Halacha
הלכה א
שֻׁתָּף שֶׁטָּעַן עַל חֲבֵרוֹ שֶׁכָּךְ הָיָה תְּנַאי בֵּינֵיהֶם וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר לֹא הָיָה תְּנַאי זֶה מֵעוֹלָם. אוֹ שֶׁטָּעַן שֶׁהַקֶּרֶן שֶׁלִּי הָיָה כָּךְ וְכָךְ וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא פָּחוֹת מִזֶּה. אוֹ שֶׁטָּעַן שֶׁכְּבָר נָתַתִּי לְךָ הַשֻּׁתָּפוּת וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר לֹא לָקַחְתִּי. אוֹ שֶׁסְּחוֹרָה זוֹ מִשֶּׁלִּי וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר מִשֶּׁל אֶמְצַע וְכָל כַּיּוֹצֵא בִּטְעָנוֹת אֵלּוּ הָרְשׁוּת בְּיַד הַתּוֹבֵעַ בִּשְׁבוּעָה. כֵּיצַד. אִם רָצָה הַתּוֹבֵעַ שֶׁלֹּא יִשָּׁבַע הַשֻׁתָּף שְׁבוּעַת הַשֻּׁתָּפִין וְיַשְׁבִּיעוֹ הֶסֵּת עַל הַטַּעֲנָה שֶׁכּוֹפֵר בָּהּ וְאוֹמֵר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם הֲרֵי זֶה מַשְׁבִּיעוֹ. וְאִם רָצָה מְגַלְגֵּל עָלָיו כָּל אֵלּוּ הַדְּבָרִים בִּשְׁבוּעַת הַשֻּׁתָּפִין וּמַשְׁבִּיעוֹ בְּטַעֲנַת סָפֵק שֶׁלֹּא גָּזַלְתָּ כְּלוּם כָּל יְמֵי הַשֻּׁתָּפוּת וְשֶׁהָיָה בֵּינֵינוּ תְּנַאי כָּךְ וְשֶׁזּוֹ הַסְּחוֹרָה שֶׁלְּךָ וְשֶׁנָּתַתָּ לִי כָּךְ וְכָךְ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:
כסף משנה
1.
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.
הלכה ב
הַתּוֹבֵעַ שֻׁתָּפוֹ לְהַשְׁבִּיעוֹ שְׁבוּעַת הַשֻּׁתָּפִין הַנִּתְבָּע אוֹמֵר כְּבָר חָלַקְנוּ וְלֹא נִשְׁאַר לְךָ אֶצְלִי כְּלוּם וְהַתּוֹבֵעַ אוֹמֵר עֲדַיִן לֹא חָלַקְנוּ וְלֹא עָשִׂינוּ חֶשְׁבּוֹן. אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר הַתּוֹבֵעַ חָלַקְנוּ עַל מְנָת שֶׁאַשְׁבִּיעַ אוֹתְךָ שְׁבוּעַת הַשֻּׁתָּפִין בְּכָל עֵת שֶׁאֶרְצֶה וַעֲדַיִן לֹא נִשְׁבַּעְתָּ וְאַתָּה מַדְחֶה אוֹתִי מִיּוֹם לְיוֹם. אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַשְׁבִּיעוֹ בְּטַעֲנַת סָפֵק. אֲפִלּוּ אָמַר הַנִּתְבָּע כֵּן חָלַקְנוּ וְנִשְׁאַר לְךָ אֶצְלִי וְזֶה הַנִּשְׁאָר אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא חוֹב שֶׁזְּקָפַתּוּ עָלַי אוֹ פִּקָּדוֹן הִנַּחְתָּ אֶצְלִי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁהָיָה שֻׁתָּפוֹ אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַשְׁבִּיעוֹ בְּטַעֲנַת סָפֵק וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַשְׁבִּיעַ הֶסֵּת שֶׁכְּבָר חָלְקוּ אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ מֵעוֹלָם וַאֲפִלּוּ עַל יְדֵי גִּלְגּוּל לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מַשְׁבִּיעִין הֶסֵּת וְאֵין מְגַלְגְּלִין אֶלָּא אִם טָעֲנוֹ דָּבָר שֶׁאִם יוֹדֶה בּוֹ יִהְיֶה חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם מָמוֹן. אֲבָל דָּבָר שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ הוֹדָה בּוֹ אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא שְׁבוּעָה אֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע עָלָיו וַאֲפִלּוּ עַל יְדֵי גִּלְגּוּל וְכָזֶה. הוֹרוּ הַגְּאוֹנִים בַּעֲלֵי הוֹרָאָה:
כסף משנה
2.
