Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

This excludes instances when an oath is not made in response to the plaintiffs demands, as stated in Halachah 7. And it excludes an instance when the matter was observed by two pairs of witnesses, as stated in Chapter 10, Halachah 15.

This excludes a fine, because in that instance, the defendant does not become liable until he denies the obligation and the witnesses refute his denial. With regard to monetary claims, by contrast, once the witnesses testify, the defendant is liable regardless of whether he admits or disputes his liability. See Halachah 4.

Halachah 3 explains that this phrase excludes promissory notes, landed property, and servants.

This term literally means “the oath [concerning] testimony.” As stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 12, a person who takes this oath falsely is liable to bring an adjustable guilt offering.

As reflected by Halachah 10, when the oath is administered by the plaintiff and the witnesses do not answer Amen, the oath must be administered in court. If, however, the witnesses take the oath on their own accord or they answer Amen, they are liable even if this takes places outside a court, provided the denial takes place within a court, as stated in the following halachah (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh; see also Chapter 10, Halachah 7 arid notes).

I.e., in court. See Halachah 10 and notes where this concept is discussed.

E. g., he demanded that they testify that he was a priest or a Levite (Chapter 10, Halachah 3).

Leviticus 5:21-22; see the explanations in Chapter 7, Halachah 4, and notes.

In contrast to promissory notes.

See Hilchat Nizkei Mammon 2:8.

For a theft.

For the theft and slaughter or sale of a sheep or a cow.

For this must be paid even if he admits stealing himself.

See Chapter 8, Halachah 3, and notes.

This applies to a person who has been given power of attorney (see Chapter 7, Halachah 6). If he has not been given formal power of attorney, even if he is an agent acting on behalf of the’ principal, the oath he administers is not of consequence (Rabbi Akiva Eiger).

As the Rambam writes in his Commentary to Mishnah (Sh ‘vuot 4:12), Leviticus 5:1 states “If he does not tell” but the word “not” is written lamed vav alef This implies both lamed alef”not,” and lamed vav “to him.” Implied is that he must say no to him, i.e., in response to his demand.

This can also be derived through the process of exegesis mentioned above. One can infer that the witnesses he must say no to him, to the plaintiff himself

I.e., at the time the oath was administered, they did not have knowledge of testimony concerning the plaintiff, but afterwards they observed the matter under investigation.

From the exegesis of the prooftext cited above, Sh ‘vuot 35a understands that the verse is speaking, not of people in general, but of persons singled out to serve as witnesses.

Although he spoke to the group as a whole, the oath was directed to each of the persons individually.
Rabbenu Nissim mentions another concept related to this ruling. A plaintiff may administer an oath to a person even when he is not certain that the person in fact knows testimony concerning him.

Since they did not take the oath or answer Amen, they are not liable unless the oath is administered in the presence of a court, as stated in Halachah 1.

For their denial must be made in a court of law, as stated in Halachah 2.

Or includes God’s name in any of the other expressions (Radbaz).

See Chapter 2, Halachot 2-4.

See Chapter 7, Halachah 7. This applies even if they answer Amen to the oath (Jerusalem Talmud, Sotah 7:1).

All of these points have been discussed in the previous halachot.

Although the Rambam’s position is shared by many other Rishonim, there are others (e.g., Rashi, Sh ‘vuot 25b), who differ and maintain that since the oath involves testimony, one is never liable for a sh ‘vuat bitui even when he is not liable for a sh ‘vuat ha ‘edut. See Halachah 18 and notes.

Sh ‘vuot 30a notes that with regard to all the other types of oaths, the Torah uses the expression “and it became concealed from him,” but it does not use that expression with regard to a sh ‘vuat ha ‘edut. Implied is that even if the matter is not concealed, i.e., he transgresses deliberately, he is liable for a sacrifice. The Radbaz questions - without resolving - why the Torah gives the person a lesser punishment - a sacrifice instead of lashes, when he purposefully violates this transgression.

The same passage mentions both a sh'vuat haedut and a sh'vuat bitui. This verse teaches that one can be held liable for only one of these types of oaths. This also applies with regard to the other false oaths for which the Torah holds one liable. One can be held liable only for one.

Because they included all the obligations in a single statement. Note the parallel to this and the subsequent laws in Chapter 7, Halachot 10-14.

For they singled out each object individually.

Although they are different species of grain, since he included them all in one statement, he is liable only once.

For a sh'vuat haedut involves a situation when the witnesses refuse to testify.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 1, and notes.

Hence he is totally absolved from liability.
The Kessef Mishneh notes that one could raise a question based on Sh ‘vuot 25b. From that passage, it would appear that this and the concept stated in Halachah 14 are conflicting positions and one cannot accept both as halacbah. Nevertheless, he explains that it is only in the preliminary stage of the Talmud’s argument that the positions appear conflicting. After the Talmud cites the teaching derived from the prooftext, “for one of these,” the two rulings can be reconciled. He cites other Rishonim who interpret the passage in this manner.

For he is taking an oath regard a specific activity which he performed or did not perform in the past. Since it has both a positive and negative dimension, he is liable. The fact that this oath does not have a future dimension - for if one takes an oath that he will not testify, he is negating a mitzvah, and hence, it is an oath in vain (Chapter 5, Halachah 15) and not a sh ‘vuat bitui - does not prevent one from being liable for the oath referring to the past.

For a sh‘vuat ha ‘edut involves only the future.