Answer #1 (Abaye): In our Mishnah, he was not being pressured to eat, so 'she'Ochel' means 'I will eat.'

In the Beraisa (Tosfos - other Mishnah), he was being pressured to eat, and kept refusing;

When he finally swore 'she'Ochel', he meant 'I will not eat' (so they will stop insisting).

Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): The text (there) should read 'she'Iy Ochel' (that I will not eat).

Question: The Tana already taught 'she'Lo Ochel.' Why must he teach also 'she'Iy Ochel'?

Answer: One might have thought that he meant to say 'she'Ochel', and mispronounced it. The Tana teaches that this is not so.

(Beraisa): "Mivta" is a Shevu'ah. "Isar" is a Shevu'ah;

The prohibition of Isar - if you will say that Isar is a Shevu'ah, he is liable. If not, he is exempt.

Objection: The Tana just said that Isar is a Shevu'ah!

Answer #1 (Abaye): The Beraisa means: if one says "Mivta", this is a Shevu'ah. If he says "Isar", this is Hatfasah in a Shevu'ah (forbidding something like something else forbidden by a Shevu'ah);

Version #1 (Rashi): The prohibition of Isar: if you will say that Hatfasah in a Shevu'ah is like saying a Shevu'ah, he is liable (if he transgresses it). If not, he is exempt.

Version #2A (Tosfos): The prohibition of Isar: if he was Matfis in a Shevu'ah, he is like one who said a Shevu'ah, and he is liable. If he said 'this is Isar upon me', this is not a Shevu'ah, and he is exempt.

Version #2B: The prohibition of Isar: if he used the text of a Shevu'ah to be Matfis (e.g. I will not eat this, like this (other food forbidden by a Shevu'ah)), he is like one who said a Shevu'ah, and he is liable. If he did not say the text of a Shevu'ah (he said only 'this is like this'), this is not a Shevu'ah, and he is exempt.

Version #2C: If one was Matfis item A in a Shevu'ah, and one was Matfis B in A, one is liable for B only if Hatfasah in a Shevu'ah is exactly like saying a Shevu'ah, for then this is like normal Hatfasah in a Shevu'ah. . If not, he is exempt. (end of Version #2)

Question: What is the source that "Mivta" is a Shevu'ah?

Answer #1: We learn from "... Ki Sishava LeVaTei."

Question: We should say the same about Isar - "V'Chol Shevu'as Isar"!

Answer: We must say that we learn that "Isar" is Hatfasah in a Shevu'ah from "... Isar Al Nafshah bi'Shvu'ah."

Question: We should say the same about Mivta, for it says "Asher YeVaTei ha'Adam bi'Shevu'ah"!

Answer #2 (Abaye): No, we learn that "Mivta" is a Shevu'ah from "... u'Nedareha Aleha Oh Mivta...";

The verse does not mention a Shevu'ah. We must say that she forbade herself through Mivta alone!

Answer #2 (to Objection c - Rava): Really, Hatfasah in a Shevu'ah is not like saying a Shevu'ah;

The Beraisa means as follows. "Mivta" is a Shevu'ah. Also "Isar" is a Shevu'ah;

Isar is not always a Shevu'ah. The Torah wrote it between Neder and Shevu'ah to teach that it can be either;

If it was said in the text of a Shevu'ah (forbidding an action), it is a Shevu'ah. If it was said in the text of a Neder (Alai, forbidding an object to himself), it is a Neder.

Question: Where did the Torah wrote Isar between Neder and Shevu'ah?

Answer: It says "V'Im Beis Ishah Nadarah Oh Asrah Isar Al Nafshah bi'Shevu'ah."

Abaye and Rava explain according to what they taught elsewhere:

(Abaye): Hatfasah in a Shevu'ah is like saying a Shevu'ah;

(Rava): It is not like saying a Shevu'ah.

