Source: Since this is something to which exaggeration does not apply, surely it is Shevu'as Shav!

Explanation: Just like below (28a) a Mishnah teaches that even regarding Shevu'os, we are not stringent to forbid the Peros to him, like we say below...

Note: The Ran's text was unlike ours. Rav Amram taught below (28a) that one may falsely vow to a tax collector '(all) Peiros are forbidden to me if this is not the king's.'

Also here, that he said "all Peros are forbidden to me through a Shevu'ah if I did not see..." I.e. it refers to all the kinds in our Mishnah. The Chidush is regarding a snake like the beam of the olivepress;

One might have thought that granted, regarding Nedarim we say that the Peros are permitted, for even when he did not intend to forbid the Peros, he is not lashed for Shav, for we do not find [an Isur of] Neder Shav;

Therefore, it is proper that we say that he did not intend to forbid the Peros. However, regarding Shevu'ah, if he did not intend to forbid the Peros, he is lashed for Shevu'as Shav;

One might have thought that he intended to forbid Peros to himself, in order that he will not be lashed. [The Beraisa] teaches that this is not so;

Source: Even regarding Shevu'ah, we rely on this reason that I wrote in our Mishnah. Had he intended to forbid the Peros, he would not have attributed their Isur to a Tenai like this.

Gemara: He swears based on our opinion.

Explanation: Even though we do not tell him 'swear according to our Da'as', he does not swear based on what in his heart, rather, based on our Da'as.

Gemara: When they impose a Shevu'ah on him.

Explanation: [The Shevu'ah of] one who admits to part of the claim.

Gemara: Askundri (wooden chips with which people play).

Translation: 'Askundri' means wooden chips with which people play:'

Gemara: And he named them 'Zuzei.'

Explanation: He made 'coins' a nickname for them.

Gemara: He told him, 'I paid you.'

Explanation: I.e. I paid to you part. If he totally denied, why did he hold a Sefer Torah? He is obligated only Shevu'as Heses, for which one does not hold a [Kodesh] item!

Assertion: Rather, surely he partially admitted. The Gemara here was not concerned to explain, for it is not engaged in these laws.

Reference: I already wrote in Shevu'os (41a DH bi'Gemara), with Hash-m's help.

Gemara: And I swear that I gave to you your coins.

Clarification: The text does not say 'that I paid to you', for [the lender] did not take them for the sake of payment.

Gemara: Not with you alone.

Explanation: Not like the intent of your hearts.

Implied suggestion: Perhaps he comes to say that he makes a Bris even with the coming generations!

Rejection: [We already know this, for] it is written after this "Es Asher Yeshno Po... v'Es Asher Einenu Po."

Gemara: If he called idolatry 'Eloka'.

Explanation: Even though the words do not imply so, their intent is for idolatry.

Gemara: Idolatry is severe.

Source: It says about the Korban for idolatry "if you will err, and not do all the Mitzvos."

Gemara: Rather, he chose [a text] that is not burdensome.

Citation (Shevu'os 29a) Question: If so, he should have said 'with my intent.' Why did he it say [also] "on Hash-m's intent"?

Citation (Shevu'os 29a) Answer: It is so that there could be no Hafarah of their Shevu'ah. I explained there with Hash-m's help.

Gemara: [It ate] 13 storehouses of straw

Explanation: The quantity of 13 storehouses of straw.

Gemara: It was Taruf.

Explanation: It had many crevices.

Gemara: Its back was Taruf.

Explanation: [A snake's] back is not Taruf, only its neck is.

Gemara: For buying and selling.

Explanation: One who sells a beam of an olive-press Stam, it must be creviced.

Alternative explanation: The Yerushalmi implies that Taruf is rectangular, for it says 'no creation is rectangular.'

Citation (Yerushalmi) Question: If so, why does it teach 'like a beam of an olive-press'?

Citation (Yerushalmi) Answer: The Tana's style is to discuss a big matter. The Mishnah taught 'a camel flying in the air.' It should have taught a mouse! (Rather, the Tana discusses big matters.)

