Halacha
הלכה א
אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלּוֹקֶה הַנִּשִׁבָּע לַשָּׁוְא אוֹ לַשֶּׁקֶר וְכֵן הַנִּשְׁבָּע שְׁבוּעַת הָעֵדוּת אוֹ שְׁבוּעַת הַפִּקָּדוֹן מֵבִיא קָרְבָּן. אֵין מִתְכַּפֵּר לָהֶן עֲוֹן הַשְּׁבוּעָה כֻּלּוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כ ז) (דברים ה יא) "לֹא יְנַקֶּה ה'" אֵין לָזֶה נִקָּיוֹן מִדִּין שָׁמַיִם עַד שֶׁיִּתְפָּרַע מִמֶּנּוּ עַל הַשֵּׁם הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁחִלֵּל. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יט יב) "וְחִלַּלְתָּ אֶת שֵׁם ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֲנִי ה'". לְפִיכָךְ צָרִיךְ אָדָם לְהִזָּהֵר מֵעָוֹן זֶה יוֹתֵר מִכָּל הָעֲבֵרוֹת:
כסף משנה
1.
Although a person who took a false oath or an oath in vain is given lashes,1Chapter 1, Halachot 3,7. and similarly, one who takes a [false] sh'vuat haedut or sh'vuat hapikadon brings a sacrifice,2But are not subjected to lashes, Chapter 1, Halachah 8. they do not receive complete atonement for the sin of taking a [false] oath, as [Exodus 20:7] states: "God will not cleanse [one who takes His name in vain]." He will not be absolved from the judgment of heaven until he receives retribution for his desecration of [His] great name, as [Leviticus 19:12] states: "[You shall not take a false oath in My name, for] you will desecrate the name of Your God." Therefore a person must be very careful with regard to this sin, more than with regard all other sins.3See 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.
הלכה ב
עָוֹן זֶה מִן הַחֲמוּרוֹת הוּא כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת תְּשׁוּבָה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ לֹא כָּרֵת וְלֹא מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין יֵשׁ בּוֹ חִלּוּל הַשֵּׁם הַמְקֻדָּשׁ שֶׁהוּא גָּדוֹל מִכָּל הָעֲוֹנוֹת:
כסף משנה
2.
This sin is considered one of the severe transgressions, as explained in Hilchot Teshuvah.4Hilchot Teshuvah 1:2. Although it does not involve kerait or execution by the court, it involves the desecration of [God's] holy name which is more severe than all other sins.הלכה ג
מִי שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע בַּשָּׁמַיִם וּבָאָרֶץ וּבַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין כַּוָּנָתוֹ אֶלָּא לְמִי שֶׁבְּרָאָם אֵין זוֹ שְׁבוּעָה. וְכֵן הַנִּשְׁבָּע בְּנָבִיא מִן הַנְּבִיאִים אוֹ בִּכְתָב מִכִּתְבֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין כַּוָּנָתוֹ אֶלָּא לְמִי שֶׁשָּׁלַח נָבִיא זֶה אוֹ לְמִי שֶׁצִּוָּה בִּכְתָב זֶה אֵין זוֹ שְׁבוּעָה. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין אֵלּוּ שְׁבוּעוֹת מְאַיְּמִין עֲלֵיהֶן וּמְלַמְּדִין אֶת הָעָם שֶׁלֹּא יִנְהֲגוּ קַלּוּת רֹאשׁ בְּכָךְ וּמַרְאִין בְּעֵינֵיהֶם שֶׁזּוֹ שְׁבוּעָה. וּפוֹתְחִין לָהֶם פֶּתַח וּמַתִּירִין לָהֶם:
כסף משנה
3.
When a person takes an oath by the heaven and earth, by the sun, or the like, this is not an oath,5The 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. even though his intent is He who created them. Similarly, one who takes an oath by one of the prophets or by one of the texts of the Holy Scriptures, this is not an oath, even if his intent is He who sent the prophet or gave the commandments in this text.6See the following halachah and notes.
Although these are not oaths, those who take them are subjected to a severe warning and we teach the people not to act frivolously in this manner. [Indeed,] we make it look as if these are oaths and give them an opening [to ask for their absolution] and absolve them.7See Chapter 6, Halachah 10; Hilchot Nedarim 2:12.