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.
הלכה ג
טָעַן שֶׁעֲדַיִן שֻׁתָּפִי אַתָּה וְנִשְׁאַר לִי אֶצְלְךָ כָּךְ וְכָךְ וְזֶה אוֹמֵר כְּבָר חָלַקְנוּ וְלֹא נִשְׁאַר לְךָ אֶצְלִי כְּלוּם אוֹ לֹא הָיִיתָ שֻׁתָּפִי מֵעוֹלָם הֲרֵי הַנִּתְבָּע נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בְּיָדוֹ כְּלוּם וּמְגַלְגֵּל עָלָיו שֶׁלֹּא גְּזָלְתַּנִי כְּלוּם מֵעוֹלָם. וְאֵינוֹ מְגַלְגֵּל עָלָיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ שֻׁתָּפוֹ אוֹ שֶׁכְּבָר חָלַקְנוּ מִן הַטַּעַם שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:
כסף משנה
3.
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.הלכה ד
טָעַן שֶׁעֲדַיִן שֻׁתָּפִין אֲנַחְנוּ וְיֵשׁ לִי לְהַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ בְּטַעֲנַת סָפֵק וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר לֹא נִשְׁתַּתַּפְנוּ מֵעוֹלָם וְהֵבִיא הַתּוֹבֵעַ עֵדִים שֶׁהָיָה שֻׁתָּפוֹ וְחָזַר הַנִּתְבָּע אַחַר כָּךְ וְאָמַר חָלַקְנוּ אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי הֻחְזַק כַּפְרָן לִשְׁבוּעָה זוֹ וְיִשָּׁבַע שְׁבוּעַת הַשֻּׁתָּפִין. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:
כסף משנה
4.
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.הלכה ה
רְאוּבֵן שֶׁהֵטִיל לְכִיס אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת דִּינָרִים וְהֵטִיל שִׁמְעוֹן מָאתַיִם וְנִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ וְנָשְׂאוּ וְנָתְנוּ בְּיַחַד וַהֲרֵי הַמָּמוֹן כֻּלּוֹ בְּיַד רְאוּבֵן וְטָעַן רְאוּבֵן שֶׁפָּחַת מִן הַקֶּרֶן חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת דִּינָרִין אֵין אוֹמְרִים יִשָּׁבַע רְאוּבֵן שְׁבוּעַת הַשֻּׁתָּפִין שֶׁפָּחֲתוּ כָּךְ וִישַׁלֵּם שִׁמְעוֹן חֲמִשִּׁים מִבֵּיתוֹ אֶלָּא יִשָּׁבַע רְאוּבֵן שְׁבוּעַת הַשֻּׁתָּפִין שֶׁפָּחֲתוּ וְיֵלֵךְ בַּמָּנֶה שֶׁבְּיָדוֹ בִּלְבַד וְלֹא יְשַׁלֵּם שִׁמְעוֹן כְּלוּם. טָעַן רְאוּבֵן שֶׁשִּׁמְעוֹן יוֹדֵעַ בְּוַדַּאי בִּפְחָת זוֹ שֶׁפָּחֲתוּ יְגַלְגֵּל עַל שִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בְּוַדַּאי סְכוּם הַפְּחָת הַזֶּה. וְאִם לֹא נִתְעַסֵּק שִׁמְעוֹן בְּשֻׁתָּפוּת זוֹ כְּלָל יִשָּׁבַע שִׁמְעוֹן הֶסֵּת שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בְּוַדַּאי בְּזֶה הַהֶפְסֵד וְיִפָּטֵר. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא אִם הָיָה זֶה הַמָּנֶה הַנִּשְׁאָר בְּיַד שִׁמְעוֹן חוֹלְקִים אוֹתוֹ בְּשָׁוֶה. שֶׁאֵין הַשֻׁתָּף מִן הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין וְנוֹטְלִין כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּשָּׁבַע וְיִטּל מַה שֶּׁבְּיַד חֲבֵרוֹ אֶלָּא נִשְׁבָּע וְנִפְטָר אוֹ נוֹטֵל מִדָּבָר שֶׁהוּא תַּחַת יָדוֹ. וְהִזָּהֵר בְּדִין זֶה שֶׁכְּבָר טָעוּ בּוֹ בַּעֲלֵי הוֹרָאָה:
כסף משנה
5.
