הלכות שלוחין ושותפין

The following law applies when a partner claims that the partnership relationship with his colleague involved a certain stipulation, and the colleague denies that such a stipulation ever existed or admits the existence of a stipulation, but claims it was for a lesser amount than the plaintiff claims. The plaintiff may determine the oath the defendant takes.
The same ruling applies if the plaintiff asks that property belonging to the partnership be returned to him, and the defendant claims to have given it to him, but the plaintiff claims that he never received it, or the defendant claims that merchandise was his, while the plaintiff claims that it belongs to the partnership, or with regard to any other claims of this type.
What is implied? If the plaintiff desires not to require the partner to take the oath required of partners, but instead to require him to take merely a sh'vuat hesset on the claim he denies and does not admit to have taken place, he may require him to take only the lesser oath. If he desires, he can include all the claims in the oath required of a partner. Although he has an indefinite claim, he will require the partner to take an oath that he did not steal anything throughout the duration of the partnership, that these and these stipulations existed between the partners, that the merchandise was his, or that he paid this and this amount. The same principles apply in all analogous situations.

The following rule applies when a person lodges a claim against a partner with the intent of obligating him to take the oath required of partners, the defendant claims: "We have already divided the assets of the partnership, and nothing that belongs to you remains in my possession," and the plaintiff differs, maintaining that the assets were not divided, nor was a reckoning made. The defendant cannot be required to take an oath because of an indefinite claim. [This ruling also applies when the plaintiff admits dividing the assets, but claims that the division was made with the stipulation that the defendant take the oath required of partners whenever the plaintiff demanded, and the defendant has constantly been procrastinating.
This ruling applies even when the defendant admits that after the division of the assets, he owed the plaintiff something, but claims that the plaintiff agreed to consider that as a debt, or considered it as an object entrusted to the defendant for safekeeping.
Even if there are witnesses that the two were once partners, the plaintiff cannot require an oath with an indefinite claim. Nor may the plaintiff require the defendant to take a sh'vuat hesset that they divided the assets or that they were never partners. The rationale is that a sh'vuat hesset is never required, nor even is a claim included in an oath using the convention of gilgul sh'vuah, unless the claim is such that if the defendant admitted it, he would be liable to pay money. If, however, the claim is one that if the defendant admitted it, he would be required only to take an oath, he may not be required to take an oath on the indefinite claim, even because of the convention of gilgul sh'vuah. Geonim, who are masters of instruction, ruled in this manner.

The following rule applies if the plaintiff claims: "You are still my partner, and property belonging to me worth such and such remains in your possession," and the defendant counters, by claiming: "We already divided the assets of the partnership, and I no longer have anything belonging to you in my possession," or "I was never your partner." The defendant must take a sh'vuat hesset that he does not possess anything belonging to the plaintiff, and because of the convention of gilgul sh'vuah, he must include in the oath that he did not steal anything from him. The defendant need not include in the oath that he was not his partner or that they already divided the assets of the partnership, for the reason explained above.

The following rule applies when the plaintiff claims that he and the defendant are still partners, and that he therefore has the right to require him to take an oath because of an indefinite claim, while the defendant denies ever becoming the plaintiff's partner. If the plaintiff brings witnesses who testify that the defendant was his partner, and the defendant then claims: "We divided the assets of the partnership," his claim is not accepted. The rationale is that he was proven to be a liar with regard to this oath. Therefore, he is required to take the oath required of a partner. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

The convention of gilgul sh'vuah is also relevant in the following situation. Reuven placed 400 dinarim in the coffers of the partnership, while Shimon invested 200 dinarim. They worked as partners and did business together, but all the money was held by Reuven. If Reuven claimed that there was a loss of 500 dinarim, Reuven may not take the oath required of partners that he suffered such a loss to require Shimon to pay 50 dinarim from his own funds. Instead, Reuven should take the oath required of partners that there was a loss. He should take the maneh that is in his possession, but Shimon is not required to pay anything.
If Reuven claims that Shimon has definite knowledge of the loss, he may require Shimon to take the oath required of partners, and based on the convention of gilgul sh'vuah, he may compel him to include that he does not have definite knowledge of this loss.
Different rules apply if Shimon was not at all involved in the work of the partnership. Shimon should take a sh'vuat hesset that he does not have definite knowledge of the loss, and he is then freed of liability. Moreover, if the maneh that remains was in Shimon's possession, it should be divided equally between them. The rationale is that a partner is not one of those who is required to take an oath and then collect money from the defendant. Instead, the oath he takes enables him merely to be freed of responsibility or to assume ownership of property in his possession. Be careful with regard to this law, for even masters of instruction have erred with regard to it.

The following law also involves the division of the assets of a partnership. Shimon claims that he owes Levi a maneh because of this partnership. If he has resources of the partnership in his possession that are sufficient to pay the debt, and he can give them to Levi, his word is accepted. He should repay the debt, and afterwards he and Reuven should calculate how the assets should be divided.
If Shimon does not have funds from the partnership in his possession, we do not rely upon his word to expropriate money from Reuven or merchandise known to belong to the partnership, lest Shimon and Levi are perpetrating deception, seeking to obtain Reuven's property. Even if the loan is recorded in a promissory note, Reuven is not required to pay any portion of it.
If Shimon claims that Reuven has definite knowledge that the debt Shimon incurred came as a result of the partnership, and should be borne by both of them, Reuven is required to take a sh'vuat hesset that he does not know that the partnership has incurred this debt - or because of the convention of gilgul sh'vuah, he should include this statement in the oath he takes as required of partners. Afterwards, Shimon should pay the debt from his own funds.
Similarly, if there is a promissory note stating that, due to Shimon, Levi owes the partnership 100 dinarim, and Shimon claims: "I received payment and returned the money to the coffers of the partnership," or "I extended credit to him for a two- or three-year period," his word is not accepted, lest he be perpetrating deception, seeking to obtain Reuven's property.
How should this case be adjudicated? Levi was already freed from obligation through Shimon's admission. If Shimon does not bring proof of his claim, Shimon must pay Reuven's share from his own funds. He should then demand payment from Levi at the end of the time span he mentioned. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.