Shevuos Daf 36 חג השבועות דַף 36

In the Mishnah, Rebbe Meir taught that one who blasphemes using any Name of Hashem is liable. In a Baraisa, he darshens this from איש איש כי יקלל אלקיו ונשא חטאו – any man who curses his G-d shall bear his sin. The Chochomim disagree, and say that כינויין – subordinate Names are only liable for אזהרה – transgressing the Torah’s warning (but not מיתה). The same machlokes appears regarding one who curses a parent, and the Gemara explains that the “Chochomim” here is Rebbe Menachem bar Yose, who darshened the superfluous "בנקבו שם יומת" – “when he blasphemes the Name, he shall be killed” to teach that one who curses a parent is only executed if he uses the שם המיוחד. The Mishnah taught that one who curses himself or another is liable for using any Name, and the Gemara says this ruling is unanimous. Cursing oneself is prohibited by the passuk: רק השמר לך ושמור נפשך מאד – only beware for yourself and greatly beware for your soul, warning not to harm oneself, and the terms "השמר פן ואל" connote a לא תעשה.

The Mishnah taught that if one told witnesses "אל יכך" – “May [Hashem] not strike you if you do testify for me,” or "יברכך" – He should bless you (if you testify), etc., Rebbe Meir says they are liable, because a curse for not testifying is implied, but the Chochomim disagree. The Gemara objects that Rebbe does not hold מכלל לאו אתה שומע הן – from the inference of the negative you hear the positive, regarding conditional transactions!? The Gemara first reverses the Mishnah’s opinions but then answers that Rebbe Meir’s position is only regarding ממונא – monetary cases (i.e., a תנאי in a transaction), but he agrees regarding איסורא – prohibitions (such as swearing falsely) that the curse is inferred from the negative. This is challenged from the law of סוטה, which is איסורא (her prohibition to her husband), yet her shevuah requires expressing the positive curse, and does not rely on the inference!? The Gemara proves that everyone agrees an inference can be made for איסורא (because Kohanim who perform עבודה after drinking wine or with long hair incur מיתה בידי שמים, despite being a mere inference). It answers that sotah is איסורא דאית ביה ממונא – a prohibition which has a monetary element (because she stands to lose her kesubah).

The fifth Perek details the laws of שבועת הפקדון – the oath of deposit, where someone denies possessing someone else’s פקדון, loan, etc., with a specific consequence of a קרבן אשם and paying an additional fifth. This applies to all people, including those disqualified from עדות. Rebbe Meir says one is only liable for a shevuah outside of Beis Din if he himself swore; if someone else was משביע him, he is only liable in Beis Din. The Chochomim hold that one is always liable, even outside of Beis Din. He is liable both where he is fully aware that he was swearing falsely, and knew its korban consequences, as well as where he did not know about the korban, provided that he was not an outright שוגג (i.e., where he thought he was swearing truthfully). The Mishnah describes שבועת הפקדון as where the תובע says: תן לי פקדוני שיש לי בידך – “Give me my deposit which is in your possession,” and the defendant says: שבועה שאין לך בידי – “An oath that you have nothing in my possession,” or he merely denied it and the תובע was משביע him, and the נתבע said "אמן". The Mishnah discusses numerous cases of multiple claims (or claimants), and details when shevuos would incur multiple liabilities.