A plaintiff and partner dispute whether a certain stipulation existed. The plaintiff wants the defendant to take the broadest possible oath. What can he demand?
Halacha 1: The plaintiff has the strategic choice. He can demand either a sh'vuat hesset on the specific denial, or the full partner's oath bundling all disputed claims — the entire partnership, the stipulation, goods, and all.
Question 2
After a partnership dissolves, can a former partner demand the suspicion-based oath from his ex-partner?
Halacha 2: Post-dissolution, the suspicion-based partner's oath is not available. The ex-partner can only be required to take an oath if there is a definite claim or through gilgul sh'vuah if a new oath obligation arises.
Question 3
Reuven holds all partnership funds. He claims there was a 500-dinar loss and wants Shimon to repay 50 from personal funds (his share). What is the ruling?
Halacha 5: A partner takes an oath to retain what is in his possession or be freed of obligation — never to collect from a co-partner's personal funds. Reuven takes the oath and keeps the remaining 100, but cannot extract money from Shimon personally.
Question 4
A defendant first denies ever being partners with the plaintiff. Witnesses then prove they were partners. The defendant now claims the partnership was already dissolved. Is this accepted?
Halacha 4: Having been caught lying about the existence of the partnership, the defendant is 'established as a liar' for this oath. He cannot then reframe his defense as 'we divided already' — he must take the full partner's oath.
Question 5
Shimon claims that Levi is owed 100 dinarim from the partnership, and the money is currently with Reuven. Shimon does not hold partnership funds himself. Is Reuven required to pay?
Halacha 6: When Shimon holds no partnership funds to pay the debt himself, his claim that Reuven holds money for Levi is not accepted — the court fears Shimon and Levi are colluding to extract Reuven's share. Even a promissory note does not change this.