(Mishnah): For Shevu'as Shav one is lashed if he transgressed b'Mezid. If/ he was Shogeg, he is exempt.

What is Shevu'as Shav? [The following are Shav]:

He swore to contradict what people know to be true, e.g. 'this pillar (which all can see is stone) is gold', or 'this is a woman (all can see it is a man)', or 'this is a man (all can see it is a woman);

He swore about something impossible, e.g. 'if I did not see a camel fly in the air, or a snake like the beam of an olivepress';

He told witnesses "testify for me!", and they swore that they will not testify for him;

He swore to be Mevatel a Mitzvah, e.g. not to make a Sukah, take a Lulav or don Tefilin;

These are Shevu'as Shav. For Mezid he is lashed. If he did so b'Shogeg, he is exempt.

(Gemara) Question: A Mishnah teaches "if I did not see on this path like Olei (the number of people who ascended from) Mitzrayim" (this is Havai, i.e. exaggeration). Is it not possible that so many people passed?!

Answer: He says that he saw them at once.

Support: When King Diklitianus went there (Bavel), 1,200,000 [soldiers] were with him! Rather, we must say that he says that he saw them at once.

(Mishnah): If I did not see a [giant] snake like a beam of an olive-press...

Question: (Why can't this be true?) In the days of Shvor Malka, there was a snake that swallowed camels and wagons!

When they wanted to kill it, they brought stuffed camel hides and filled them with straw, and put coals in them, and it swallowed them and died.

R. Yudah bar Pazi: I saw the skin of a snake that was tanned on eight Mesustalim (large measures).

R. Shmuel bar Yakov: I saw the skin of a snake that was given for a gift to the king (for it was so wondrously big).

Answer (Shmuel): [He swears that] it was square.

Question: If [he swears that] it was square, even if it is small (this is Havai! Why does it say like a beam of an olivepress?)

Answer (R. Yudan, the father of R. Masniyah): Indeed, this is even if it is small. However, the Tana normally mentions only big things;

Our Mishnah mentions a camel flying in the air. Why didn't it teach a mouse flying in the air? (Also this is impossible! Rather, the Tana mentions big things. ALEI TAMAR - it mentioned a camel, for people call a very fast camel "a flying camel." Perhaps we ask that it should have mentioned a mouse, for Tinshames (a kind of bat) looks like a mouse, and it flies (Rashi Vayikra 11:8) - PF.)

(Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel): There is no square creation.from the six days of creation.

Question (R. Berachiyah - Mishnah): The size of a Baheres must be [at least] a square bean of Kilki. The area of a bean is nine lentils, and the area of a lentil is four hairs (a square two by two). It turns out a bean is 36 hairs (a square six by six)!

Answer #1 (R. Yosna): The Mishnah shows that the bean is not square! Why did it need to teach "square"? Rather, one squares the bean (makes a square as long as the length of the bean - MELECHES SHLOMO Nega'im 6:1, from the ROSH).

Question: A Nig'ah (a kind of Sheretz, is square)!

Answer: It is full of knots. (It is not a smooth square.)

Question: The berry of Fila is square!

Answer #1: It is round at the bottom.

Answer #2 (also for a Kilki bean): R. Shimon ben Gamliel said only about Beriyos (Ba'alei Chayim. There can be square Peros.)

Support (Beraisa): There are square foods, but not square Beriyos.

[If witnesses swore falsely] "we do not know testimony for you", they are lashed for Shevu'as ha'Edus. [If they swore] "we will not testify for you", they are lashed for Shevu'as Bituy.

[The Isurim of Edus] Shav and Sheker were both said in one Dibur (utterance) - a [human] ear cannot hear this, and a [human] mouth cannot speak like this. (Since they were taught in one Dibur for testimony, this equates them for Shevu'os. - SHENOS ELIYAHU Terumos 3:6)

"Mechaleleha Mos Yumas" and "uv'Yom ha'Shabbos Shnei Kesavim" (which contradicts it, for we must slaughter them on Shabbos) were both said in one Dibur.

"Lo Silbash Sha'atnez" and "Gedilim Ta'aseh Lecha" were both said in one Dibur (the Mitzvah of Techeles Tzitzis overrides the Isur of Sha'atnez).

"Ervas Eshes Achicha [Lo Segaleh]" and "Yevamah Yavo Aleha" were both said in one Dibur.

"Lo Sisov Nachalah" and "v'Chol Bas Yoresehes Nachalah" were both said in one Dibur, which a mouth cannot speak, and an ear cannot hear;

Similarly, it says "Achas Diber Elokim Shetayim Zu Shamanu", and it says "ha'Lo Cho Devari ka'Esh Ne'um Hash-m."

Shevu'as Shav is when he swore to contradict what people know to be true. Sheker is when he swore to switch (mislead people about something that is not known).

