Today's daf is sponsored by Martin Gaynor in loving memory of Dr. Jerry Rabinowitz, z"l. Today's daf is sponsored by Tova and David Kestenbaum in loving memory of their dear Aunt Esther Press, Esther Faigel bat Raphael Zev v'Chaya Chasha. "She was who a role model of a life of Torah and Chesed. She cared so much about family and we all felt very close to her." Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel have three disputes in the Mishna – one can make a vow to murderers, thieves, and tax collectors that is untrue but is it also permitted to swear? Can one decide on their own to vow to the murderer, thief, or tax collector or is it only permitted if they suggest the vow? If the murderer, etc. insisted that the person vow about something in particular, if the person vows about that and something else, is the other part also permitted or only the part about which they were forced to vow? How can one make a vow that is untrue to avoid taxes – didn’t Shmuel says that the law of the land is the law (dina d’malchuta dina) and therefore one cannot avoid paying taxes? The second vow mentioned in the Mishna was one who vowed that items belonged to the king. They explain this vow as: "Fruits will be forbidden to me if these are not the king's possessions. If so, why is it not a valid vow and the fruits should be forbidden? The Gemara quotes a braita with a debate between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel that seems to be on a similar issue to our Mishna –  regarding initiating a claim by oath. However, this braita seems to contradict our Mishna in two ways. Two resolutions are suggested. The Mishna brings a case where one made a declaration that if these saplings are not destroyed (from some impending storm), they will be like a sacrifice, they are in fact sanctified (if they are not destroyed) and need to be redeemed. If one declares: these saplings will be like a sacrifice until they are cut down, they are not able to be redeemed. Why is the language in the first part of the Mishna: ’they need to be redeemed' and not ‘they are sanctified’? The second case mentioned in the Mishna leads to a question – what exactly is the wording of the vow and what specific case is the Mishna concerned about? What does the Mishna mean when it says: They can’t be redeemed?