezeirah-Shavah "Secheta" "Secheta" from Shevu'as ha'Pikadon - which concerns a claim that obligates the defendant to pay.

18)

(a)In a case where Reuven places a Shevu'ah on the witnesses that when they obtain testimony on his behalf, they should come and testify on his behalf, the Mishnah rules that - they are Patur ...

(b)... because the Shevu'ah preceded the testimony.

(c)We learn it from the Pasuk in Vayikra "ve'Sham'ah Kol Alah, O Ra'ah O Yada" - which implies that the witnesses know the testimony before they swear.

19)

(a)In a case where Reuven stands in the Beis-ha'Medrash and announces that he places a Shevu'ah on anybody who has testimony on his behalf - the witnesses are Patur from a Korban ...

(b)... since the Pasuk in Vayikra says "ve'Hu Eid" - implying that the claimant must designate the witnesses.

20)

(a)If Reuven places a Shevu'ah on witnesses who have testimony on his behalf, but ...

1. ... only by hearing it from others (Eid mi'Pi Eid) or ...

2. ... where one of them is a relative or is Pasul le'Eidus - they are Patur ...

(b)... because even if they would testify, their testimony would not achieve anything (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

21)

(a)If the claimant places a Shevu'ah on the witnesses via his Eved - they are Patur, and the same apples ...

(b)... if it is (not Reuven, but) Shimon, the defendant, who places the Shevu'ah on the witnesses.

(c)We learn this from the Pasuk "Im Lo (spelt with an 'Alef') Yagid ve'Nasa Avono", which we therefore translate "If he will refuse to tell him ("Lo" spelt with a 'Vav') the claimant, he will bear his sin", but not if he refuses to tell anybody else.

22)

(a)The Mishnah rules that the following three cases 'Mashbi'a Ani aleichem', 'Metzaveh Ani aleichem' and 'Oserchem Ani' - comprise Shevu'as ha'Eidus (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

(b)In each case, the claimant must add 'bi'Shevu'ah' ...

(c)... as well as a Name of Hash-m ...

(d)... even ...

1. ... the Name beginning 'Alef Daled', 'Yud Key' (See Tiferes Yisrael) 'Shakai' and 'Tzevakos', or even one of ...

2. ... the Divine descriptions (such as 'Chanun, Rachum, Erech Apayim or Rav Chesed' [See Tos. Yom-Tov DH 'Metzaveh Ani ... ']).

23)

(a)According to Rebbi Meir, someone who curses his fellow-Jew with any of he above Names is Chayav - (S'kilah) too (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

(b)According to the Chachamim - only if he curses using the Shem ha'Meyuchad ('Havayah' the way it is written (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

(c)They learn it from the Pasuk in Emor - be'Nokvo Shem Yumas".

(d)And from the Pasuk ...

1. ... in Mishpatim "Elokim Lo Sekalel", they learn that cursing by any of the other Names of Hash-m is subject to a La'av; whereas based on

2. ... the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with Shevu'as ha'Eidus) "ve'Sham'ah Kol Alah"- they concede to Rebbi Meir, that one is Chayav by Shevu'as ha'Eidus, irrespective of which Name one uses.

24)

(a)The Tana learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... in Va'eschanan "Rak Hishamer l'cha u'Shemor Nafsh'cha Me'od" - that someone who curses himself using any of the above Names of Hash-m transgressess a La'av.

2. ... in Kedoshim "Lo Sekalel Cheresh" - that he transgresses a La'av if he curses somebody else.

(b)And the latter Pasuk mentions specifically a Cheresh - to teach us that one transgresses despite the fact that, due to the fact that he cannot hear, he is not perturbed by the curse (how much more so somebody who is!)

(c)The former Pasuk is a La'av - based on the principle that "Hishamer", "Pen" and "Al" are all La'avin.

(d)The Mishnah defines where Reuven says to the witnesses 'Yakchah Elokim' and 've'Chein Yakchah Elokim' (See Tos. Yom-Tov) as Alos (See Tos. Yom-Tov [for which they will be Chayav]). The case of 've'Chein Yakchah Elokim' is - where Reuven hears someone read the Pasuk " Yakchah Elokim", and turns to the witnesses and declares 've'Chein Yakchah Elokim!'

25)

(a)According to Rebbi Meir, 'Al Yakchah', 'Yevarech'cha' and 'Yeitiv' lach' will also render the witnesses Chayav. In all three cases - he concludes 'Im Te'iduni'.

(b)Rebbi Meir's ruling is based on the principle - 'mi'Chelal La'av Atah Shome'a Hein' (one can extrapolate the positive from the negative [See Tos. Yom-Tov]), and vice-versa.

(c)The Chachamim rule - that he is Patur (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

(d)The Halachah is - like the Chachamim.