1)

(a)The Pasuk in writes "Vayovei oso be'Alah" (and he made him take an oath) - in connection with the oath that Nevuchadnetzar made Tzidkiyahu make not to rebel against him.

(b)Rebbi Avahu proves from the Pasuk in Divrei Hayamim (in connection with the same episode) "ve'Gam ba'Melech Nevuchadnetzar Marad asher Hishbi'o b'Elokim" - that Alah is synonymous with Shevua'h.

(c)When the Tana of the Beraisa defines 'Arur', 'Bo Niduy, bo Shevu'ah, bo Kelalah', he means - 'Arur' can mean any of these three, depending upon the context in which it is said.

2)

(a)The Tana proves from the Pasuk in Shoftim (in connection with the inhabitants of Meroz, who refused to participate in the battle against Sisro) " 'Oru Meroz', Amar Mal'ach Hash-m, 'Oru Arur Yoshvehah' " that 'Arur' is a Lashon of Niduy, from a statement of Ula, who said that, as a result of the above - Barak placed them in Cherem (which is synonymous with Niduy) accompanied by the customary blowing of (four hundred) Shofros.

(b)And the Tana proves from the Pasuk in Ki Savo "ve'Eileh Ya'amdu al ha'Kelalah be'Har Eival", followed by "Arur ha'Ish asher Ya'aseh Pesel" that - 'Arur' incorporates K'lalah.

(c)We refute the Beraisa's original proof that Arur contains Shevu'ah from the Pasuk (in connection with whoever would rebuild Yericho) "Vayashba Yehoshua ba'Eis ha'Hi leimor Arur ha'Ish ... " - on the grounds that Arur and Shevu'ah may well be two distinct things, both of which Yehoshua placed on them, should they contravene his oath.

3)

(a)We finally prove that 'Arur' is synonymous with K'lalah from the Pasuk (in connection with the oath that Shaul made forbidding Yisrael to eat that day before the battle was won) from the continuation of the Pasuk "Vayo'el Shaul es ha'Am leimor Arur ha'Ish ... " followed by "vi'Yehonasan Lo Shama be'Hashbi'a Aviv es ha'Am ... " - a clear indication that the two are synonymous.

(b)We ...

1. ... initially object to this proof - on the same grounds as we objected to the previous one ('ve'Dilma Tarti Avid l'hu, Ashbe'inhu ve'Laytinhu').

2. ... refute the objection however - on the grounds that in that case, the Pasuk ought to have switched the 'Beis' (in "be'Hishbi'a") for a 'Vav', to read "vi'Yehonasan Lo Shama ve'Hashbi'a Aviv es ha'Am ... ".

(c)In fact, we conclude, we could have given the same answer to the Kashya on the first proof (that, if 'Arur' and Shevu'ah are two things, the Pasuk ought to have then written "Vayashba Yehoshua ba'Eis ha'Hi leimor ve'Arur ha'Ish ... ".

4)

(a)In similar style to the previous Beraisa, Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... in Shmuel (in connection with a Sotah) "Ve'amrah ha'Ishah 'Amen Amen' " - that Amen constitutes a Shevu'ah.

2. ... in Ki Savo (in connection with the acceptance of the K'lalos at Har Eival) " 'Arur asher Lo Yakim ... Ve'amar Kol ha'Am Amen ve'Amen' " - that it also constitutes acceptance.

3. ... in Yirmiyah (in connection with the false prophecy of Chananyah ben Azur, who prophesied that the vessels that had already been taken to Bavel would be returned) "Amen Kein Ya'aseh Hash-m, Yakem Hash-m es Devarecha" - that it constitutes corroborating a prayer as well.

(b)Rebbi Elazar says that both 'La'av' and 'Hein' - following the appropriate statement, constitute a Shevu'ah.

(c)He learns that 'La'av' is a Shevu'ah, because the Torah writes (in No'ach) "ve'Lo Yih'yeh Od ha'Mayim le'Mabul, and in Yeshayah "Ki Mei No'ach Zos Li asher Nishba'ti", he that 'Hein' is a Shevu'ah too - from a S'vara) because if 'No' corroborates a negative statement, it stands to reason that 'Yes' does the same for a positive one.

(d)Rava qualifies Rebbi Elazar's Halachah, by restricting it to where one says 'No' or 'Yes' twice (like the Pasuk in No'ach, which also states "ve'Lo Yikareis Kol Basar Od mi'Mei ha'Mabul" (besides the above-mentioned Pasuk), but if he were to say it only once, it would have no such connotations.

5)

(a)Bearing in mind that the Pasuk has already written "ve'Nokev Sheim Hash-m Mos Yumas", Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "Ish Ish ki Yekalel Elokav ve'Nasa Chet'o" - that one is Chayav for the Kinuyin too.

