(R. Avahu): It says "va'Yavei Oso b'Alah (Nebuchadnetzar imposed an Alah on Chizkiyahu)", and "Asher Hishbi'o bei'Lokim." These teach that Alah is a Shevu'ah.

(Beraisa): The expression 'Arur' includes excommunication, curse, and oath.

Excommunication - "Oru Meroz... Arur Yoshveha (cursed is Meroz... and those who sit near him)";

(Ula): Barak excommunicated Meroz with 400 shofars.

Curse - "These will stand Al ha'Kelalah... Arur ha'Ish."

Oath - "Va'Yashba Yehoshua... Arur ha'Ish (who will rebuild Yericho)."

Objection: Perhaps he swore and cursed! (So this does not prove that Arur includes an oath!)

Rather, we learn from "va'Yo'el... Sha'ul... Arur ha'Ish who will eat... Yonasan did not hear b'Hashbi'a."

Objection: Perhaps here also, Sha'ul swore and cursed!

Answer: If so, it would have said 'v'Arur.'

The same can be said regarding Yehoshua, that is also a proof that Arur is an oath.

(R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina): 'Amen' is an expression of (accepting) an oath, accepting terms, and affirmation.

An oath - "v'Amrah ha'Ishah (the Sotah) Amen Amen";

Accepting terms - "cursed is the one who will not fulfill... v'Amar Kol ha'Am Amen."

Affirmation - "Amen Ken Ya'aseh Hash-m (to return the vessels of the Mikdash and Bnei Yisrael from exile)."

(R. Elazar): Saying 'no' or 'yes' is an oath.

Question: Granted, we learn about 'no' from "v'Lo Yihyeh Od ha'Mayim l'Mabul", and "Asher Nishbati me'Avor Mei Noach";

However, what is the source that 'yes' is an oath?

Answer: It is logical that if 'no' is an oath, also 'yes' is.

(Rava): It is an oath only if he says 'yes' or 'no' twice;

Hash-m said "v'Lo Yikares Kol Basar" and "v'Lo Yihyeh Od ha'Mayim l'Mabul."

Similarly, 'yes' is an oath only if he says it twice.

(Mishnah - R. Meir): One who curses Hash-m with any of these names is liable (to death administered by Beis Din). Chachamim exempt.

(Beraisa - R. Meir) Question: Since it says "v'Nokev Shem Hash-m Mos Yumas", why must it say also (death regarding) "Ish Ish Ki Yekalel Elokav"?

Answer: One might have thought that one is liable only for (cursing) the intrinsic name 'Hashem'. The extra verse obligates also for other names;

Chachamim say, one is Chayav Misah for cursing 'Hashem'. One transgresses a Lav for other names.

(Mishnah): One who curses his parents...

Question: Who are Chachamim, who exempt (from death) for cursing parents with other names of Hash-m?

Answer: They are R. Menachem bar Yosi;

(Beraisa - R. Menachem bar Yosi): We do not need "b'Nakvo Shem Yumas" to teach about cursing Hash-m, so we apply it to cursing parents. One is liable only for cursing with the name 'Hashem.'

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

(R. Yanai): All agree to this;

One who curses himself transgresses "Hishamer Lecha u'Shmor Nafshecha Me'od";

(R. Avin): 'Hishamer', 'Pen', or 'Al' always denotes a Lav.

One who curses another person transgresses (a Lav learned from a Tzad ha'Shavah of cursing a parent and) "Lo Sekalel Cheresh."

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

Rav Kahana was reciting this Mishnah in front of Rav Yehudah. Rav Yehudah told him to recite it in the third person (lest it sound like he curses Rav Yehudah).

A Chacham was reciting and expounding "Gam Kel Yitatzecha..." Rav Kahana told him to recite it in the third person.

Question: Why must this case also be mentioned?

Answer: One might have thought that we recite only Mishnayos in an altered form, but not verses. The second episode teaches that we do so even with verses.

(Mishnah - R. Meir): 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)', they are liable;

Question: R. Meir holds that we do not infer the positive from the negative (i.e. He should strike you if you do not testify, and not the negative from the positive)!

Answer #1: The opinions of R. Meir and Chachamim must be switched.

R. Yitzchak learned the Mishnah like our (original) text.

Rav Yosef: We cannot switch the opinions if this opposes our text and R. Yitzchak's!

Question: How do we resolve the contradiction in R. Meir?

Answer #2: R. Meir does not infer the positive from the negative in monetary matters, but for Isurim, he does.

