Answer: It seems possible to explain that the case is where he swore regarding half of an amount from one (figs), and half of an amount from the other (grapes).

Implied Question#1: However, this cannot be said, as Rabah's statement is in Nedarim (17b). The entire Gemara there shows that the correct text is that of the Sefarim, and not of Rashi.

Implied Question#2: The Gemara there also implies that the case is where someone swears not to eat both, meaning not to eat a complete amount from eat. The Gemara there explains that being that the oath is valid regarding grapes, it is also valid regarding figs. If the case was that each was half an amount this logic is not applicable, as he is not considered to be sworn not to do so from Har Sinai for half an amount (see TOSFOS 23B, DH D'MUKI).

Answer: One must differentiate between this case and the case of nine and ten figs (and say that the case of the Sefarim is where he swore not to eat a combination of figs and grapes). In the latter case, there is a prohibition against transgressing an oath for every single one of the ten figs. Every one of the first nine figs that he will eat out of these ten is forbidden by this oath. However, here there was never an original prohibition on grapes (as the oath is only transgressed if he eats both grapes and figs). This is why this Migu (being that it applies to grapes, it also applies to figs) is applicable.

Answer(cont.): Similarly, if he makes an oath not to eat these nine, and he then makes an oath not to eat ten, the second oath is valid due to this Migu (as other figs were not prohibited when he prohibited the nine specific figs).

Question: This is difficult. The Mishnah here writes, "a flying camel" and not "like the amount of people who came up from Egypt." In Nedarim (24b), regarding exaggerated Nedarim, the Mishnah says, "like the amount of people who came up from Egypt" and not "like a flying camel."

Explanation: This means that he takes a Shevuah to this effect. In Nedarim (24b), the text explicitly states "Shevuah." This is a Shevuas Shav, as he cannot possibly refrain from eating all of the fruits in the world.

Opinion: Rabeinu Tam says that if he would make a similar Neder, saying that he forbids all of the fruit of the world to himself with Konam if he he will do something, it would not be valid. This is because it is impossible for him to fulfill it. Alternatively, if he forbids all of the fruit in the world upon himself without condition, it would not be valid. This is because we find the Torah forbids Shevuos Shav, but not Nidrei Shav.

Proof: A proof to this effect is that the Gemara in Nedarim (24b) quotes a Beraisa that exaggerated Shevuos are forbidden, but exaggerated Nedarim are permitted. This is because the prohibition against exaggerated vows or oaths (when there is one) is Shav.

Question: However, there is a difficulty from the Gemara in Nedarim (15a). The Gemara asks regarding someone who says, "Konam my eyes from sleep." If he does not say an amount of time that he cannot sleep, do we wait until he transgresses Bal Yachel? Didn't Rebbi Yochanan say that if someone swears that he will not sleep for three days we give him lashes, and he can go to sleep immediately? This implies that Nedarim are also valid when he cannot fulfill them, and he is considered to transgress them immediately.

Answer: The exaggerated Nedarim that are permitted are not because he forbade himself to do something that he could not fulfill. Even if he could fulfill the Neder, and he only forbade himself from one type of fruit, it is permitted. (Although Tosfos does not clearly indicate (i.e. "v'Yesh Lomar") this is an answer, the commentaries treat it as such. For example, see Toras Chaim on this Tosfos.)

Answer(cont.): The reason is because his mindset is not actually, "like a beam of a press," but rather because something that looks like it has a square back (see Tosfos and Meiri on Nedarim 25a) and is very different from other snakes is called a beam of a press. The great army that he saw he called "those who went out of Egypt." He only says this to strengthen and bring truth to his words.

Answer: The Rabbanan were stringent regarding Shevuos (to forbid exaggerated Shevuos) because the Pasuk says, "he will not be cleaned (of his sin, showing it is a serious sin)."

Implied Question(cont.): The Tosefta says that just as exaggerated Nedarim are permitted, so too are exaggerated Shevuos permitted. (How can this be if our Mishnah says exaggerated Shevuos are forbidden?)

Answer: This (they are permitted) is according to Torah law.

Question: This is slightly difficult. What does the Shevuah help? Just as he was scared that they would eventually serve idols, he should also have been scared that they would transgress this Shevuah! (This just adds more sin to Bnei Yisrael! See Maharsha for the answer.)

Explanation: Even if they will mention the specific name of Hash-m, we say later (35b) that the names of Hash-m mentioned regarding Michah are mundane, even the ones written as the name of Hash-m according to Rebbi Yehoshua, and the names written regarding Givas Binyamin according to Rebbi Eliezer.