(b)According to the Rabbanan - however, the Kinuyin are only subject to a La'av (but not to Misah).

(c)The Chachamim in our Mishnah, who are synonymous with Rebbi Menachem b'Rebbi Yossi, sentence someone who curses his father or mother to death, only if he cursed them with the Name of Hash-m. He learns this ruling from the Pasuk there "be'Nokvo Sheim Yumas" - 'Im Eino Inyan', since it is otherwise superfluous.

6)

(a)Rebbi Yanai learns from...

1. ... the word "Nafsh'cha" (in the Pasuk in Va'eschanan "Rak Hishamer l'cha u'Shemor Nafsh'cha Me'od") that - someone who curses himself transgresses a La'av.

2. ... the Pasuk in Kedoshim "Lo Sekalel Cheresh" that - he transgresses a La'av if he curses someone else.

(b)The earlier D'rashah is based on the principle (of Rebbi Avin Amar Rebbi Ila'a) - 'Kol Makom she'Ne'emar Hishamer, Pen ve'Al Eino Ela Lo Sa'aseh'.

(c)And when Rebbi Yanai adds 've'Divrei ha'Kol', he means that - according to both Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim, Atzmo and Chavero are only subject to a La'av and not to Misah (see Maharsha).

7)

(a)When, in response to Rav Kahana, who quoted the Mishnah ('Yakcha Hash-m, Yakchem Elokim, Zu hi Alah ... ') as it is written, he retorted 'Kaneih!' (with a 'Kaf'), he meant that - he should change it from the second person to the third, from 'Yakcha Hashem' to 'Yakeihu Hashem', and from 'Yakchem Elokim to 'Yakhem Elokim' (to avoid inviting punishment on him).

(b)Rav Kahana said the same in response to a certain Talmid-Chacham who quoted the Pasuk in Tehilim ("Gam Al Yitatzcha la'Netzach ... ") as it is written. We need to cite the second case to teach us that - the concept of 'Kaneih' extends to the written Torah as well. Note, that Rav Kahana did not apply it to the Chumash (see for example, Parshas Bechukosai and Ki Savo), implying that the Leining must be read exactly as the words are written.

8)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah 'Al Yakcha vi'Yevarech'cha ve'Yeitiv l'cha', Rebbi Meir Mechayev ... '. The problem with that is that - Rebbi Meir is known to hold 'mi'Chelal La'av I Atah Shome'a Hein', and vice-versa.

(b)We answer 'Eipuch' (switch the opinions). When Rebbi Yitzchak arrived from Eretz Yisrael - he learned the Mishnah the way it is written.

(c)Faced with this dilemma - Rav Yosef preferred to leave the Mishnah the way as it is, and, to resolve the discrepancy in Rebbi Meir, he explained that Rebbi Meir holds 'Mi'chelal La'av I Atah Shome'a Hein' specifically by Mamon, whereas our Mishnah refers to Isur (issues not connected with Mamon), where Rebbi Meir concedes that 'Mi'chelal La'av Atah Shome'a Hein'.

(d)We query this however, from Sotah, where Rebbi Tanchum bar Chanila'i points out that the Pasuk writes "Hinaki", implying that - if not for "Hanaki", we would not be able to learn that the Sotah will be exonerated from the fact that she will die if she did sin (in other words, he holds 'Mi'chelal La'av I Atah Shome'a Hein') even by a case of Isur.

(e)So we try to re-establish Rebbi Meir - that he holds 'Mi'chelal La'av I Atah Shome'a Hein' even by a case of Isur.

9)

(a)But we query this too, from the Mishnah in Sanhedrin, which rules that a Kohen who drinks wine and serves in the Beis-ha'Mikdash, or who serves in the Beis-ha'Mikdash with long hair - is Chayav Misah.

(b)We learn that a Kohen who ...

1. ... drinks wine and serves in the Beis-ha'Mikdash is Chayav Misah - from the Pasuk in Naso (in connection with a Nazir) 'Do not drink wine ... and you will not die' (implying that if he does, he will be Chayav).

2. ... serves in the Beis-ha'Mikdash with long hair is Chayav Misah - from the fact that the Pasuk in Yechezkel compares him to someone who drinks wine and enters the Beis-ha'Mikdash.

(c)From the fact that nobody argues with the earlier case, it is clear that - when it comes to Isur, even Rebbi Meir holds that 'Mi'chelal La'av Atah Shome'a Hein'.

(d)Having now re-instated Rav Yosef's earlier answer differentiating between Mamon and Isur according to Rebbi Meir, we explain the Sugya in Sotah, which is a case of Isur, yet Rebbi Meir there holds 'mi'Chelal La'av I Atah Shome'a Hein' - by pointing out that Sotah incorporates an aspect of Mamon (the woman losing her Kesuvah), and is therefore considered Mamon in this regard (in fact, the same applies to the case of Shevu'ah in our Mishnah, which is the result of a monetary claim).