הלכה ד
בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּשְׁאָר כִּתְבֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ. אֲבָל הַנִּשְׁבָּע בַּתּוֹרָה. אִם נִשְׁבָּע בְּמַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בָּהּ דַּעְתּוֹ עַל הַהַזְכָּרוֹת. וְאִם נִשְׁבַּע בָּהּ סְתָם דַּעְתּוֹ עַל הַגְּוִיל וְאֵין כָּאן שְׁבוּעָה. נְטָלָהּ בְּיָדוֹ וְנִשְׁבַּע בָּהּ הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמִי שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע בְּמַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בָּהּ וְאָסוּר:
כסף משנה
4.
When does the above apply? With regard to other holy texts. [Different rules apply,] however, when one takes an oath by the Torah.8The 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. If one takes an oath by what is written in [the Torah],9I.e., he states that explicitly. his intent is by the names of God [it contains].10In which instance the person is liable for taking an oath, as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 2. If one takes an oath by it without any further definition, his intent is on the parchment [of the scroll] and it is not considered as an oath.11For he is not taking an oath by God's name. If he took [the scroll] in his hand and took an oath by it,12The 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. it is as if he took an oath by what was written in it and [the matter] is forbidden.13For 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).
הלכה ה
וְהַנִּשְׁבָּע בַּתּוֹרָה סְתָם אִם תַּלְמִיד חָכָם הוּא אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ שְׁאֵלָה לְחָכָם. וְאִם עַם הָאָרֶץ הוּא צָרִיךְ שְׁאֵלָה לְחָכָם כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִנְהַג קַלּוּת רֹאשׁ בִּשְׁבוּעוֹת:
כסף משנה
5.
[The following rules apply when] a person takes an oath by the Torah without any further definition. If he is a Torah scholar, he does not need to be released by a sage.14For 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. If he is a common person,15Who does not know the above distinction. it is necessary that he asked to be released by a sage so that he will not treat oaths frivolously.16As explained in Halachah 3.הלכה ו
עֶבֶד שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע אֵין רַבּוֹ צָרִיךְ לִכְפּוֹתוֹ. וַהֲרֵי הוּא אַחַר שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע כְּקֹדֶם שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע. לְפִי שֶׁאֵין גּוּפוֹ קָנוּי לוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁתָּחוּל עָלָיו שְׁבוּעָתוֹ וְנֶאֱמַר בִּשְׁבוּעוֹת (במדבר ל ג) "לֶאְסֹר אִסָּר עַל נַפְשׁוֹ" מִי שֶׁנַּפְשׁוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ יָצָא עֶבֶד שֶׁהוּא בִּרְשׁוּת אֲחֵרִים. וְנִמְצָא זֶה כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע עַל נִכְסֵי אַחֵר:
כסף משנה
6.
When a servant takes an oath, his master does not have to compel him [to break the oath to nullify it].17Note the contrast to the law that applies when a servant takes a Nazirite vow (Hilchot Nazirut 2:7). Instead, his [status] is the same after taking the oath as it was before he did so.18The 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). [The rationale is that] his body is not his property for the oath he takes to be effective. With regard to oaths, [Numbers 30:3] states: "To forbid something upon one's soul." [Implied is that the verse applies to] someone whose soul is his property. It excludes a servant who is someone else's property. Thus [a servant's taking an oath] is comparable to taking an oath regarding someone else's property.19Which is not effective as stated in Nedarim 47a. See also Chapter 5, Halachah 1.הלכה ז
קְטַנִּים שֶׁנִּשְׁבְּעוּ וְהֵן יוֹדְעִין טַעַם הַשְּׁבוּעָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָן חַיָּבִין. כּוֹפִין אוֹתָן לַעֲמֹד בְּדִבְרֵיהֶן. כְּדֵי לְחַנְּכָן וּלְאַיֵּם עֲלֵיהֶם כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִנְהֲגוּ קַלּוּת רֹאשׁ בִּשְׁבוּעוֹת. וְאִם הָיָה הַדָּבָר שֶׁנִּשְׁבְּעוּ עָלָיו דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין הַקָּטָן יָכוֹל לַעֲמֹד בּוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נִזָּק. כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע שֶׁיָּצוּם אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יֹאכַל בָּשָׂר זְמַן מְרֻבֶּה. מַכֶּה אוֹתוֹ אָבִיו אוֹ רַבּוֹ וְגוֹעֵר בּוֹ וּמַרְאִין לוֹ שֶׁהֻתְּרָה שְׁבוּעָתוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה רָגִיל לְהָקֵל רֹאשׁ בִּשְׁבוּעוֹת:
כסף משנה
7.
