(Mishnah): Oaths of Bituy apply to one's own things, and to other people's; they apply to tangible and intangible things;

E.g. he swore 'I will give (or not give) to Ploni', 'I gave (or did not give) to Ploni', 'I will (or will not) sleep', 'I slept (or did not sleep)', 'I will (or will not) throw a rock into the sea', 'I threw (or did not throw) a rock into the sea.'

R. Yishmael says, one is liable [a Korban] only for oaths about the future - "Lehara Oh Leheitiv."

R. Akiva: If so, he should be liable only for Hara'ah or Hatavah (harming or benefiting). What is the source to include neutral things (e.g. throwing a rock into the sea)?

R. Yishmael: The Torah includes this ("l'Chol Asher Yivatei").

R. Akiva: If the Torah includes for this (neutral things), it includes also for this (oaths about the past)!

(Gemara): He seeks a pretext to admit [that he gave to Ploni, or promised to give to him. This is why he swore.]

(R. Ba citing Shmuel): If Reuven swore that Ploni gave to Almoni a Maneh, and it turns out that he did not give, since it is not in Reuven's ability for the future (to force him to give, so he is exempt for a Shevu'ah that Ploni will give), also in the past it is not b'Yado.

Question (R. Yosi): There is no Shevu'ah in the future about Tefilin (not to wear them), but there is in the past (I did not wear Tefilin today)!

Answer (R. Ba): There is a different source for Tefilin (one cannot swear in the future not to wear Tefilin, for this is Bitul of a Mitzvah);

Source: "Lehara Oh Leheitiv" - just like Hatavah is Reshus (optional), also Hara'ah. This excludes a matter or Isur, and a matter of a Mitzvah (Aseh).

"L'Chol Asher Yevatei [ha'Adam]" excludes a minor. (Even though a Mufla Samuch l'Ish (a minor in the year before adulthood), his Shevu'ah takes effect, he is not Chayav Korban for it - NO'AM YERUSHALMI.) "Ha'Adam bi'Shevu'ah" excludes Ones (he thinks that he swears Emes). "V'Nelam Mimenu" excludes Mezid.

Question: Does "v'Nelam Mimenu" mean that he [transgressed because he] forgot the Shevu'ah - or, perhaps it is Helam of the object (he does not think that this is the matter he swore about)!

Answer: "Bi'Shevu'ah v'Nelam Mimenu" - he is liable for Helam Shevu'ah, but not for Helam of the object.

Suggestion: We should say that he is liable for Helam of the object in addition to Helam of the Shevu'ah! Why is this unlike [v'Nelam written about Tum'ah? There, he is liable for] Helam Tum'ah in addition to Helam Mikdash!

He should be liable for both of them according to R. Yishmael, who says that he is liable for Helam Tum'ah and for Helam Mikdash!

Answer: There, it says "v'Nelam Mimenu" twice. Here it says v'Nelam Mimenu only once.

Suggestion: Perhaps one who swore to harm others is liable!

Rejection: "Lehara Oh Leheitiv" - just like Hatavah is Reshus (optional), also Hara'ah is Reshus. I exclude one who swore to harm others, that he is exempt, in a case when he swore not to give to Ploni to eat, and he sees that Ploni is dangerously weak and gives to him.