(Mishnah): Shevu'as ha'Edus is when Reuven told the witnesses 'come testify for me', and they swore 'we do not know testimony for you';

Alternatively, they said 'we do not know testimony for you', and Reuven said 'I impose this on you in an oath', and they answered 'Amen''. [If they were lying] they are liable.

If Reuven made them swear five times outside of Beis Din, and they came to Beis Din and admitted that they know, they are exempt;

If they denied knowing, they are liable for each [Shevu'ah].

If Reuven made them swear five times in front of Beis Din, they are liable only once.

R. Shimon says, this is because [once they told Beis Din that they do not know], they cannot retract and admit [to knowing testimony].

(Gemara): It says here (Shevu'as ha'Edus) "Nefesh", and it says [about Shevu'as ha'Pikadon] Nefesh. Just like there one who swore himself [is liable], also here one who swore himself [is liable]. Just like here [one who is Mushba] through others [is liable], also there [one who is Mushba] through others [is liable].

R. Meir expounds a Gezeirah Shavah from the source (Dun Minah u'Minah). Just like by himself there is [even] outside of Beis Din, also by himself here is [even] outside of Beis Din;

Rabanan expound a Gezeirah Shavah according to the matter in which it is said (what is learned, i.e. Dun Minah v'Uki b'Asra). Just like through others here is in Beis Din, also through himself here is in Beis Din (we explained this like HAGAHOS R. DINAR).

Question (R. Yirmeyah): [According to R. Meir,] if a relative swore by himself Shevu'as ha'Edus, is he liable?

Answer #1: We learn from the following. Since we learned [one who swore himself] Shevu'as ha'Edus only from Shevu'as ha'Pikadon, just like there relatives are liable, also here.

Objection (and Implied Answer #2 - R. Yosi): Can we learn relatives here from relatives there?! (Relatives can be Shomerim, but they cannot be witnesses! Rather, he is exempt for Shevu'as ha'Edus.)

Question (R. Yudan Kapudkiya): If one swore by himself five times outside of Beis Din, perhaps he is not liable for each one?

Answer (R. Yosi): A Mishnah teaches this! R. Shimon says, what is the reason [why he is liable for each Shevu'as ha'Pikadon]? It is because he can retract and admit. Here, since they cannot retract and admit [to knowing testimony], they are liable only once. (If they were Mushba outside of Beis Din, they could retract. However, if they swore by themselves, since they swore falsely, they are Pasul for testimony, so they cannot retract and testify - NO'AM YERUSHALMI, GILYON EFRAYIM.)

Question (R. Yirmeyah): If one swore five times, the first time by himself and four times through others, what is the law [according to R. Meir]?

Since R. Meir makes [swearing] by himself [even outside of Beis Din] like [one who was Mushba] in Beis Din, does it fix them for Korban and obligate for the first time, without a claim?

Answer: We learn from the following. "Why do you pursue us? We swear that we do not know testimony for you!" Perhaps they are liable? It says "v'Sham'ah Kol Alah" - one who heard a curse [if he will not testify], he is liable. This excludes these, who do not hear a Kol (voice).

Question: If one swore by himself about land, is he is liable? If one swore by himself about a fine, is he liable? (We know that Shevu'as ha'Edus applies through others to land and Kenas, unlike Shevu'as ha'Pikadon. Is this even by himself?)

Question: If one swore by himself, is he liable Korban Oleh v'Yored [like Shevu'as ha'Edus through others? Or, is it like Shevu'as ha'Pikadon, for which one brings Chatas Kavu'a?]

(R. Ba bar Yehudah citing Rav): (Our Mishnah said that they are liable for Mezid of the Shevu'ah and Shogeg, and for being Mezid about the testimony, but they are not liable for Shogeg about the testimony.) He was Shogeg about the Korban or Mezid about the Korban, but if he says "I thought that there is no [Isur of falsely taking this] Shevu'ah, this is permitted (he is exempt).

(Chizkiyah - Beraisa): Whenever it says in the Torah "Chet" Stam, you consider Mezid [to be Chayav Korban] like Shegagah, unless the verse informs you [specifically] Shegagah.

(Mishnah): If both witnesses simultaneously denied knowing, they are liable. If one denied after the other, [only] the first is liable;

If one denied and the other admitted knowing, [only] the denier is liable.

If there were two sets of witnesses, and one set denied after the other, both sets are liable, for the testimony could be sustained through either set.

(Gemara) Question: If they separated a Korban and said "we are going to deny in Beis Din" [does it atone for them]?

Answer: This is like R. Chiyah taught "Korbano la'Shem Al Nizro" - the Nezirus must precede [separation of] his Korban, and not that his Korban preceded his Nezirus. (Similarly, the denial of testimony must precede the Korban.)

Question: If they swore outside of Beis Din, separated a Korban and said "we are going to deny in Beis Din", how do you judge this? Is it like one whose sin precedes his Korban?

Or, since they are liable only in Beis Din, it is like one whose Korban precedes his sin?

Inference: Our Mishnah says that if one denied and one admitted, the one who denied is liable. (When both denied, it said that the first is liable. Here it did not specify; even if the first admitted and the second denied, he is liable. We do not say that since the first obligates a Shevu'ah, surely the defendant will pay and not swear falsely, so the second did not cause a loss.)

(R. Yosi): Our Mishnah [exempts the latter when he denied afterwards. What is the Chidush that the latter is exempt when he admits? It is even if initially both denied,] and he retracts. [This is when] the second denied Toch Kedei Dibur (within the time to say three or four words) of the first. [If he does not retract, he is liable, for] if the first would retract [within this time], we would accept [his retraction], and the second would become the first [to deny. We explained this like RIDVAZ.]

If there were 10 [witnesses and they denied one after the other] - some teach that the first is liable and all the others are exempt, and some teach that the last is exempt and all the others are liable;

The one who says that the first is liable and all the others are exempt, he holds like the opinion that testimony that is partially Batel is totally Batel. The one who says that the last is exempt and all the others are liable, he holds like the opinion that the testimony is sustained through the others.

R. Yosi: Our Mishnah is like this [latter] opinion. (If there were two sets of witnesses, and one set denied after the other, both sets are liable, for the testimony could be sustained through either set.) It says so only because they are two. If it were one, testimony that is partially Batel is totally Batel.