Question: Sotah is an Isur, and R. Tanchum said that R. Meir infers the negative (if you are not innocent, you will die) from the positive (if you are innocent, you will be safe), because it says "Hinaki" without a 'Yud' (we can interchange 'Hei' and 'Ches', and read this 'Chanki', you will choke)';

If not, R. Meir would not infer the negative from the positive!

Answer #1: Indeed, the opinions must be switched. R. Meir does not infer the negative from the positive even for Isurim.

Question (Ravina): If so, he should exempt one who serves in the Mikdash after drinking wine, or with more than 30 days growth of hair, from Misah b'Yedei Shamayim! (The Torah only says that Kohanim will not drink wine before serving, and they will not die.)

(Mishnah): One who serves in the Mikdash after drinking wine or with more than 30 days growth of hair is punishable by Misah b'Yedei Shamayim. (We do not find that anyone disagrees!)

Version #1 (Rashi) Answer #2: The opinions must be switched. R. Meir does not infer the negative from the positive for anything involving money. He does infer for Isurim;

Sotah is an Isur that involves money (the Kesuvah).

Version #2 (Ritva) Answer #2: Do not switch the opinions. R. Meir does not infer the negative from the positive for anything involving money. He does infer for Isurim;

Sotah is an Isur involving money. (Shevu'as ha'Edus is considered an Isur not involving money, for the witnesses do not stand to lose or profit.)

(Mishnah - R. Meir): Shevu'as ha'Pikadon applies to men and women, to strangers and relatives, to Kosher and invalid witnesses;

When he swears himself, it applies in or outside of Beis Din. If the oath is imposed on him, he is liable only if he denies in Beis Din.

Chachamim say, whether he swears himself or the oath is imposed on him, he is liable if he denies (even outside of Beis Din).

He is liable whether or not he knew the punishment for the oath, if he knew that he swears falsely;

He is exempt if he believed that he was swearing truthfully.

When liable, he brings an Asham that costs at least two Shekalim.

Shevu'as ha'Pikadon is when Shimon told Levi 'give to me the deposit you are holding for me', and Levi swore 'you do not have a deposit by me', or Shimon imposed this oath on him and he answered Amen. (If Levi was lying,) he is liable.

If he imposed the oath on him five times, in or outside of Beis Din, and Levi denied the deposit, he is liable for each oath;

R. Shimon says, this is because each time he could have admitted.

If five partners claimed a deposit from Levi, and he swore 'you do not have a deposit by me', he is liable only once;

If he said 'I swear that you do not have a deposit by me, nor you... ', he is liable for each one.

R. Eliezer says, he is liable for each only if he said 'Shevu'ah' (Ramban - also) at the end;

R. Shimon says, he is liable for each only if he said 'Shevu'ah' to each.

If Shimon claimed from Levi 'you have a deposit from me, a loan, theft (an object you stole from me), and an Aveidah (an object I lost)'; and Levi swore 'I have nothing of yours', he is liable only once;

If he swore 'I do not have of yours a deposit, loan, theft or Aveidah', he is liable for each one.

If Shimon said 'give to me my wheat, barley and spelt', and Levi swore 'I have nothing of yours', he is liable only once;

If Levi said 'I swear that I do not have of yours wheat, barley or spelt', he is liable for each one.

R. Meir says, even if he said 'wheat, barley and spelt' in the singular forms of these words, he is liable for each one (this will be explained later).

Shimon claimed 'you raped or enticed my daughter', and Levi denied it, and Shimon imposed this oath on him, and Levi answered Amen, Levi is liable;

R. Shimon exempts, for even if he admitted, he would not pay the fine.

Chachamim: True, but he would pay for embarrassment and Pegam due to his own admission!

If Shimon said 'you stole my ox', and Levi denied it, and Shimon imposed this oath on him and Levi answered Amen, he is liable;

If Levi admitted 'I stole your ox, but I did not slaughter or sell it', and Shimon imposed an oath on him and Levi answered Amen, Levi is exempt.

If Shimon said 'your ox killed my ox', and Levi denied it, and Shimon imposed this oath on him and Levi answered Amen, he is liable;

If Shimon said 'your ox killed my (Kena'ani) slave', and Levi denied it, and Shimon imposed this oath on him and Levi answered Amen, Levi is exempt. (He would not pay the fine even if he admitted).

If Shimon said 'you wounded me', and Levi denied it, and Shimon imposed this oath on him and Levi answered Amen, is liable;

If Tavi (Levi's Kena'ani slave) said 'you knocked out my tooth or blinded my eye', and Levi denied it, and Tavi imposed this oath on him and Levi answered Amen, Levi is exempt;

The general rule is, if the defendant would have had to pay due to his own admission he is liable. If not, he is exempt.