Minors20Boys under 12 and girls under 11. See Hilchot Nedarim 11:1. who take an oath are not obligated [to maintain their commitment, even though] they understand the significance of an oath.21For they are not liable for any of the Torah's commandments. [Nevertheless,] we compel them to uphold their word to train them [in the observance of mitzvot] and to impress them with fear so that they do not act frivolously with regard to oaths. If the matter concerning which they took the oath is such that a minor could not maintain without suffering injury,22The 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. e.g., he took an oath that he would fast or that he would not eat meat for a long time, his father or his teacher should beat him and rebuke him, and create the appearance that his oath [took effect, but] was released, so that he will not be habituated to treat oaths frivolously.הלכה ח
צָרִיךְ לְהִזָּהֵר בַּקְּטַנִּים הַרְבֵּה וּלְלַמֵּד לְשׁוֹנָם דִּבְרֵי אֱמֶת בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ רְגִילִים לְהִשָּׁבַע תָּמִיד כְּעַכּוּ''ם. וְזֶה הַדָּבָר כְּמוֹ חוֹבָה עַל אֲבוֹתֵיהֶם וְעַל מְלַמְּדֵי תִּינוֹקוֹת:
כסף משנה
8.
We must be very careful with children and train them to speak words of truth without [resorting to] an oath so that they will not be habituated to swear at all times like gentiles do. This matter is tantamount to an obligation for their parents and for those who teach young children.הלכה ט
הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ הַזְכָּרַת הַשֵּׁם מִפִּי חֲבֵרוֹ לַשָּׁוְא אוֹ שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע לְפָנָיו לַשֶּׁקֶר אוֹ שֶׁבֵּרֵךְ בְּרָכָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה שֶׁהוּא עוֹבֵר מִשּׁוּם נוֹשֵׂא שֵׁם ה' לַשָּׁוְא כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת בְּרָכוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב לְנַדּוֹתוֹ. וְאִם לֹא נִדָּהוּ הוּא בְּעַצְמוֹ יְהֵא בְּנִדּוּי. וְצָרִיךְ לְהַתִּיר אוֹתוֹ מִיָּד כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא מִכְשׁוֹל לַאֲחֵרִים שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁנִּדּוּהוּ. וְאִם תֹּאמַר יוֹדִיעוֹ נִמְצְאוּ כָּל הָעוֹלָם בְּנִדּוּי שֶׁהֲרֵי לִמְדוּ לְשׁוֹנָם הַעֲוֵה וּשְׁבוּעָה תָּמִיד:
כסף משנה
9.
When one hears a colleague mention God's name in vain, take a false oath in his presence, or recite a blessing that is unnecessary in which instance [his colleague] transgresses23The 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 - since he is reciting a blessing, his mention of God's name is not entirely frivolous. because he takes God's name in vain,24See 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. as we explained in Hilchot Berachot,25Chapter 1, Halachah 15. he must place him under a ban of ostracism.26See the concluding chapters of Hilchot Talmud Torah for a description of the implications of this ban. If he does not, he himself should be ostracized. The ban should, however, be lifted immediately so that it will not present an obstacle to others, for they will not know that he was placed under a ban. And if one would say, "Make it known that he [is under ostracism]," the entire populace will be under ban for [people] have already habituated their tongues to iniquity27Cf. Jeremiah 9:4. and oaths at all times.
הלכה י
בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁהָיָה הַנִּשְׁבָּע הַזֶּה אוֹ הַמְבָרֵךְ לְבַטָּלָה מֵזִיד. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה שׁוֹגֵג וְלֹא יָדַע שֶׁזֶּה אָסוּר אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לְנַדּוֹתוֹ. וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר שֶׁאָסוּר לְנַדּוֹתוֹ שֶׁלֹּא עָנַשׁ הַכָּתוּב שׁוֹגֵג אֶלָּא מַזְהִירוֹ וּמַתְרֶה בּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יַחְזֹר:
כסף משנה
10.
