Explanation: This is not an actual oath, but rather one must be careful about it. There is a slight punishment for (transgressing) it.

Question: This is difficult. Earlier, we only derive that a Shevuah that does not have an Alah is like a Shevuah with an Alah. However, how do we know that an Alah without a Shevuah is like an Alah with a Shevuah?

Question: According to the opinion in Sanhedrin (66a) that the Pasuk, "Elokim Lo Sekalel" refers to the name of Hash-m, why does the Torah say the Pasuk, "Ish Ish Ki Yekalel?"

Answer: It is needed so that it should be punishable with Kares.

Question: The Chachamim say that one is warned not to curse using the "nicknames" of Hash-m with a negative prohibition. (This implies that one would receive lashes, not Kares!)

Answer: This excludes death, but not Kares.

Question: This is difficult. This is required for the teaching in Sanhedrin (56a) that one is only liable if he curses the name of Hash-m with the name of Hash-m!

Question#1: This is difficult. Everyone agrees that one is liable if he curses himself. However, regarding someone who injures himself, there is an argument in Bava Kama (91b). Why don't we derive that one cannot injure himself from this Pasuk or from the Pasuk, "And you should guard you souls very much?"

Question#2: There is another question. In Sanhedrin (66a), the Gemara presses to establish a source in the Torah for a warning for someone who curses his father, a king, a deaf person, and a judge. Why don't we derive this from the prohibition against cursing oneself?

Answer: If we would not know that one is liable for cursing his father we would not have derived that he is prohibited from cursing himself, as this does not apply to his friend.

Text#1: This is the text of Rashi and the Rach. Rather, you should switch the opinions around. He (Rebbi Meir) holds this regarding prohibitions, but not regarding money matters. Although the topic of Sotah involves prohibition, being that it involves money (whether or not she receives a Kesuvah) it is treated as a money matter.

Text#2: The standard text had read that you should not switch the opinions around.

Question: Rashi asks, according to the Rabbanan who say he is exempt, do they not hold that someone who enters the Mikdash drunk receives the death penalty? (The entire prohibition is based on the principle that, "from a negative one sees the positive," as the Torah says "do not drink...and you will not die.")

Answer: It appears that the reason the Rabbanan say he is exempt is because they require the special name of Hash-m to be used, and they are referring to Elokim being used. because the Mishnah stated that Rebbi Meir says one is liable, it says again that the Chachamim say he is exempt.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that they have already argued about this in the Mishnah. (Why does the Mishnah state this argument again?)

Answer: Being that the Mishnah says that Rebbi Meir holds he is liable (in order to discuss the nature of the case), it also says that the Chachamim say he is exempt.

Question: It is understandable regarding Sotah that Rebbi Meir does not say, "from a negative one sees the positive" because it involves money. However, one can still ask all the questions based on the Pesukim that are quoted in Kidushin (61b). The Gemara asks, "It is understandable according to Rebbi Meir why the Pasuk says, "And if in My laws..." Similarly, "If you will do good," "If you will want," and "And if he will not be cleansed." These all imply that Rebbi Meir requires that both the positive and negative are clearly stated, even though the issue is only one of prohibition and does not involve money.

Answer: It is possible to answer that "And if in My laws," "If you will do good," and "If you will want," cover many Mitzvos, including those involving money. "And if he will be cleansed" includes monetary ramifications as well, for example making Terumah impure.

Question: This is difficult according to Rabeinu Tam. In Nedarim (13b), the Gemara says regarding vows that Rebbi Meir does not hold of the concept "from a negative one sees the positive." This is despite the fact that this only pertains to a prohibition.

Answer: Rabeinu Yom Tov says that Rebbi Meir only holds regarding serious prohibitions that "from a negative one sees the positive." For example, he holds this is true regarding drinking and not having a haircut (for thirty days) and going into the Mikdash, as this is punishable by death.

Answer(cont.): This is also true regarding an oath that, "Shevuah if I will eat with you" in Nedarim (16a). The implication is that even Rebbi Meir holds that this concept applies there because he considers it a serious prohibition. This is evident from the fact that the Gemara in Yoma (86a) lists various things one is liable to receive Kares for, and it lists "Lo Sisa" ("Do not say Hash-m, your G-d's name, in vain") among them.

Answer(cont.): Similarly, the Gemara later (39a) mentions that the entire world shook when Hash-m said, "Lo Sisa."

Question: In Kidushin (ibid.), Rebbi Meir requires that a double condition (both positive and negative) be mentioned in the Shevuah, regarding "Then I will be clean of my curse etc." (This was Avraham making Eliezer swear to find a wife for Yitzchak according to his wishes. What monetary issue was at stake?)

Answer: There is a monetary issue there, as the verse says, "And all of the good of his master was in his hand."

Explanation: This is stated by an Asham Meilos, and we derive from there that this applies to all Ashamos.