Implied Question: In Shabbos (32b), the Gemara derives from this Pasuk that due to the sin of transgressing vows, small children die. However, this implies that big children do not, and certainly people from his family do not die. (How can our Gemara say otherwise from this same Pasuk?)

Answer: This is regarding Nedarim. However, regarding a Shevuah, even his entire family can be punished. This Pasuk is discussing both types of vows. "Do not let your mouth" refers to Shevuos. "Why should Hash-m be upset at your voice and destroy the word of your hands," implies sons, and is specifically referring to Nedarim.

Explanation: This is not literally referring to all of the sins in the Torah. Rather, this means ones that are unlike Shevuah. It is apparent from the Gemara in Kidushin (13a) that because of Arayos themselves the land mourned.

Opinion#1: Rashi explains that he (is made to leave quickly in order that he) should not retract before he leaves Beis Din.

Implied Question: The Gemara in Bava Metzia (34a) asks that if someone says he will pay and then retracts and says he will not pay, what is the law? Do we say that he is retracting, or do we say that he is merely pushing off the payment? (According to Rashi, this is difficult, as it implies that even if he verbally retracts after he left Beis Din we are unsure if it is an actual retraction. This is unlike Rashi's explanation here.)

Answer#1: The Gemara in Bava Metzia is discussing his retraction before he leaves Beis Din.

Answer#2: Alternatively, it is even after he left Beis Din. [The Gemara there means] If he intends to retract, even though he cannot, he does not acquire the rights to Keifel (even if he eventually pays). This is because he ends up bothering Beis Din, as stated in Bava Metzia (35a) regarding a person who deposited rings by his friend. Therefore, Rashi's explanation seems correct.

Opinion#2:,This is unlike the opinion of Rabeinu Tam in Sefer Ha'Yashar in Sanhedrin (24a). While discussing the Gemara regarding one who says that he believes his father to be a judge, Rabeinu Tam says that a person can effectively retract.

Opinion#2(cont.): He proves this from the Gemara in Bava Metzia (34a). He explains that "he is excused from Beis Din immediately" means that because of this he will be embarrassed to retract.

Opinion#2(cont.): Another statement was found in the name of Rabeinu Tam that the Gemara in Bava Metzia (ibid.) is referring to a case where he says, "I am paying" outside of Beis Din.

Opinion#2(cont.): Alternatively, Rabeinu Tam holds that he did not leave Beis Din, as I have explained. However, if he said he would pay in Beis Din and then later said outside of Beis Din that he will not pay, he cannot retract.

Implied Question: The Gemara in Sanhedrin (ibid.) itself implies that Rashi is correct. The Beraisa states that if his friend owed him a Shevuah and he said, "Swear on your life," Rebbi Meir says he can retract this being acceptable, and the Chachamim say he cannot.

Implied Question(cont.): The Gemara says there that their argument is after the verdict in the case, and the law follows the Chachamim. This implies that after the verdict, even though he did not yet swear on his life, he cannot retract (even if he left Beis Din). (How can Rabeinu Tam say he can always retract?)

Answer: It is possible to say that it is not called a verdict in this case unless he already swore on his life.

Answer(cont.): This is also implied in Bava Basra (128a) according to the text of Rabeinu Chananel regarding someone who claims another person stole his slave, and the defendant claims he did not. The claimant asks, "Why is he by you etc.?" Rabeinu Chananel's text is that if the defendant says, "If you want, swear he is yours and take him" and the claimant swears, the defendant cannot retract this statement. This implies that after the claimant swore, the defendant cannot retract. However, before he swears he can retract.

Text: Some have the text in Bava Basra (ibid.), "He swears and he cannot retract." (This is a regular oath administered by Beis Din, and therefore does not lend proof to the voluntary oath being the verdict.)

Question: This is difficult. In Megilah (7a), there are many Tannaim that derive that Megilas Esther was said with Ruach ha'Kodesh from the Pesukim. Shmuel derives this from the Pasuk, "They upheld and accepted," indicating that Heaven upheld what was accepted on earth. Rava's conclusion is that all of these derivations have questions on them, besides that of Shmuel.

Question(cont.): There is a question on Shmuel's derivation as well, as we require this Pasuk to teach us our derivation. Moreover, Rava himself cites this derivation, that Bnei Yisrael now upheld what they had already accepted at Har Sinai, in Shabbos (88a)!

Question(cont.): Needing the Pasuk for another derivation is something which Rava himself considers a question in Chagigah (10a). The Mishnah there states that the permission of vows is "flying in the air" (i.e. without a concrete source in the Torah). In the Gemara there, many try to cite a source from a Pasuk for this concept. Rava concludes, they all have questions, as the Pesukim that are quoted are all needed for different derivations, besides for that of Shmuel. (Accordingly, how could Rava say that Shmuel's derivation in Megilah is without question?)