Question (against Rava - Beraisa): Examples of the Isar that the Torah discusses are 'eating meat and drinking wine are forbidden to me like the day that my father died... or the day Gedalyah ben Achikam was killed, the day that I saw Yerushalayim in ruins... ' He is forbidden.

(Shmuel): The case is, he had already taken a Neder never to eat meat or drink wine on that day.

This is not difficult for Abaye. The Beraisa explains Hatfasah in a Neder, for this takes effect just like (Tosfos - and is learned from) Hatfasah in a Shevu'ah.

This refutes Rava (who says that Isar is not through Hatfasah)!

Answer: The Beraisa means that the Neder that the Torah discusses is 'eating meat and drinking wine are forbidden to me like the day that my father died... ' He is forbidden.

(Shmuel): The case is, he had already taken a Neder never to eat meat... on that day.

Question: Why must that be the case?

Answer: "Ish Ki Yidor Neder la'Shem" - Hatfasah must be in Davar ha'Nadur (something forbidden by a vow).

Question: If so, what is special about the day that his father died?

Answer: Indeed, there is nothing special about it. The Chidush is the day that Gedalyah died;

One might have thought that since he is forbidden to eat that day (Tzom Gedalyah) even without his Neder, it is like Hatfasah in a forbidden matter, and not in Davar ha'Nadur. The Beraisa teaches that this is not so.

Also R. Yochanan holds like Rava.

(Ravin citing R. Yochanan): 'Mivta I will not eat your food' is a Shevu'ah. 'Isar I will not eat your food' is a Shevu'ah.

(Rav Dimi citing R. Yochanan): If one swore 'I will eat' or 'I will not eat' (and transgressed), this is Shevu'as Sheker (a false oath). "V'Lo Sishav'u bi'Shmi la'Shaker" forbids it.

If one falsely swore 'I ate' or 'I did not eat', this is Shevu'as Shav (a vain oath). "Lo Sisa... la'Shav" forbids it.

If one transgresses Konamos (Nedarim), he transgresses "Lo Yachel Devaro."

Question (Beraisa): Shav and Sheker are the same.

Suggestion: This means that just like Shav is in the past (i.e. it is false the moment he says it), also Sheker;

This says that 'I ate' is Sheker! (People might believe it. Shav is something obviously false.)

Answer: No, they are different (Shav is in the past, and Sheker depends on the future).

Question: The Beraisa says that they are the same!

Answer: It means that they were both taught [regarding testimony] in one (of the Ten) Utterances.

(Beraisa): "Zachor (mention Shabbos, i.e. in Kidush)" and "Shamor (guard Shabbos, i.e. don't do Melachah)" were said simultaneously, something that only Hash-m could do.

Question: There, we learn from the fact that they were said together;

(Rav Ada bar Ahavah): Mid'Oraisa, women are commanded in Kidush of Shabbos (even though they are usually exempt from positive Mitzvos that apply only at particular times);

We are commanded "Zachor" and "Shamor" - whoever is commanded to guard, must also mention;

Since women are commanded Lishmor (a Lav), they are commanded Lizkor.

Summation of question: Here, what do we learn from the fact that they were taught in the same Utterance?

Answer #1: (Since they were taught in one Utterance for testimony, this equates them for Shevu'os - Shenos Eliyahu Terumos 3:6). Just like one is lashed for Shav, also for Sheker.

Objection: Just the contrary (it is more obvious that one is lashed for (some oaths of) Sheker, which one transgresses through an action)!

Answer #2: Rather, just like one is lashed for Sheker, also for Shav.

Question: This is obvious. Both are Lavim!

Answer #1: One might have thought (like Rav Papa) that one is not lashed for Shav.

(Rav Papa): "Lo Yenakeh" teaches that this sin will not be cleansed (by lashes or other punishments)!

The Beraisa teaches that this is not so (like Abaye answered Rav Papa. Hash-m does not cleanse, but Beis Din lashes to cleanse it.)