MISHNA: and if it addresses matters that concern others - as will be explained, [for example:] that I will give so-and-so, etc.

Intangible - two types are implied: intangible, such as sleep, and also implies those without benefit, such as "I will throw a stone into the sea".

If so - that you noted the specific language of "to do evil or to do good," [Leviticus 5:4] then "I have [derived] only...", etc.

By amplification of the verse - "whatever a human being may utter" [Leviticus 5:4]

GEMARA: Vows take effect with regard to a matter involving a mitzva - [such as] "making a sukka is konam for me" [or] "taking a lulav [is konam for me". The reason is explained in Tractate Nedarim in Chapter "And these are permitted". [Nedarim 16b:5].

Which is not the case with regard to oaths - as is stated in our mishna, and derived below from verses. [Shevuot 27a:4] An oath does not take effect [to prohibit] sleep [if one said] "sleeping is konam for me", since konam is a term of consecration -- what is there for which consecration can be effectuated? But "my eye for sleeping is konam for me" can take effect on the eye.

Flogs him - on account of an "oath taken in vain", since it is an impossible thing [to go three days without sleep]; once he swore it [immediately] proved to be false. Therefore it is not considered an "oath on an utterance", and as the mishna states: he may sleep immediately.

Cannot be stated with regard to the future - "so-and-so will throw" or "will not throw" is not an "oath on an utterance", but rather an "oath in vain", since so-and-so is not under his control to [make him] throw or not throw.

Rav is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva - who makes one liable [when taking an oath] about the past.

And Shmuel is in accordance with Rabbi Yishmael - who [only] makes him liable [when taking an oath] about the future.

Everyone agrees according to Rabbi Yishmael - that is to say, Rav certainly holds that the matter is subject to a disagreement between tanaim -- according to Rav, Rabbi Yishmael would not hold him liable; the disagreement between Rav and Shmuel is not [within the framework of Rabbi Yishmael's] opinion, as is about to be explained.

When they disagree is according to Rabbi Akiva - that is to say, but they disagree as to what Rabbi Akiva [would hold]. Shmuel's opinion does not depend on a disagreement between tannaim, since according to Shmuel, even Rabbi Akiva would exempt him; all the more so would Rabbi Yishmael [exempt him].