Answer: It is possible to answer that the other derivations in Chagigah (ibid.) certainly have questions on them. There is no question at all on Shmuel, as he does not require his Pasuk for a different teaching. However, in Megilah (7a) there are questions about the actual Pesukim and derivations themselves, besides for the derivation of Shmuel regarding which there is not a significant question aside from the fact that his Pasuk is required for a different derivation (that of our Gemara). (In other words, in Chagigah Rava said there is a small question on everyone else and no question on Shmuel, whereas in Megilah he said there is a significant question on everyone else and a small question on Shmuel).

Question: It is difficult that our Mishnah did not state Shevuas ha'Dayanim and Shevuas Bituy. Being that it did say these (Shevuas ha'Eidus and Shevuas ha'Pikadon), it is not reasonable to state that he merely left out certain categories. (Why were they left out?)

Answer: There are aspects of these two that it listed that do not apply to the ones that are not listed. This is why it only says these Shevuos.

Implied Question: The Gemara could have merely answered that this is referring to a small judgement, as the Gemara concludes later, while here we are talking about a more stringent judgement. (Why didn't it give this answer?)

Answer: Rather, it would rather explain that they do not receive the punishment of that specific sin, but rather a punishment for not protesting. This is why the punishment is not so stringent.

Question: How can the Gemara derive later according to Shmuel that "vessels" were specified in the Torah to teach that even if they were small and insignificant they can mandate an oath of Modeh b'Miktzas? The Gemara here says Shmuel requires "vessels" to teach that just like vessels means a minimum of two, so too money refers to a minimum of two!

Answer: It is possible to answer as does Rashi (40b, DH L'MAH SHE'HEIN) that Shmuel's basis for the derivation later is from the fact that it does not say, "monies." (In other words, this is an extra factor aside from "vessels" being plural which gives room for another derivation.)

Opinion#1: Rashi later explains that if the Torah would have only stated "monies," I would say that it must be a minimum of two and of significant value.

Question: This does not seem accurate. Without another source for inclusion, "monies" would merely mean two Perutos (small copper coins). This is akin to being Mekadesh a woman, which can be done with a Perutah. This is despite the fact that in Kidushin (4b, 11b) the Gemara derives being Mekadesh a woman from Avraham's purchase of Efron's field where it states "money."

Opinion#2: Rather, it should have said, "money or monies." Alternatively, it should have said, "money or items." We would know this teaches a minimum of two and they must be of significant value, being that there is an extra word "money." Being that it says, "vessels" we derive that this even applies to insignificant vessels.

Question: According to Rav who establishes that "money" teaches a lesson regarding denial, how does he know that the items must be significant?

Answer: The entire teaching is derived from "vessels." Requiring a significant item is derived from "vessels." Even a needle that is not worth a Perutah is still significant, as one can do a significant work using a needle.

Text: Some Sefarim have a text here, "Just as "vessels" are significant etc." (This is instead of the text that it indicates a minimum of two.)

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Gemara is according to Shmuel, as the Pesukim are consistent with his approach. Later, Shmuel states that if the Torah would have stated "vessels" and not "money," I would think that just as vessels indicate two etc. However, we would not require anything of significance. (This implies Shmuel derives items of significance from "money," not "vessels." How can this text be correct?)

Answer: Certainly this law is derived from the word "money," teaching that we require that the vessel be worth a Perutah. This in order that you should not say that the Pasuk teaches that this applies to all vessels, even those that are not worth a Perutah.

Answer(cont.): This is indeed stated by the Yerushalmi. The Yerushalmi states that if someone claims two needles from his friend, they must be worth two Perutos in order that the denial should be worth a Perutah and the admission should be worth a Perutah.

Answer(cont.): The Yerushalmi continues that we then compare money to vessels to teach that the money should be more than a Perutah. Just as the vessels are not insignificant, but rather are significant vessels, so too money is not a minute amount but rather a significant amount of money, namely a Ma'ah (more than a Perutah) which is significant.

Implied Question: Now there is no need to correct the text by adding, "so too everything that is significant" as corrected by Rashi. This is because Shmuel indeed holds that "vessels" teaches even small vessels. It is therefore understandable that the text says, "so too vessels that are significant," as we also require that vessels are two Perutos. When the Gemara says, "what they are," it means even though they are not worth two Ma'os.

Text: This was also the text of his Rabbonim in Kidushin (4b), and I have discussed this at length there (11b, TOSFOS DH V'HAREI).