(R. Yakov bar Acha citing R. Yochanan): Anything that is known to two people (and he swears oppositely), this is Shevu'as Sheker. [If it is known] to three, this is Shevu'as Shav.

(R. La citing R. Lazar): Even if it is known to two [here], and one [other] at the end of the world, this is Shevu'as Shav.

Question: What is the difference [between R. Yochanan and R. Lazar? Eventually the third will come, and it will be Shav according to both of them!]

Answer: If he deviated in front of two [about an object] and threw it to the sea, and they warned him for Shevu'as Shav - according to R. Yochanan he is not lashed (the third will never see what he swore about), and according to R. Lazar he is lashed;

If they warned him for Shevu'as Sheker - according to R. Yochanan he is lashed, and according to R. Lazar he is not lashed;

(R. Ba citing R. Yehudah): Even if he swore that an egg is a pearl (KORBAN HA'EDAH. This is Shevu'as Shav. He comes to explain our Mishnah.)

Question: Why did he saw "even"? (What is the Chidush?)

Correction: Rather, [he said that an example of Shav is that he swore about] an egg and a pearl.

(Beraisa): Just like Nidrei Havai are permitted, also SHEVUOS Havai are permitted.

Contradiction (Beraisa): SHEVUOS Havai are forbidden.

Resolution #1 (R. Yirmeyah citing R. Pedas): Here (it is forbidden) when he is Ma'amid (he forbade a loaf "if I did not see..." He had no intent to forbid it, merely to convince people that he saw... It is forbidden due to Shevu'as Shav. SHEVUOS Havai are permitted) here when he is not Ma'amid (he merely exaggerated).

Resolution #2: You can even say that both discuss when he is Ma'amid. Here he makes a Shevu'ah to forbid his property. His property is permitted, but he is lashed [for Shevu'as Shav. We explained this like RASHBA Nedarim 24b DH Gemara, second Perush.]

Just like Nidrei Zeruzin (he does not intend to forbid anything. He pretends to vow for persuasion) are permitted, so SHEVUOS Zeruzin are permitted.

Also this is when he makes a Shevu'ah to forbid his property. His property is permitted, but he is lashed [for Shevu'as Shav. We explained this like KORBAN HA'EDAH.]

(Chizkiyah): One who swears about two that they are two, he is lashed for Shevu'as Shav.

(R. Menachem citing Reish Lakish): One who saw rain fall and said "my Master (this denotes a Shevu'ah), there is much rain!", he is lashed for Shevu'as Shav.

(R. Chunya citing R. Yakov b'Ribi Bun citing R. Shmuel bar Nachman): There were 24 cities in the south, and all of them were destroyed due to SHEVUOS Shav that were true - "la'Shav Hikisi Es Beneichem..."

(Mishnah): If one said 'I swear that I will eat this loaf, I swear that I will not eat it', the first is Shevu'as Bituy, and the latter is a vain oath;

If he ate it, he transgressed [only] Shevu'as Shav. If he does not eat it, he transgressed [even] Bituy.

(Gemara - Mishnah): If one said 'I swear that I will not eat this loaf, I swear that I will not eat it, I swear that I will not eat it' [and he ate it], he is liable only once.

Something that is forbidden in Nedarim, and permitted in SHEVUOS.

Explanation: (This does not refer to our Mishnah. Our Mishnah is forbidden regarding SHEVUOS, but permitted regarding Nedarim, e.g. I forbid myself if I eat this, I forbid myself if I do not eat this"!) Rather, it refers to the Mishnah (above, 3:5) "the same applies to matters of himself and matters of others, both to intangible matters and tangible matters" (Shevu'ah applies to them).

(R. Ba citing Shmuel): If one swore that Ploni gave a Maneh to Almoni, and it turns out that he did not give, since it is not b'Yado for the future (so he is exempt for a Shevu'ah that he will give), also in the past it is not b'Yado.

Question #1 (R. Pinchas): If he was an Istnis (very finicky, and he swore about something he cannot eat), since the Shevu'ah does not apply to him for the future (he cannot fulfill it), does it apply to him for the past? (KORBAN HA'EDAH explains similar to this.)

Question #2: If one said "Shevu'ah I did not, Shevu'ah I did not eat" what is the law?

Answer: It was taught about both of these "this is a stringency of [SHEVUOS of] the past over [those of] the future." If one said "I will not eat, I will not eat" [and he ate], he is liable only once. If one said "I did not eat, I did not eat" [and he ate], he is liable for each one.

If one said "Shevu'ah I will eat this loaf, Shevu'ah I will not eat it, the first is Shevu'as Bituy, and the latter is Shevu'as Shav;

What do we do to (counsel) him? We tell him to eat - it is better to transgress [only] Shevu'as Shav, and not [also] Shevu'as Bituy.