Explanation: It teaches two kinds [of Nidrei Shegagos]. In one, at the time of the Neder he was Shogeg, e.g. "Konam if I ate or drank..."

It teaches also about one who was Shogeg at the time that the Neder was proper to take effect, even though at the time he said the vow, he was not Shogeg;

This is like it taught "that I eat or drink", i.e. he said "Konam this loaf Alai if I eat or drink today", and he forgot and ate or drank;

Since the Neder takes effect through the first eating, and at the time, he is Shogeg, i.e. he did not remember that any Neder depends on that eating, the Neder does not take effect at all.

Explanation: It is because a Neder that was partially permitted is totally permitted, like it says in the Gemara.

It is permitted even without She'elah, like we said at the beginning of our Perek, that all four Nedarim do not require She'elah to a Chacham.

The reason is because since if he knew that his father or brother was with them, he would have excluded them from the Klal (category that he forbids), he is mistaken about the primary Neder. He never intended for his father;

Whenever there is a mistake in the primary Neder, his mouth and heart are not equal, and it is automatically Batel.

Support: This is why regarding "Konam my wife may not benefit from me", we require that he explicitly say "that she stole my wallet";

If not, even though he intended for this, in any case since he intended to be Madir his wife, there is no mistake in the primary Neder;

However, here he never intended to be Madir him, so the Neder is Batel automatically.

Gemara: Just like vows of Shegagah are permitted, also oaths of Shegagah are permitted.

Explanation: Similarly, Shevu'os of Zeruzin are permitted (just like Nedarim of Zeruzin).

So it says in the Yerushalmi. It was taught, just like Nedarim of Zeruzin are permitted, so Shevu'os of Zeruzin are permitted.

Suggestion: The only case of Shevu'os Shegagos is like this.

Rejection: We find them similar to our Mishnah!

Explanation: Rather, [the Beraisa] mentioned this case for a Chidush. It is as if it says "what is the extent of Shevu'os Shegagos?", like we say elsewhere (Kidushin 28a) "what is the extent of Gilgul Shevu'ah?"

The Chidush is, even though each of Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to the other that he (the other) erred and did not understand Rav's teaching...

One might have thought that since he was not concerned for this, and swore, this is not Shogeg, and if he made an Isur Peros dependent on this, they are forbidden. [The Beraisa] teaches that this is not so.

Observation: This Mishnah is below (66a). It is not exactly like the Mishnah of our Perek;

Here, the Neder is Batel automatically, whereas in the Mishnah of "we are Pose'ach [with Shabbos...]", the Neder took effect, just we are Pose'ach with the honor of Shabbos and Yom Tov.

Explanation: This is because in our Mishnah, there is a mistake in the primary Neder. He never intended for his father;

In the Mishnah below (66a), we cannot say so. One who forbade to himself meat and wine for one year knows that Shabbosos and Yamim Tovim will occur;

Therefore, since there is no mistake in the primary Neder, the Neder takes effect, just we are Pose'ach with the honor of Shabbos and Yom Tov;

The Pesach is, had he realized that it is forbidden to pain oneself on these days, he would not have vowed, or [we are Pose'ach] with regret.

Implied question: [Since that Mishnah is unlike our Mishnah,] why did we bring it here?

Answer: It is to explain the argument of Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel, and to say that it depends on [whether we say that] a Neder that was partially permitted is totally permitted, just like the argument of Rabanan and R. Akiva depends on this.

Explanation: This is not called "a Neder that was partially permitted is totally permitted";

This is because at the time of the Neder he said "all of you are forbidden", and also now he persists in his initial words regarding the others in the exact same expression that he said initially;

Implied question: Now he excludes his father from the Klal (general category)!

Answer: Even so, this is not a Neder that was partially permitted, since his father was never in the connotation of the Neder, and regarding the others he says "all of you", [the same words] that he said initially.