(Mishnah): We do not swear due to the claim of a child, lunatic or deaf-mute;

We do not make a child swear, but we do swear to a child and to Hekdesh.

(Gemara): It says "Ki Yiten Ish El Re'ehu" to exclude a minor.

Question: This is when he gave it to him when he was a minor and claimed it when he was a minor. If he gave it to him when he was a minor and claimed it when he was an adult, [what is the source]?

Answer: "Re'ehu" - the giving and claim must be equal (at both times he was an adult).

Question (R. Aba bar Mamal): Does this not argue with R. Yochanan, who says that one who [found an Aveidah] and claims that it was stolen, he is liable (if he swore falsely about this, i.e.) "where is my Aveidah?", and he says "it was stolen"! (He is liable even though the claimant never gave anything to him!)

Answer (R. Ba): [The Drashah exempts] when [the finder] says "when you were a minor, you claimed from me, and I was exempted from your Shevu'ah." (R. Yochanan discusses when he claimed only once, when he was an adult.)

"Shevu'as Hash-m Tihyeh Bein Sheneihem" excludes an heir.

(R. Ila citing R. Yosa): The Mishnah [7:7, which says that orphans collect only after swearing, discusses when they collect] from orphans. "Bein Sheneihem" [does not exclude orphans from swearing. Rather, it teaches that punishment for the oath] does not budge from both of them (one of them is always punished);

If the claimant is Mashbi'a (imposes a Shevu'ah) b'Sheker (he knows that he is not owed, punishment) will come on him. If the Nishba swears b'Sheker [punishment] will come on him.

What is the reason? It says "Hotzeisiha Ne'um Hash-m Tzevakos u'Va'ah El Beis ha'Ganav v'El Beis ha'Nishba bi'Shmi la'Shaker." (Beis ha'Ganav refers to one who deceives and imposes a Shevu'ah b'Sheker.)

(R. Shmuel bar Nachman): Damaging angels do not have knees. What is the source? "Mi'Shut ba'Aretz ume'His'halech Bah" (the Satan goes, but he cannot sit);

However, here (the above verse about one who imposed or swore Shevu'as Sheker, it says that the curse will lodge in his house,) "v'Chalato v'Es Etzav v'Es Avanav."

Remark: Come and see that matters (rocks) that fire does not burn them, Shevu'as Shav eradicates them!

(R. Yonah): This is only for Shevu'as Sheker.

(R. Yosi): It is even for [one who thought that he swears] Emes.

Chagai expounded like R. Yosi.

A case occurred in which Leah went to arrange [dough into loaves] for her friend Rachel. There were two coins stuck to the end of Leah's cloth. They fell into a loaf. Leah looked for the coins in her house, and did not find them;

She returned to Rachel, and said "give to me the two coins that fell for me in your house." Rachel said "I do not know about this; if I know about them, she (i.e. I) should bury her son. [He died, and] she buried him.

When returning from burying him, she heard someone say "had she not known about them, she would not have buried him." She said "if she (I) knew about them, she should bury another son." [Another son died, and] she buried him.

They came to console her, and cut a loaf, and found the two coins arranged in the loaf.

Inference: This shows that whether one is Zakai (thinks that he is correct) or Chayav, he should not enter to take a Shevu'ah.

(Mishnah): We do not swear about slaves, documents, land and Hekdesh;

The following laws apply to these. A thief does not pay Kefel (double) for them, nor four or five (if he later slaughtered or sold a stolen (Hekdesh) animal), a Shomer Chinam need not swear about them (even through Gilgul), and a Shomer Sachar need not pay for them (in fact, all Shomerim are exempt from swearing and paying for them);

R. Shimon says, one swears about Kodshim that have Achrayus (a Neder, i.e. a vow to bring a Korban. If the animal is disqualified or lost, he must bring another). One does not swear about Kodshim without Achrayus (a Nedavah, an animal that he made a Korban. If the animal is disqualified or lost, he need not bring another.)

R. Meir says, some things are like land, and not like land (they have the law of Metaltelim). Chachamim disagree;

What is the case? If Reuven claimed 'I entrusted you with ten vines laden with grapes', and Shimon said 'you entrusted me with only five', R. Meir obligates [a Shevu'ah]

Chachamim say, anything connected to land is like land. (He does not swear.)

(Gemara - R. Yochanan): If one transgressed and swore [a false Shevu'as ha'Pikadon about land], he brings a Korban for the Shevu'ah;

(R. Lazar): He does not bring.