If one said "Shevu'ah I will not eat this loaf, Shevu'ah I will eat it", the first is Shevu'as Bituy, and the latter is Shevu'as Shav;

What do we do to (counsel) him? We tell him not to eat - it is better to transgress only Shevu'as Shav, and not [also] Shevu'as Bituy.

If one said "Shevu'ah I will eat this loaf today, Shevu'ah I will not eat today", and he ate it - R. Yochanan says, he fulfilled the first, and was Mevatel the latter (it took effect on this loaf through Kolel);

Reish Lakish says, he fulfilled the first, and was not Mevatel the latter. (He holds that the latter did not take effect through Kolel, just like he argued above (Halachah 4) about one who vowed not to eat Matzah);

If one said "Shevu'ah I will not eat this loaf today, Shevu'ah I will eat today", and he ate it - R. Yochanan says, he was Mevatel the first, and fulfilled the latter (he intended for anything he will eat, even the forbidden loaf);

Reish Lakish says, he was Mevatel the first, and we tell him to fulfill the second through another loaf. (He did not intend for eating the forbidden loaf.)

If one said "Shevu'ah I will eat this loaf today, Shevu'ah I will eat today", and he ate it - R. Yochanan says, he fulfilled both latter (he intended for anything he will eat, even the loaf);

Reish Lakish says, he fulfilled the first, and we tell him to fulfill the second through another loaf. (He did not intend for eating this loaf, for already a Shevu'ah obligates him to eat it.)

If one said "Shevu'ah I will not eat this loaf today, Shevu'ah I will not eat today", and he ate it - according to R. Yochanan says, he is liable twice (the latter took effect on the loaf through Kolel. We explained this like R. MEIR SIMCHAH, Daf 29a);

Suggestion: According to Reish Lakish, he is liable only once (the latter did not take effect on the loaf through Kolel).

Rejection: Even Reish Lakish agrees [that he is liable twice]. He is like one who makes himself zealous [to refrain] from Isurim (he intended to add an Isur to the forbidden loaf - KORBAN HA'EDAH).

(Mishnah): Shevu'as Bituy applies to men and women, (whether he swore to benefit) strangers or relatives, people qualified and unqualified to testify, in and outside of Beis Din, when he swears himself;

He is lashed if he transgressed b'Mezid, and brings an Oleh v'Yored if he was Shogeg.

Shevu'as Shav applies to men and women, (whether he swore about) strangers or relatives, people qualified and unqualified to testify, in and outside of Beis Din, when he swears himself;

He is lashed if he transgressed b'Mezid. If he was Shogeg, he is exempt.

For both of these, if he was Mushba (a Shevu'ah was imposed on him) through others, he is liable.

What is the case? If Reuven said 'I did not eat today', or 'I did not don Tefilin today', and Shimon said 'I impose this on you through a Shevu'ah', and Reuven answered 'Amen', he is liable.

(Gemara): [We learn from a Gezeirah Shavah] "Nefesh-Nefesh." Just like Nefesh said regarding Shevu'as ha'Edus, ["v'Sham'ah Kol Alah"] makes a Mushba like one who swore [himself], also [Nefesh] said regarding Shevu'as ha''Pikadon, [the Torah] makes a Mushba like one who swore.

Note: HAGAHOS R. DINAR says that this was mistakenly copied to here from below (5:1). NO'AM YERUSHALMI says that the Gezeirah Shavah is based on "Nefesh Ki Secheta", which is written only about Shevu'as ha'Edus and Shevu'as ha''Pikadon. Only there, Mushba is like one who swore even if he did not answer Amen, but not for SHEVUOS Bituy or Shav.

This is the general rule. Every Lo Sa'aseh that has an action, one is lashed for it, and if it has no action, one is not lashed for it, except for one who makes Temurah, swears [falsely], or curses another with Hash-m's name.

(R. Avahu citing R. Yochanan): Temurah is not listed here [with the exceptions]. Temurah is speech and an action (he is Makdish an animal)!

Question: What is the source for one who swears falsely?

Answer (R. Yochanan citing R. Yanai): "Ki Lo Yenakeh Hash-m", but the judges cleanse him [through lashing him].

Question: What is the source for one who curses another with Hash-m's name?

Answer (Reish Lakish citing R. Hoshayah): [We learn from] "Leyir'ah Es Hash-m [... v'Hiflah Hash-m Es Makosecha.]"

Question: According to Reish Lakish, what is the source for one who swears?

Answer: [We learn] from it (the same verse). Since he swears falsely, he does not fear.

Question: According to R. Yochanan, what is the source for one who curses another with Hash-m's name?

Answer: (He learns like Reish Lakish.) Since he curses, he does not fear.

Question: What is the difference between them?

Answer: They argue about one who swore falsely and cursed another with Hash-m's name. According to R. Yochanan he is liable twice (for different verses teach these), and according to Reish Lakish he is liable only once.