שבועות העדות נוהגת באנשים ולא בנשים – as it is written (Leviticus 5:1): “[If a person incurs guilt—when he heard a public imprecation and -] although able to testify [as one who has either seen or learned of the matter- he does not give information, so that he is subject to punishment],” the Biblical verse speaks of one who is fit to give testimony, as it is written (Deuteronomy 19:17): “the two parties to the dispute/ועמדו שני האנשים (literally, the two men)[shall appear before the LORD],” men and not women. And this Biblical verse is written [concerning] witnesses; It is stated here, “two” and it is stated above “two” (Deuteronomy 17:6): “[A person shall be put to death only on] the testimony of two or [more] witnesses; he must not be put to death on the testimony of a single witness].”

ולא בקרובין – for they are unfit/disqualified to provide testimony , as it is written (Deuteronomy 24:16): “Parents shall not be put to death for children, [nor children be put to death for parents],” with the testimony of children, and the same law applies to other relatives.

ולא בפסולים – as, for example, those who are liable for death and/or liable for stripes and the thief, for they are called wicked, and the Torah stated (Exodus 23:1): “you shall not join hands with the guilty [to act as a malicious witness].”

ואינה נוהגת אלא בראויין להעיד – to exclude the king who does not testify (see Tractate Sanhedrin, Chapter 2, Mishnah 2) , and those who are unfit/disqualified from giving testimony according to the Rabbis such as those who are dice players and pigeon racers (see Tractate Sanhedrin, Chapter 3, Mishnah 3 and Tractate Rosh Hashanah, Chapter 1, Mishnah 8).

בפני בית דין ושלא בפני בית דין מפי עצמו (out of his own mouth)- if it is from his own mouth that he swore an oath that I don’t know any testimony concerning you, he is liable, whether he took at oath before a court or not before a court.

ומפי אחרים (or from the mouth of others) – as, for example, I adjure you that you should come and testify against me , and they said to him: We don’t know any testimony in your case.

אינם חייבין עד שיכפרו בית דין (when they have denied -their knowledge – in court) – as it is written (Leviticus 5:1): “he does not give information, so that he is subject o punishment,” in a place where he would state it would have effect, but the Biblical verse is written concerning one who is sworn on other people’s demands (as a supposed witness that claims ignorance).

וחייבין – a sliding-scale offering (this offering is made when there are one of three transgressions where the financial situation of the sinner is taken into account in determining the nature of the sin-offering that he brings: violating an oath, taking a false oath to avoid giving testimony and entering the Temple or partaking of sacrifices while ritually impure. The sinner generally brings a sin-offering of a female lamb or goat, but if he cannot afford it, he may instead bring a pair of doves, one as burnt offering and the other as a sin-offering or a if he cannot afford even that, he may instead bring a meal-offering).

על זדון השבועה – for it did not state concerning it "ונעלם" /that he concealed or hid one’s self.

ועל שגגתה עם זדון העדות – that they known that the this oath was forbidden but they did not know that they are liable for a sacrifice for it.

ואין חייבים על שגגתה – if they are completely in error inadvertently, for they were forced, we don’t call them "ונשבע על השקר"/that they swore falsely.

ובאו לבית דין והודו פטורים – and even if they denied [that they had testimony about so-and-so] outside of the Jewish court on each oath for no denial outside the Jewish court is considered denial.

כפרו בב"ד חייבין על כל אחת ואחת – as the Biblical verse states (Leviticus 5:5): “When he realizes his guilt in any of these matters,[he shall confess that wherein he has sinned],” to be liable for each and every one.

מה טעם – that they are not liable other than for one [sacrifice] even if they were silent and denied [their knowing anything] at the end, and we don’t say that a denial exists for all of them to make them liable for each and every one (i.e., testimony).

