(Mishnah): If one said 'I impose an oath on you if you will not testify that Ploni promised to give to me 200 Zuz, and he did not give to me', they (the witnesses) are exempt (for even if this is true, Ploni need not give);

One is liable only for a claim of money that must be paid, similar to a deposit.

If he said 'I impose an oath on you that when you will know testimony for me, you will come and testify for me', they are exempt, for the oath preceded (seeing) the testimony.

If he said in the Beis ha'Keneses 'I impose an oath on (all of) you, that if you know testimony for me you will testify', they are exempt.

(Gemara - R. Yosi citing R. Yakov bar Zavdi citing R. Avahu citing R. Yochanan): If one said to give a gift to his friend, and he wants to retract, he can retract.

Question (R. Yakov bar Zavdi to R. Avahu): His "Hein" (yes) is not Tzedek (proper). The Torah said "v'Hin Tzedek" (your Hein should be Tzedek)!

Answer (R. Avahu): At the time he said "Hein", it was Tzedek (he intended to give).

Question: [When he said in the Beis ha'Keneses..., why are they exempt -] because he does not know [whether or not they know testimony], or because he did not intend [only for the witnesses, rather, he put an oath on everyone]?

Note: The Gemara will answer the question in the next Halachah. Here it only discusses the consequence of the answer.

Question: What is the difference between these reasons?

Answer: If he took two people at a time [and imposed a Shevu'ah on them] - if you will say that it is because he does not know, [also here] he does not know. If you will say that it is because he did not intend [only for the witnesses], here he intended [just] for them.

(Mishnah): If he said to two 'I impose an oath on you, Ploni and Almoni, that if you know testimony for me you will testify', and they swore that they do not, and they had heard testimony from another witness, or one of them was a relative or an invalid witness, they are exempt.

(Gemara - R. Mana) Answer #1 (to Question (g) above in Halachah 7) Inference: We learn from the Seifa "if one of them was a relative or an invalid witness, they are exempt." This implies that if there was not among them a relative or an invalid witness, they are liable!

Does he know [whether or not they know testimony? He does not, for he said "if you know"!] Rather, the reason (for one who said in the Beis ha'Keneses...) is because he did not intend [only for the witnesses].

Answer #2 (R. Yosi) Inference: We learn from the previous clause [in Mishnah 7, ... when you will know testimony for me... they are exempt], for the oath preceded (seeing) the testimony. This implies that had the oath not preceded the testimony, they would be liable!

Does he know [that they will know testimony? He does not!] Rather, the reason (for one who said in the Beis ha'Keneses...) is because he did not intend [only for the witnesses].

(Mishnah): If Reuven (the claimant) sent his slave to ask the witnesses to testify, or the defendant made them swear, they are exempt, unless they hear [a demand to testify] from the claimant.

(Gemara - R. Lazar): What do we learn from [the extra Vov in "Lo" in "Im Lo Yagid v'Nasa Avono"? (We can read it Lo (with a Vov) Lo (with an Aleph) - if he will not testify for him (the claimant. When he is Mushba, it must be) from the claimant. (We explained this like KORBAN HA'EDAH.)

The Mishnah [is not enough; it] needs also R. Lazar's teaching, and R. Lazar's teaching needs also the Mishnah;

If we had only our Mishnah, and not R. Lazar's teaching, we would say that if they heard [a demand to testify] from the claimant and they swore the defendant, they are liable. Therefore, we need R. Lazar's teaching;

If we had only R. Lazar's teaching, and not our Mishnah, we would say that if they heard [a demand to testify] from the defendant and they swore to the claimant, they are liable.

Conclusion: We need our Mishnah, and we need R. Lazar's teaching. They are not liable until they hear [a demand to testify] from the claimant, and swear to the claimant.

(Mishnah): If he said 'I impose an oath on you', (or) 'I command you', 'I forbid you', they are liable;

If he made them swear by Heaven and earth, they are exempt;

If he made them swear by 'Aleph-Dalet' (and 'Nun-Yud', the way we pronounce Hash-m's name'), 'Yud-Kei [Vov-Kei]', Shakai, Tzevakos, Chanun, Rachum, Erech Apayim, Rav Chesed, or any Kinuy (name that refers to Hash-m), he is liable.

One who curses [Hash-m] with any of these names is liable [Misas Beis Din]. R. Meir says so. Chachamim exempt.

One who curses his father or mother with any of them, he is liable. R. Meir says so; Chachamim exempt.

One who curses himself or another person with any of these names transgresses a Lav;

'Hashem should strike you (if you will not testify for me)' is the Alah (curse) that the Torah refers to;

If he said 'Hashem should not strike you', 'Hashem should bless you', or 'Hashem should do good to you [if you will testify for me]', R. Meir says that they are liable, and R. Yehudah exempts.

(Gemara): If he said 'I impose an oath on you' Stam (he did not add "with a Shevu'ah"), he is liable. 'I forbid you' or "I chain you" [and he added "through a Shevu'ah"], they are liable.

(R. Yochanan citing R. Yanai, and some say R. Avahu citing R. Yochanan): The [Reisha] of our Mishnah (he made them swear by a Kinuy, even though it was taught Stam, is not unanimous). R. Meir obligates, and R. Yehudah exempts (HAGAHOS R. DINAR);

R. Meir holds like he taught elsewhere, and R. Yehudah holds like he taught elsewhere;

(Mishnah): If one cursed [his parents] with a Kinuy, R. Meir obligates, and Chachamim exempt. (This was taught also in our Mishnah! R. Yochanan teaches that Chachamim are R. Yehudah.)

(Mishnah): One who curses himself or another person with any of these names transgresses a Lav.

Question: Is he lashed?

Answer #1 (Talmidim): He is not lashed.

Rebuttal (and Answer #2 - R. Yosi): Do you say so because it is a Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh? Also Temurah and swearing falsely are Lavim she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh [and one is lashed for them]!

(R. Yosa citing R. Yochanan): [The Seifa of our Mishnah] is R. Meir, who says that from the negative you infer the positive. [Hash-m] should not strike you if you come and testify for me - if you will not come and testify for me, He should strike you!

Question: I would know only a Shevu'ah with an Alah (curse). What is the source for a Shevu'ah without an Alah? (HAGAHOS R. DINAR, and similarly in MEICHAL HA'MAYIM.)

Answer: It says ["v'Sham'ah Kol Alah". Kol is extra, so we expound] v'Sham'ah Alah v'Sham'ah Kol, to make [a Shevu'ah] without an Alah like one with an Alah.

Inference: An Alah without a Shevu'ah, no (one is not liable for it).

Rejection (R. Yosi citing R. Yochanan): There is no difference. An Alah without a Shevu'ah is like a Shevu'ah without an Alah.