(Beraisa - R. Shimon): The following apply to Kodshim of Nochrim: one may not benefit from them, one who benefited did not transgress Me'ilah...

One may not benefit from them mid'Rabanan. There is no Me'ilah mid'Oraisa.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: We learn from a Gezeirah Shavah "Chet-Chet" from Terumah;

It says "Chet" regarding Me'ilah, like it says regarding Terumah;

Regarding Terumah it says "Bnei Yisrael," to exclude (Terumah of) Nochrim.

(Beraisa): One is not liable for them for Pigul, Nosar and Tamei.

Regarding Tum'ah it says "va'Yinozru mi'Kodshei Venei Yisrael... v'Lo Yechalelu", to exclude Nochrim;

It says regarding Nosar "v'Ochlav Avono Yisa Ki Es Kodesh Hash-m Chilel." We learn a Gezeirah Shavah "Chilul-Chilul" from Tum'ah;

It says regarding Pigul "Avonah Tisa." We learn a Gezeirah Shavah "Avon-Avon" from Nosar.

(Beraisa): Temurah does not apply to them.

Version #1: Before the Parshah of Temurah it says "Daber El Bnei Yisrael Ish Ki Yafli Neder."

Version #2 - Question: Why can't Nochrim make Temurah?

Answer: Regarding Ma'aser of Degen (grain), it says "Bnei Yisrael," to exclude Nochrim;

A Hekesh equates Ma'aser Behemah to Ma'aser Degen, and a Hekesh equates Temurah to Ma'aser Behemah.

(Beraisa - R. Shimon): A Nochri may not bring Nesachim (some texts - alone), but his Korban requires Nesachim.

Question: What is his reason?

Answer (Beraisa): "Ezrach" teaches that only a Yisrael brings Nesachim;

Suggestion: Perhaps a Nochri's Olah does not require Nesachim!

Rejection: It says "Kachah". (It requires Nesachim. The Tzibur can (or must) bring them.)

R. Yosi is stringent concerning all of these.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: It says "la'Shem" (to include Nochrim).

(Beraisa): This applies to Kodshei Mizbe'ach, but Me'ilah applies to Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: We learn Me'ilah from a Gezeirah Shavah "Chet-Chet" from Terumah;

We learn only about Kodshei Mizbe'ach, which have Kedushas ha'Guf (intrinsic Kedushah) like Terumah, but not regarding Bedek ha'Bayis, which is Kedushas Damim. (Only its value is Kodesh.)

(Rav Yehudah): Regarding every Lav in the Torah:

If one transgressed through an action, he is liable. If not, he is exempt. (This refers to lashes, not to Lavim punishable by Misas Beis Din or paying money.)

Question: This is not always true!

Temurah is a Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh, yet our Mishnah says "if one made Temurah, it takes effect, and he receives 40 lashes"!

Answer #1: Our Mishnah is like R. Yehudah, who obligates lashes for a Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh.

Question: Our Mishnah says "everyone can make Temurah," to include an heir. This is unlike R. Yehudah!

Answer: The Tana holds like R. Yehudah regarding Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh. He argues with him about whether an heir can make Temurah and do Semichah.

(Rav Idi bar Avin): If one transgressed any Lav of the Torah:

If he did an action, he is lashed;

If he did not do an action, he is not lashed, except for swearing falsely, Temurah, and cursing someone with Hash-m's name. He is liable for these, even without an action.

R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina says, even one who designates Terumah before Bikurim (is lashed, even without an action).

Question: What is the source to lash for swearing falsely?

Answer (R. Yochanan): "(Lo Tisa... ) Ki Lo Yenakeh Hash-m... " - the Heavenly court does not cleanse (one who swore falsely), but Beis Din lashes and cleanses.

Question (Rav Papa): Perhaps he will not be cleansed at all!

Answer (Abaye): Had it only said "Lo Yenakeh," that would be correct;

Rather, it says "Lo Yenakeh Hash-m." We infer that (a punishment from) Beis Din cleanses.

Question: This teaches only that there are lashes for a Shav oath. What is the source for Sheker?

Answer (R. Yochanan): It says twice "la'Shav";

We use the extra one to teach about Sheker.

Question (R. Avahu): What kind of Sheker do we learn about?

Suggestion: He swore "I will not eat", and he ate.

Rejection: He transgressed through an action. (We already know that he is lashed!)

Answer #1: Rather, he swore "I will eat" and he did not eat.

Objection: He is not lashed for this!

(R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish): If one swore "I will eat this loaf today" and he did not eat it, he is not lashed.