הואיל – but whereas if they denied in the Jewish court the first time, they would not be able to retract and confess, for they already stated that they don’t know any testimony about him, and furthermore, they do not retract and state [testimony]; therefore, even though that they didn’t deny [knowing anything about so-and-so] until the end, all of the oaths were abrogated, except for the first one. For he fact that they were silent initially is denial, they are not worthy to be made to take an oath and if it is not denial, they are sworn in as standing witnesses. And what is an oath upon an oath? By force, when it is written (in Leviticus 5:5): “in any of these matters” – to be liable for each and every one, referring to an oath taken outside the Jewish court and they denied it in the Jewish court as it is written [in Scripture] that he would administer an oath to them when they would come to the Jewish court and they would testify and they would not leave in idleness, and it is appropriate for them to divide if they denied there at first, it would be appropriate to retract and to administer to them an oath.

כפרו שניהם כאחת – in an interval equivalent to the time of speaking (“Greetings to you, My teacher.”).

בזה אחר זה – that there was between [the testimony of] this one and [the testimony of] that one more than an interval equivalent to the time of speaking.

הראשון חייב – but the second is exempt, for since the first one denied, the second one is furthermore not appropriate to testify because he is an individual (and testimony requires two or more individuals).

שתיהן חייבות – in the Gemara (Tractate Shevuot 32b-33a) raises the objection – why is the first [set of witnesses] liable, for the second set [of witnesses] exists? For what have the first [set of witnesses] lost through their denial? And it answers that that the our Mishnah is speaking about q case where the witnesses of the second group were related through their wives (see Rashi’s comment: they married two sisters and are not valid as a singular testimony, and they were not valid to testify when the first set [of witnesses] denied [that they knew anything to testify] and their wives were on their deathbeds, for you might have thought that we hold that most people on their deathbeds will die, it was for them as if they [i.e., their wives) had died and the first set [of witnesses] were exempt but the second set exists. It comes to tell us now however that he is not dead. But it is found that only the first set [of witnesses] alone was there at the time of the denial, and therefore, they are liable.

תשומת יד – a loan, that he placed money in his hand.

ואבידה – that he has found my lost item.

חטין ושעורין וכוסמין – the first clause [of the Mishnah] teaches us of one species and disputed claims, and the concluding clause [of the Mishnah] teaches us of one claim all of them are deposits, and disputed species.

נזק וחצי נזק – with one-half indirect damages [caused by an animal: e.g., inadvertently kicking up pebbles or clods of earth in the course of walking causing damage) that is a due indemnity but not a fine/penalty, for we state in testimony of a fine/penalty that we don’t obligate.

תשלומי כפל ושומי ארבעה וחמשה – because of the principal.

ושאנס איש פלוני ופיתה את בתי – because of humiliation and deterioration, that is monetary.

ושהכני בני – a striking/beating which causes no wound for which he is not liable of the death [penalty] for it, and because there isn’t death, there is a monetary [fine].

ושחבל בי חברי ביוה"כ – [and the Mishnah] took that [example] for even though it is punishable with extirpation, he is liable for a monetary [paymenbt].

שאני כהן – they are exempt, for witnesses are not liable other than when they denied in a mater where there is the claim of money.

שאנס איש פלוני או פיתה בתו של פלוני – “and his daughter” is taught, regarding a certain individual who is a Kohen who is referred to above, [that is taught above this in the Mishnah that it refers to that a certain individual is a Kohen or a Levite, or is not the son of a divorced woman], or that he made them take an oath that a certain individual raped his daughter of that that same individual that they were speaking of him until now, they are exempt, for we require that they should hear from the mouth of the one making the claim. And in the Gemara (Tractate Shevuot 33b) it establishes it when he comes before the court with a power of attorney, for if it is the monetary claim of another [person], they would be liable, and I comes to tell us that it is not considered the inheritance of the litigant in this like the rest of money [matters], for since it is a monetary [matter] that he is asking about, it never reached his hand at all, he is not able to write a power of attorney upon it.

ושחבל בי בני – injury/mayhem is wounding, they are exempt, for if they testified against him, he would be liable for death and not monetary [restitution].

ושחבל בי חברי ושהדלק את גדישי בשבת – for both of them are liable for death, and exempt from monetary [restitution].

