Responsa for Shevuot 63:24
הכל מודים בעד סוטה שחייב בעד טומאה דרחמנא הימניה דכתיב (במדבר ה, יג) ועד אין בה כל שיש בה
holds that one witness, when he comes [to bear testimony], comes [to make the defendant liable] for an oath; and the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon.');"><sup>31</sup></span> holds that one witness, when he comes [to bear testimony], comes [to make him liable to pay] money?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though Scripture says: One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin (Deut. XIX, 15) , R. Eleazar holds it refers only to stripes or other punishment, but one witness is sufficient in money matters; therefore, if one witness denies knowledge of testimony, he is liable. Our Mishnah, in exempting the second witness, is therefore not in accordance with the view of R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon.');"><sup>32</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
A. If A lost money through his representative's willful neglect, the latter must make good A's loss. But, if the case is such that had the representative pleaded A's arguments, A would have had to swear and be able to recover, or swear and be free from obligation, and now the case is that the oath has either been transferred to B, or that now B may collect without taking an oath, the representative is free from obligation, since the damage to A's interests is not clear and remains problematical, as no one can be sure that A would have taken the required oath. However, if the case is such that had the representative pleaded A's arguments, A would be free from obligation and would not be required to take an oath, and now B collects from A without being required to take an oath, the representative is guilty of willful neglect.
SOURCES: Cr. 157; Pr. 242; Mord. B. M. 290; Rashba I, 1106.
Teshuvot Maharam
A. If A lost money through his representative's willful neglect, the latter must make good A's loss. But, if the case is such that had the representative pleaded A's arguments, A would have had to swear and be able to recover, or swear and be free from obligation, and now the case is that the oath has either been transferred to B, or that now B may collect without taking an oath, the representative is free from obligation, since the damage to A's interests is not clear and remains problematical, as no one can be sure that A would have taken the required oath. However, if the case is such that had the representative pleaded A's arguments, A would be free from obligation and would not be required to take an oath, and now B collects from A without being required to take an oath, the representative is guilty of willful neglect.
SOURCES: Cr. 157; Pr. 242; Mord. B. M. 290; Rashba I, 1106.