R. Avin bar Chiyah: R. Yochanan asked R. Lazar [since you agree that witnesses are liable for Shevu'as ha'Edus about land, the same applies to Shevu'as ha'Pikadon, for we learn from a Gezeirah Shavah. R. Lazar replied] "no - if you said so about Shevu'as ha'Edus, which applies to slaves, documents and land, will you say [so] about Shevu'as ha'Pikadon, which does not apply to slaves, documents and land?!"

[R. Yochanan]: (If you distinguish them, you must hold like R. Meir, who says that Shevu'as ha'Edus must be in Beis Din.) Is not Shevu'as ha'Edus in Beis Din? Does Beis Din give a Shevu'ah to witnesses [about land]?! Rather, we must say that he transgressed and swore [by himself], and he brings a Korban for the Shevu'ah. Also here [Shevu'as ha'Pikadon], if he transgressed and swore, he brings a Korban for the Shevu'ah! (We explained this like ZAHAV HA'ARETZ.)

Source #1 (for our Mishnah): Some learn from "Chamor Oh Shor Oh Seh" - just like these are special, that breakage, captivity and death apply to them (Shevu'as ha'Pikadon applies only to such matters). This excludes land, to which breakage, captivity and death do not apply;

Suggestion: I should exclude land, and not exclude slaves (to which breakage, captivity and death apply)!

Rejection: These are special, that a fine (Kefel for a thief) applies to them. This excludes slaves, which do not have a fine.

Suggestion: I should exclude slaves, and not exclude documents, which have a fine!

Rejection: These are special, that Ona'ah (overcharging) applies to them. This excludes documents, which do not have Ona'ah. From here they said that one who sells document to a perfumer (to cork his bottles), Ona'ah applies to them.

Source #2: R. Yishmael expounded "Oh Nefesh Ki Sishava" is a Klal (general term). "Lehara Oh Leheitiv" is a Prat (specific term). "L'Chol Asher Yevatei" is another Klal. From a Klal u'Ferat u'Chlal we include only matters like the Prat;

The Prat is a claim of Mamon, for himself, and he takes it through Beis Din, and it has monetary value, and its value is fixed (i.e. Ona'ah applies; one cannot charge whatever he wants) and they are Metaltelim, and it is exempt from Onesh (Chiyuv Misah, which exempts from payment due to Kam Lei bid'Rabah Minei) and a fine;

"A claim of Mamon" excludes one who tells his friend "give to me the 200 Zuz that you said that you will give to me, and you did not give it";

"For himself" excludes one who tells his friend "you raped or enticed Ploni's daughter";

"He takes it through Beis Din" exclude one who tells his friend "you cursed me or [verbally] embarrassed me." He is exempt for this. (We explained these like RIDVAZ);

"It has monetary value" excludes documents;

"Its value is fixed" excludes slaves;

"They are Metaltelim" excludes land;

"It is exempt from Onesh" exclude one who tells his friend "you burned my stack on Shabbos". He is exempt [from payment];

"He is exempt for a fine" excludes payment of Kefel, four or five, which are fines.

One who tears another's documents against his will - R. Chananyah and R. Mana argued about this. One of them obligates, and one of them exempts;

The one who obligates, this is due to a fine. The one who exempts, this is like one who seals the mouths of his friend's witnesses (stops them from testifying. He is exempt, for it is Gerama.)

A widow who seized documents [to collect her Kesuvah from them], she is like one who seals the mouths of witnesses, so they will not testify. (If she seized Metaltelim, she is believed to say that she seized them in her husband's lifetime, and she collects from them. However, seizure of documents is different, for they do not have intrinsic worth. She must bring a proof that she seized them in her husband's lifetime (PNEI MOSHE), and then the orphans cannot force her to return them until they pay her Kesuvah - PF.)

(R. Ami): These [lenders] who write "on condition that I have rights to collect from Metaltelim [of the orphans, if the borrower will die]", they do not collect [from Metaltelim].

(R. Mana): If he explicitly wrote and said so, even though the law is unlike this (a lender does not collect from Metaltelim of orphans, the borrower) gave [permission], and he collects.

R. Shimon says, both Kodshei Kodoshim and Kodshim Kalim, if they have Achrayus, I apply to them "v'Chichesh ba'Amiso" (they are considered the owner's property, so one swears about them). If they have no Achrayus, I apply to them "ba'Shem v'Chichesh" (they are like Hekdesh, so one does not swear about them).

(Rav Huna): Both Kosher Kodshim and Pasul Kodshim - if they have Achrayus, even though they are for Hash-m, I apply to them "v'Chichesh ba'Amiso b''Pikadon." If they have no Achrayus, I apply to them "ba'Shem v'Chichesh", and not ba'Amiso Chichesh.