שאמר איש פלוני ליתן לי וכו' פטורים – as it is written regarding an oath of testimony (Leviticus 5:1): “[If a person] incurs guilt,” and it is written regarding the oath of a deposit (Leviticus 5:21): “When a person sins [and commits a trespass against the LORD by dealing deceiptfully with his fellow in the matter of a deposit or a pledge],” just as the oath of a deposit is on the claim of money that he has against his neighbor, also the oath of testimony – there must be on the claim of money that he has has of his, and the individual who claims that a certain person said to give me two-hundred zuz is not a monetary claim that he has against his fellow, for even if it is according to his words that his fellow said to him to give him two hundred zuz, his fellow is not liable to him athing on account of this statement.

מפני שקדמה שבועה לדעות – for the All-Merciful (I.e., God) said (Leviticus 5:1): “When he has heard a public imprecation (against one who withholds testimony) and- although able to testify as one who has either seen or heard of he matter – [he does not give information, so that he is subject to punishment],” for the testimony preceded the oath and the oath did not precede the testimony.

/אם יודעים לי עדות וכו' פטורין – as it is written (Leviticus 5:1): “although able to testify” util he specifies his witnesses.

הם יודים לו דות ד מפי ד וכו' פטורים – for if they testified about him, their testimony would not be worth him anything.

עד שישמעו מפי התובע – as it is written (Leviticus 5:1): “he does not give information/"אם – לוא יגיד" [written] fully with a VAV and and ALEPH is expounded upon thusly: if to hi he will not tell, meaning to say, the plaintiff, "ונשא עונו"/”so that he is subject to punishment (Leviticus 5:1), but if he said it to another,-“ he does not give information,” he is exempt [from punishment].

מצוה אני עליכם וכו' - and he when he says, “I command you,” in an oath.

המקלל בכולם – when he blasphemes God with one of them.

ר' מאיר מחייב – [the punishment of] stoning.

וחכמים פוטרין – for specifically on the unique name [of God], with stoning, as it written (Leviticus 24:16): “if he pronounces the name LORD [he shall be put to death. The whole community shall stone him.], and on the euphemisms, with the explicit prohibition in the Torah [required for punishing trespassers] of (Exodus 22:27):”You shall not revile God [nor put a curse upon a chieftain among your people].” But with the oath of testimony, the Sages agree with Rabbi Meir that he is liable on the euphemisms like he is liable on the explicit name [God] for in the oath [of testimony] it is written (Leviticus 5:1): “When he has heard a public imprecation (against one who withholds testimony).

המקלל עצמו – as it written (Deuteronomy 4:9): “[But] take utmost care and watch yourselves scrupulously” and all "השמר לך" /”take utmost care” and "פן" /lest or "אל"/do not (see Talmud Zevahim 106a) introduces nothing other than a prohibitory law.

והמקלל חבירו – as it is written (Leviticus 19:14): “You shall not insult (literally, “curse”) the deaf [or place a stumbling block before the blind],” even a deaf person (the Rabbis understand this as “deaf and mute”- see Tractate Terumot, Chapter 1, Mishnah 2) who does not hear [only], and he is not strict with his insult/curse of “you shall not insult (literally curse)” , and all the more so, all other people who heard and he is strict about.

יככה אלהים וכן יככה אלהים – if he said to witnesses, “may God smite you if you do not testify on my behalf. Or that he heard a person who was reading the curses that are in the Torah (see Deuteronomy 28:27-28,35): “May the LORD strike you with the Egyptian inflammation:” “The LORD will strike you with madness, blindness and dismay;” “The LORD will afflict you at the knees and thighs with a severe inflammation,” and he said to the witnesses, “”May God strike you if you do not testify on my behalf” or he said, “May God not strike you if you testify on my behalf,” or “May God bless you if you testify on my behalf,” or “May it go well with you if you testify on my behalf,” in all of these, Rabbi Meir declares liable, [by implication] “from ‘no’ you understand ‘yes’” (see Tractate Nedarim 11a), “”God should not strike you down if you testify o my behalf”, but if you don’t testify on my behalf, God will strike you. And similarly, “God will bless you if you testify on my behalf,” but if you you will not testify on my behalf, He will curse you. But in all of these, the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Meir.