Observation: The Gemara in Nedarim (25a) answers this question by saying that they will understand these are the Mitzvos of the king, meaning the Parshah of Mitzvos relative to a king, as this is easy for the people to keep.

Implied Question: The Gemara did not answer that this refers to Avodah Zarah, regarding which the Pasuk says in Parshas Shelach, "And if you will accidentally sin and not do these Mitzvos." Chazal learned from here that if someone denies Avodah Zarah, it is as if he admits to the entire Torah. (Why didn't the Gemara give this answer?)

Answer: This is because in the language of people, the only Mitzvah that is called "all of the Mitzvos" is Tzitzis.

Observation: This question is not brought in Nedarim, and there are some questions that are brought there and are not brought here. The Gemara there does not answer, "in order that there should not be an option of Hafarah for their Shevuah." Rather, it answers that "Moshe Rabeinu said something that was not tedious."

Implied Question: When the Gemara in Gitin (36a) derives from here that a Neder that is made based on the mindset of the public cannot be permitted, we cannot learn from here that two people are called a "public." (Why not?)

Answer: Perhaps the mindset of Hash-m is more than that of a regular person.

Question#1: How can we permit Charamos that we make based on Hash-m's mindset and the congregation's mindset? Even if is just on the mindset of the congregation it should be called on the mindset of the public (and not be permitted)!

Question#2: Additionally, how can they be permitted without regret?

Answer: It is possible to answer that the mindset of the congregation is that they should be able to permit it if they want to do so, even without any regret. The fact that they added Hash-m's mindset is based on a decree of the Geonim in order to add stringency to the Cheirem. This is unlike the oath that Moshe made Bnei Yisrael take, as Hash-m commanded him to make them take this oath. However, the Charamos that we decree are totally dependent on the mindset of the congregation.

Observation: The Gemara in Nedarim (25a) asks, why doesn't the Mishnah say it is square? The Gemara answers, this is teaching you a sidepoint that the beam of a press is square. The difference is regarding a sale of such a beam (that it must be square).

Explanation: It appears that he jumped and swore. It can be presumed that Rava knew the Beraisa, and would have made him swear based on the mindset of Hash-m and the Beis Din.

Question: This is difficult. Both of them are a Shevuas Bituy! "Shevuah that I will eat" refers to eating a Kzayis, just as Shevuah that I will not eat refers to a Kzayis. This is as Rava said earlier (27b), that a person is only liable (after making such an oath) if he eats a Kzayis. "Shevuah I will not eat it" refers to the entire loaf, as Rava said earlier. (Accordingly, he can fulfill his first oath while fulfilling the second as well. He can merely eat a Kzayis, and he will not have eaten the entire loaf. Both oaths should therefore be classified as a Shevuas Bituy!)

Answer: Perhaps one can differentiate between "I will eat" and "I will not eat" (see Tosfos Ha'Rosh who explains the difference at length).

Observation: In the beginning of Shevuas ha'Eidus (30a), the Gemara derives this law from the Pasuk, "And the two men will stand." If so, a woman cannot be a judge, as the Mishnah says in Nidah (49b) that whoever is a valid judge is a valid witness.

Implied Question: The Pasuk states regarding Devorah, "And she judged Bnei Yisrael." (How could she do so if a woman is not a valid judge?)

Answer#1: It is possible to say that she would merely teach them the laws.

Answer#2: Alternatively, being that she was a prophetess they would accept her upon themselves as a judge (a person may accept any person as a judge, even if he is invalid to be a judge who can force others to come before him).

Observation: The Yerushalmi also makes this logical connection and says that now that a woman cannot testify, she also may not be a judge.

Question: However, this is difficult. In Bava Kama (15a) and Kidushin (35a) we derive from, "That you will put before them" that the Torah equated a man and woman for all laws in the Torah. If a woman is an invalid judge, it must be that "before them" is only talking about people who are fit to judge. This is as the Gemara derives in Gitin (88b), "before them - and not before idolaters" and "before them - and not before unlearned people." (How can "before them" include a woman, and at the same time exclude her from being a judge?)

Answer: The Pasuk refers to both the judges and those who are judged. It excludes idolaters and unlearned people because "before them" refers to the word "Elohim" mentioned later, which implies expert judges. It also refers to those who are judged, and everyone is included in this. (The Chasam Sofer explains that Tosfos means that being that the Gemara in Sanhedrin (18a) says that a judge must also be able to be judged, both types of people are included in this Pasuk. There is therefore no contradiction in learning that the Pasuk is discussing both types of people.)