(R. Yochanan): He is not lashed because he transgressed without an action, one is not lashed for such a Lav;

(Reish Lakish): He is not lashed because he did not receive definite warning. (He transgressed right before the day ends. No one knows precisely when this is.)

Answer #2 (R. Avahu): Rather, he swore "I ate" or "I did not eat."

Question: Also here, he transgressed without an action. Why is he lashed?

Answer (Rava): The Torah teaches that one is lashed for Sheker that resembles Shav, i.e. in the past.

Question (against R. Avahu - R. Yirmeyah - Mishnah): If Reuven 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 for only one oath;

This is the Shevu'ah of Bituy for which one is lashed if he was Mezid, and brings a Korban Oleh v'Yored for Shogeg.

Suggestion: "This" excludes "I ate" or "I did not eat." He is not lashed for them!

Answer #1: No, it excludes "I ate" or "I did not eat," for he does not bring a Korban for them;

The Mishnah is R. Yishmael, who says that a Korban is brought only for oaths about the future;

He is lashed for "I ate" or "I did not eat."

Question (Seifa): This is the Shevu'as Shav for which there are lashes, but no Korban;

Suggestion: This excludes "I ate" or "I did not eat." He is not lashed for them!

Answer: No, it excludes "I ate" or "I did not eat," to teach that he brings a Korban for them;

This is like R. Akiva, who obligates a Korban for the past just like for the future.

Objection: Is the Reisha R. Yishmael, and the Seifa R. Akiva?!

Answer #2: Since the Seifa is R. Akiva, also the Reisha is R. Akiva;

The Reisha does not exclude "I ate" or "I did not eat" from a Korban, rather it excludes "I will eat" from lashes (since he transgresses through inaction, i.e. not eating, but he brings a Korban for Shogeg. Our texts of Rashi and Tosfos explain just the contrary. It excludes "I will eat" from Korban, but he is lashed. Chok Nasan and Sefas Emes say that this is a mistake; the texts should read like we explained.)

Version #1 (Rashi) Question: Why do we say that the Reisha excludes "I will eat" from lashes, and the Seifa includes "I ate" and "I did not eat" for Korban (and not vice-versa)?

Version #2 (Tosfos) Question: Why don't we answer that the entire Mishnah is R. Yishmael; the Reisha excludes "I ate" and "I did not eat" from Korban, the Seifa excludes them from lashes? (end of Version #2)

Answer: The Reisha discusses an oath of the future. Presumably it excludes an oath of the future.

(Rav Idi bar Avin citing R. Yosi ha'Gelili):... Except for Temurah...

R. Yochanan (to a reciter of Beraisos): Do not include Temurah (among the exceptions), for his words do an action (they are Makdish an animal. According to our text (3a), R. Yochanan was part of the chain citing R. Yosi ha'Gelili to say that Temurah is an exception! This is not difficult according to the text in the margin (there) that replaces "R. Yochanan" with "R. Yehudah.")

(Rav Idi bar Avin):... And cursing someone with Hash-m's name.

Question: What is the source of this?

Answer (R. Oshaya) Question: What is the meaning of "Im Lo Sishmor (... l'Yir'ah Es ha'Shem... Es Hash-m Elokecha); V'Hifla Hash-m Es Makoscha"?

Answer: It refers to lashes - "v'Hipilo ha'Shofet v'Hikahu."

Suggestion: Perhaps one is lashed even for a true oath!

Rejection: The Torah commands to swear (sometimes) - "Shevu'as Hash-m Tihyeh Bein Sheneihem."

Suggestion: Perhaps that is to appease the other party, but one is lashed for it!

Rejection: "Uvi'Shemo Tishave'a" (permits swearing truthfully).

Question: This permits something else!

Question (Rav Gidal): What is the source that one may swear (to arouse himself) to fulfill Mitzvos (even though he is already commanded, it is not a vain oath)?

Answer: We learn from "Nishbati va'Akayemah Lishmor Mishpetei Tzidkecha." (Really, the Heter must be from a verse in the Chumash, i.e. "uvi'Shemo Tishave'a.")

Answer: Another verse permits swearing - "u'Vo Sidvak uvi'Shemo Tishave'a"! (Devarim 10:20. The above verse ("uvi'Shemo Tishave'a," Devarim 6:13) does not mention "u'Vo Sidvak.")

Summation of answer (f): "Im Lo Sishmor... ; V'Hifla... ." teaches that one who curses someone with Hash-m's name is lashed.