(e)And the reason why it is necessary to switch the opinions in our Mishnah is - because if the Rabbanan would exempt him, then they would hold 'mi'Chelal La'av I Atah Shome'a Hein' even by Isur. And if that was so, from where would they know that Shesuyei Yayin are Chayav Misah?

10)

(a)Our Mishnah includes both men and women in 'Shevu'as ha'Pikadon, as we already discussed in the previous Perek.Even Rebbi Meir agrees that the Shomer is Chayav even if he denies the claim outside Beis-Din - provided he personally swears ('mi'Pi Atzmo') ...

(b)... or if he answers 'Amen' to the Shevu'ah maded by the claimant.

(c)They learn this from the Pasuk in Vayikra - "ve'Kichesh ba'Amiso", which implies that he is Chayav wherever it is.

(d)If others make him swear, and he denies it without answering 'Amen' ('mi'Pi Acherim') - Rebbi Meir confines his Chiyuv to in front of Beis-Din (like Shevu'as ha'Eidus).

11)

(a)The Rabbanan obligate him even outside Beis-Din as well - because (despite the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Sechta" "Sechta" from Shevu'as ha'Eidus [from which they learn other things]), they hold - 'Don Minah ve'Ukeih be'Asrah' (as we learned in the previous Perek), whereas Rebbi Meir holds 'Don Minah u'Minah'.

(b)When the Tana states ... 've'Chayav al Z'don Shevu'ah', he means that - the sinner not only knows that he sinned, but he also knows that he is Chayav a Korban for having transgressed.

(c)In fact, he is Chayav even if he is Meizid on either the Shevu'ah or just on the Pikadon (but Shogeg on the Shevu'ah), despite the fact that Shevu'as Bituy is only Chayav for Shogeg - because by Shevu'as Bituy the Torah writes "ve'Ne'elam", whereas by Shevu'as ha'Pikadon it does not.

(d)He is nevertheless Patur if he is Shogeg on both - because, based on the Pasuk "ha'Adam bi'Shevu'ah", in such a case he is considered an Oneis (as we have already learned).

12)

(a)The Nishba is Chayav - an Asham that is worth at least two Sela'im (as the Torah writes explicitly).

(b)The pattern of claim and denial is basically identical with that of Shevu'as ha'Eidus. If the claimant made him swear five times, he is Chayav to bring five Ashamos - because, as Rebbi Shimon explains, after each Shevu'ah, he would be Chayav if he admitted (a proof that it is Mamon and not K'nas).

13)

(a)If five people claim a Pikadon from Reuven, assuming he answers ...

1. ... 'Shevu'ah she'Ein lachem be'Yadi' - he will have to bring only one Korban.

2. ... 'Shevu'ah she'Ein l'cha be'Yadi, ve'Lo l'cha ve'Lo l'cha ... ' - he will be obligated to bring five Korbanos.

(b)Rebbi Elazar restricts this ruling to where he mentions 'Shevu'ah' at the end; Rebbi Shimon - requires him to say 'Shevu'ah after each claim.

(c)By the same token, if Reuven claims from Shimon...

1. ... a Pikadon, a loan, something that he stole and a lost article - he will be Chayav one Korban if he replies 'Shevu'ah she'Ein l'cha be'Yadi', but four if he answers 'Ein l'cha be'Yadi Pikadon, Sesumes-Yad, Gezel va'Aveidah'.

2. ... wheat, barley and spelt - he will be Chayav one Korban if he replies 'Shevu'ah she'Ein l'cha be'Yadi', but three if he replies 'Ein l'cha be'Yadi Chitin, u'Se'orin ve'Kusmin'.

14)

(a)If Reuven claims that Shimon raped or seduced his daughter, and Shimon denies it with a Shevu'ah, Rebbi Shimon exempts him from a Korban - since he is claiming K'nas, which is not considered Mamon (because if he were to admit to the claim, he would be Patur).

(b)The Rabbanan obligate him - because he would be Chayav to pay Boshes and P'gam (embarrassment and depreciation), both of which are considered Mamon, if he admitted.

(c)Even though if Shimon swears that he did not steal Reuven's ox, he is Chayav, he is nevertheless Patur if he admits that he stole it, but denies having Shechted or sold it - because for Shechting or selling the ox that he stole, he has to pay four or five times ('Daled ve'Hey') the value of the ox, and 'Daled ve'Hey' is considered K'nas.

(d)If under oath ...

1. ... Shimon denies having wounded Reuven - he is Chayav a Korban.

2. ... a master denies having blinded his Eved or knocking out his tooth - he is Patur, because an Eved going free for an eye or a tooth too, is a K'nas.