Shvuot - Chapter 12

Chapter 1, Halachot 3, 7.

But are not subjected to lashes, Chapter 1, Halachah 8.

See Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 5:10.
The Ra’avad differs and maintains that lashes are sufficient to atone for a person’s sin entirely. The Radbaz explains that the sin of taking a false oath is two dimensional, involving not only the particular transgression of taking a false oath, but also the desecration of God’s name. The lashes atone for the particular transgression of the false oath, but not for the desecration of God’s name. That requires more severe retribution as the Rambam explains.

Hilchot Teshuvah 1 :2.

The Ra’avad states that although one is not liable for a sacrifice or lashes for such an oath, it is forbidden to take such an oath. At first, the Kessef Mishneh states that it is possible that this is also the Rambam’s intent, but afterwards, states that the Rambam’s wording implies that such statements are not considered oaths at all.
The Radbaz writes (and this understanding is borne out by one of the Rambam’s responsa) that according to the Rambam, such an oath is not binding and need not be released. The Ra’avad differs and maintains that such oaths must be released and if they are false, one transgresses the prohibition against taking a false oath. See also the notes to the following halachah.

See the following halachah and notes.

See Chapter 6, Halachah 10; Hilchot Nedarim 2:12.

The Ra’avad differs with this principle, maintaining that there is no difference between the Torah and the other books of the Holy Scriptures with regard to their fundamental holiness. Thus a person who takes an oath by the contents of any of the other books of the Bible is also liable.
The difference between these two understandings depends on whether one understands the passage from Nedarim 14b as referring to only vows (as is explicitly stated, and as is the Ra’avad’s understanding) or as apply also to oaths (as the Rambam maintains). The Rama (Yoreh De’ah 212:1) quotes the Rambam’s view.

I.e., he states that explicitly.

In which instance the person is liable for taking an oath, as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 2.

For he is not taking an oath by God’s name.

The Chatam Sofer (in his commentary to Nedarim 14b) states that the Rambam is referring to an instance where the person specifically picked up the Torah scroll for the purpose of taking an oath. Otherwise, even if he was holding the scroll in his hand before taking the oath, this law would not apply. Rashi understands the passage differently.

For by taking the Torah scroll in his hand, the person is implying that he is considering the matter with the seriousness of an oath (Nimukei Yosef).

For he knows the distinction mentioned in the previous halachah and thus understands that the oath is not effective and does not intend for it to be binding. Note, however, the Beit Yosef (Yoreh De’ah 212) who severely criticizes scholars who take an oath by the Torah, knowing that it is not effective to deceive the people to whom they are taking the oath.

Who does not know the above distinction.

As explained in Halachah 3.

Note the contrast to the law that applies when a servant takes a Nazirite vow (Hilchot Nazirut 2:7).

The Ra’avad, however, maintains that the Rambam’s ruling applies only to oaths that will affect the servant’s capacity to work. If that is not the case, the oath can take effect. As the Rambam writes in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nazirut 9:1), there is a difference between vows and oaths in this regard. The Ra’avad’s statement will apply with regard to vows, but not to oaths (Or Sameach).

Which is not effective as stated in Nedarim 47a. See also Chapter 5, Halachah 1.

Boys under 12 and girls under 11. See Hilchot Nedarim 11:1.

For they are not liable for any of the Torah's commandments.

The Radbaz explains that we are not speaking about a person in mortal danger, for that would apply with regard to an adult as well. Instead, the intent is aggravation or sickness.

The commentaries question whether the Rambam’s intent is that he has transgressed a Scriptural commandment or merely a Rabbinic one. The Minchat Chinuch (Mitzvah 30) states that the transgression is Scriptural in origin and the violator should be punished by lashing. This opinion is also mentioned by the Magen Avraham 215:6. From the Kessef Mishneh to Hilchot Milah 3:6, it appears that even the Rambam would consider the prohibition as Rabbinic in nature. The latter understanding is shared by many other Rishonim. Their position is - as explained by the Shulchan Aruch HaRav 215:3 - that since he is reciting a blessing, his mention of God’s name is not entirely frivolous.

See the gloss of Rabbi Akiva Eiger who questions the Rambam’s statements, based on the ruling that a person who is unsure whether or not he recited the Grace After Meals must recite the blessing again. Seemingly, the recitation of that blessing would be problematic, because there is a doubt whether or not he is required to do so or not. Thus it is possible that he is transgressing a Scriptural commandment. In resolution, Rabbi Akiva Eiger explains that since the person is obligated to recite the blessing, even if that obligation stems from a doubt, he is not considered to be taking God’s name in vain.

Chapter 1, Halachah 15.

See the concluding chapters of Hilchot Talmud Torah for a description of the implications of this ban.

Cf. Jeremiah 9:4.

The Turei Zahav 334:18 mentions that the Rambam’s view is more lenient than that of the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol who maintains that this leniency applies only when one does not know of the prohibition at all. According to his view, one who knows of the prohibition, but accidentally recites a blessing in vain must be placed under ban.

I.e., the seven names for God mentioned in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah, ch. 6.

See Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 4) which quotes Sanhedrin 56a and Temurah 4a as deriving this concept from another prooftext (Deuteronomy 6:13).

For one does not treat something that is truly revered with such carelessness.

See Hilchot Berachot 4:10 which states that when a person recites a blessing in vain, he should say Baruch shem kevod malchuto leolam va ‘ed, “Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom forever.”

Chapter 6, Halachah 1.

For this indicates that he does not accept the Oral Tradition that Moses communicated. For the release of vows is not explicitly stated in the Torah, but instead communicated by the Oral Tradition, as stated above.

See Chapter 6, Halachot 9-10 which gives examples of such situations.

For it is possible that unwittingly, he could take a false oath and thus bring severe retribution upon himself and others. See Gittin 35a which explains how a woman unknowingly took a false oath and caused one of her sons to die.

See Hilchot Nedarim 1 :4 which states that keeping an oath or a vow fulfills a Scriptural mitzvah. Nevertheless, there is a difference between oaths and vows. As the Ra’avad (see also Hilchot Nedarim 13:25) mentions, it is desirable to have vows released. Oaths, by contrast, should be observed and not released.