Question: Even without the fact that they were spoken together, we would still derive from the Pasuk that Hash-m will not cleanse him from this sin, but Beis Din gives him lashes!

Answer: The Gemara is now retracting its statement that they were spoken at the same time.

Opinion: However, the Yerushalmi and Sifri clearly indicate that they were said together, as they say that the words "Shav" and "Sheker" were said together. The same is true regarding the words "Mechalelehah Mos Yumas" and "u'vi'Yom ha'Shabbos etc."

According to the text quoted later that "I ate" and "I didn't eat" are referring to Shevuos Sheker, and we derive this from the fact that it says "l'Shav" twice, we indeed must say that they were spoken together as one negative prohibition.

This is because it is possible to ask regarding the teaching of "l'Shav" as the Gemara asks later, why should it be different? In other words, the Gemara asks, why (does Rebbi Yochanan say that if someone swore he would eat a certain loaf that day and did not do so is he not liable to receive lashes, if the Mishnah said that even) if someone said he would or would not eat something he is liable? The Gemara answers that the Torah specifically included etc. In other words, the Gemara answered that they were said together as one negative prohibition, as I explained earlier (3b, DH B'FEIRUSH).

The teaching of "l'Shav-l'Shav" is also required because they were not spoken together regarding Shevuah, but rather they were spoken together regarding testimony. In the first Dibros the Pasuk says, "Do not answer your friend by being a "Sheker" -- "false" witness." In the second Dibros the Pasuk says, "a "Shav" -- "false" witness."

However, now that it says "l'Shav-l'Shav" we can indeed derive from the fact that they were spoken at the same time regarding testimony. This shows that we should only include "I ate" and "I didn't eat."

Question: This is difficult. Rebbi Yochanan holds in Bava Metzia (90b) regarding muzzling it or leading it with his voice that moving one's lips is considered an action! [Why does he understand that swearing is not considered an action?]

Answer: The Gemara there is discussing a type of speech which causes an action, as the animal refrains from eating because of his voice. This is why it is like Temurah. This is apparent from Rebbi Yochanan's statement to the Tana that he should not include Temurah with the other passive negative commandments, as with his speech he commits an act as stated in Temurah (3b).

Question: In Sanhedrin (65b), the Gemara answered according to Rebbi Yochanan that moving one's lips by cursing Hash-m is not an act because the main thing is their voice (Rashi has a different text there). The Gemara asked a question from muzzling it or leading it with his voice that moving one's lips is considered by Rebbi Yochanan to be an action! There is no question according to what we have said above, as muzzling or leading it is voice that leads to an action!

Answer: The question there was actually due to Eidim Zomimim, as the Gemara had stated that Eidim Zomimim do not have an action associated with their transgression, despite the fact that the defendant could have been found guilty due to their testimony. The Gemara (and Tosfos) there explain this more thoroughly.

Question: Let us also consider Eidim Zomimim and Motzi Shem Ra as exceptions!

This is despite the fact that the Torah calls Eidim Zomimim an action, as explained in Bava Kama (5a). Rebbi Yehudah himself says in Kesuvos (46a) that one is not liable for Motzi Shem Ra unless he hires witnesses.

Even so, Eidim Zomimim are not considered to have done an action, as is apparent from the Gemara in Makos (7b) where Rebbi Yehudah derives from Eidim Zomimim that transgressing a passive negative prohibition makes one liable to receive lashes.

Answer#1: Being that lashes are explicitly stated by these two sins, Rebbi Yehudah did not bother saying these cases.

Answer#2: Alternatively, we do not derive from rules, even when they say ("This is the rule) besides (for these things.")

Implied Question: You should not ask that here Rebbi Yehudah says that one does not receive lashes for a negative prohibition, and that there he says one does receive lashes. [Why isn't this a contradiction?]

Answer: In our Gemara he is saying this in the name of Rebbi Yosi.

Question: Why don't we derive that one does not receive lashes for transgressing a passive negative commandment in Makos (13b) from the fact that the Torah needed to write a Pasuk showing that one who swears and curses his friend with the name of Hash-m is punished, as stated in Temurah (3b)?

Answer: It is possible that we would not understand these Pesukim to mean this unless we first knew that one does not receive lashes for transgressing a passive negative commandment.

Opinion#1: Rashi explains that perhaps this is coming to exclude "I ate" and "I didn't eat."

Implied Question: The question "what have you seen" in the Gemara never means this, but rather means "let us say that the opposite is true." [Rashi apparently had the text "u'Mai Shena" as we have in our Gemara, not "u'Mah Raisa."]

Opinion#2: It therefore seems that "what have you seen" means that we should have said the entire thing is according to Rebbi Yishmael. The first part is like the second part, as both are excluding "I ate" and "I didn't eat." The first part excludes bringing a Korban, and the second excludes lashes.

Opinion#3: Alternatively, the second part excludes the person who swore "I will eat" and he did not eat from receiving lashes. The first part excludes "I ate" and "I did not eat" from having to bring a Korban. The entire Mishnah is according to Rebbi Yishmael, and there is no question on Rebbi Yochanan.

This explanation seems more correct. This is because there is no logical reason to exclude "I ate" and "I didn't eat" from lashes in order to ask a question on Rebbi Yochanan.

Observation: The Gemara answers that it is logical etc. It also could have answered that it would rather say the Mishnah is according to Rebbi Akiva, as all general Mishnayos are according to his opinion.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that if he explicitly said he may not eat a little bit he is indeed liable, as stated in the Gemara.

Answer: However, his general (unspecified) mindset is on the type of eating mentioned by the Torah.

Explanation: Being that it is such a stringent thing, he indeed has in mind that he will transgress his oath if he even eats a very small amount.

Observation: Rebbi Yochanan, who holds at the end of Yoma (74a) that half of an amount forbidden by the Torah (i.e. eating half a Kzayis of pork) is also forbidden according to Torah law, can easily hold like the Rabbanan that while one does not receive lashes for doing so, he has transgressed the Torah prohibition.

In Chulin (98a), it is clearly apparent from the Gemara that he holds like the Rabbanan. Additionally, in Pesachim (43b) Rebbi Yochanan says that in the entire Torah permitted things do not combine with forbidden things besides for the prohibition regarding a Nazir. If one would only require a small amount to be liable to receive lashes, why would combination be necessary? [It must be that Rebbi Yochanan holds that while one does not receive lashes for a Chatzi Shiur, he has transgressed the Torah prohibition.]

Explanation: Only for other prohibitions do we require a Kzayis for the bringing of a Korban. This is because the bringing of a Korban is dependent on the fact that the prohibition is punishable by Kares, which would only occur if someone ate a Kzayis.

However, regarding a Shevuas Bituy that does not have Kares and is only a general negative commandment, and the Korban is dependent on the negative commandment, just as one would receive lashes for a small amount, he would also bring a Korban for a small amount.

Question: Perhaps our case is different, as the Pasuk revealed from "Mishras" and "And all Mishras" as taught in Pesachim (43b) and Nazir (35b)?

Answer: If he held like Rebbi Shimon, he would understand the Pasuk differently.