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.
הלכה ו
טָעַן שִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְלֵוִי עָלָיו חוֹב בְּזוֹ הַשֻּׁתָּפוּת מָנֶה. אִם הָיָה בְּיָדוֹ כְּדֵי הַחוֹב וְהָיָה יָכוֹל לִתְּנוֹ לְלֵוִי נֶאֱמָן וְנוֹתְנִין הַחוֹב וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְחַשְּׁבִין. וְאִם אֵין בְּיָדוֹ לִתֵּן אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן לְהוֹצִיא מִיַּד רְאוּבֵן אוֹ מִן הַסְּחוֹרָה הַיְדוּעָה לְשֻׁתָּפוּת שֶׁמָּא קְנוּנְיָא הֵם עוֹשִׂין שִׁמְעוֹן וְלֵוִי עַל נִכְסֵי רְאוּבֵן. אֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה הַמִּלְוֶה בִּשְׁטָר אֵין רְאוּבֵן חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם מִמֶּנָּה כְּלוּם. אֲבָל אִם טָעַן שִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁרְאוּבֵן יוֹדֵעַ בְּוַדַּאי שֶׁזֶּה הַחוֹב שֶׁעָלַי מֵחֲמַת הַשֻּׁתָּפוּת הוּא וְהַחוֹב אֶצְלֵנוּ הוּא יִשָּׁבַע רְאוּבֵן הֶסֵּת אוֹ עַל יְדֵי גִּלְגּוּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁחוֹב זֶה אֶצְלֵנוּ וִישַׁלֵּם שִׁמְעוֹן הַחוֹב מִשֶּׁלּוֹ. וְכֵן אִם יָצָא שְׁטַר חוֹב עַל לֵוִי בְּשֵׁם שִׁמְעוֹן בְּמֵאָה דִּינָרִין מִמָּמוֹן הַשֻּׁתָּפוּת וְאָמַר שִׁמְעוֹן נִפְרַעְתִּי וְהֶחְזַרְתִּי לַכִּיס. אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר שִׁמְעוֹן קָבַעְתִּי לוֹ זְמַן לְשָׁנָה אוֹ לִשְׁתַּיִם. אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן שֶׁמָּא קְנוּנְיָא הוּא עוֹשֶׂה עַל נִכְסֵי רְאוּבֵן. וכֵּיצַד דָּנִין בְּדִין זֶה. לֵוִי כְּבָר נִפְטַר בְּהוֹדָאַת שִׁמְעוֹן. וְאִם לֹא הֵבִיא שִׁמְעוֹן רְאָיָה יְשַׁלֵּם מִבֵּיתוֹ וְיִתְבַּע אֶת לֵוִי בְּסוֹף זְמַן שֶׁאָמַר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: סְלִיקוּ לְהוּ הִלְכוֹת שְׁלוּחִין וְשֻׁתָּפִּין
כסף משנה
6.
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.