When does the above apply? When the person taking this oath or reciting this blessing in vain does so intentionally? If, however, he does so inadvertently or does not know that this is forbidden,28The 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 a ban. [a listener] is not obligated to place him under a ban of ostracism. Indeed, I maintain that it is forbidden to place him under a ban of ostracism, for the Torah did not [prescribe] punishment for an inadvertent transgressor. Instead, one should caution him and warn him not to repeat [the transgression].הלכה יא
וְלֹא שְׁבוּעָה לַשָּׁוְא בִּלְבַד הִיא שֶׁאֲסוּרָה אֶלָּא אֲפִלּוּ לְהַזְכִּיר שֵׁם מִן הַשֵּׁמוֹת הַמְיֻחָדִין לְבַטָּלָה אָסוּר וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁבָּע. שֶׁהֲרֵי הַכָּתוּב מְצַוֶּה וְאוֹמֵר (דברים כח נח) "לְיִרְאָה אֶת הַשֵּׁם הַנִּכְבָּד וְהַנּוֹרָא". וּבִכְלַל יִרְאָתוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יַזְכִּירוֹ לְבַטָּלָה. לְפִיכָךְ אִם טָעָה הַלָּשׁוֹן וְהוֹצִיא שֵׁם לְבַטָּלָה יְמַהֵר מִיָּד וִישַׁבֵּחַ וִיפָאֵר וִיהַדֵּר לוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִזָּכֵר לְבַטָּלָה. כֵּיצַד. אָמַר ה', אוֹמֵר בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְעוֹלָם וָעֶד אוֹ גָּדוֹל הוּא וּמְהֻלָּל מְאֹד וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא לְבַטָּלָה:
כסף משנה
11.
It is not only a false oath that is forbidden. Instead, it is forbidden to mention even one of the names designated for God29I.e., the seven names for God mentioned in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah, ch. 6. although one does not take an oath. For the verse [Deuteronomy 28:58] commands us, saying: "to fear the glorious and awesome name."30See Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 4) which quotes Sanhedrin 56a and Temurah 4a as deriving this concept from another prooftext (Deuteronomy 6:13 . Included in fearing it is not to mention it in vain.31For one does not treat something that is truly revered with such carelessness.Therefore if because of a slip of the tongue, one mentions [God's] name in vain, he should immediately hurry to praise, glorify, and venerate it so that it will not have been mentioned [entirely] in vain. What is implied? If he mentions God's name, he should say: "Blessed be He for all eternity," "He is great and exceedingly praiseworthy,"32See 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." or the like so that it will not have been [mentioned entirely] in vain.
הלכה יב
אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמֻּתָּר לְהִשָּׁאֵל עַל הַשְּׁבוּעָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ וְאֵין בָּזֶה דֹּפִי. וּמִי שֶׁלִּבּוֹ נוֹקְפוֹ בְּדָבָר זֶה אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא שֵׁמֶץ מִינוּת. אַף עַל פִּי כֵן רָאוּי לְהִזָּהֵר בְּדָבָר זֶה. וְאֵין נִזְקָקִין לְהַתִּיר אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי דְּבַר מִצְוָה אוֹ מִפְּנֵי צֹרֶךְ גָּדוֹל. וְטוֹבָה גְּדוֹלָה הִיא לְאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא יִשָּׁבַע כְּלָל. וְאִם עָבַר וְנִשְׁבַּע שֶׁיִּצְטַעֵר וַיַּעֲמֹד בִּשְׁבוּעָתוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהילים טו ד) "נִשְׁבַּע לְהָרַע וְלֹא יָמִר" וְכָתוּב אַחֲרָיו (תהילים טו ה) "עשֵֹׁה אֵלֶּה לֹא יִמּוֹט לְעוֹלָם": סְלִיקוּ לְהוּ הִלְכוֹת שְׁבוּעוֹת בְּסִיַעְתָּא דִּשְׁמַיָּא
כסף משנה
12.
It is permitted to approach [a sage] to have an oath released as we explained33Chapter 6, Halachah 1. and there is no fault [in doing so]. [Indeed,] one who has hesitations about the matter is [showing] traces of heresy.34For 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. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to show care in this regard. One should not respond [to a request] to release [an oath] unless it involves a matter concerning a mitzvah or a great need.35See Chapter 6, Halachot 9-10 which gives examples of such situations. It is of great benefit for a person never to take an oath at all.36For 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.If, however, one transgressed and took an oath, he should endure great difficulty and keep his oath,37See 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. as [Psalms 15:4-5] states: "One who takes an oath to his own detriment and does not nullify it..., he who acts in this manner will never falter."Blessed be God who grants assistance.