Responsa על שבועות 76:17

Let us now see how many excuses Israel had to cancel this oath: a) The two spies swore. Is the entire people of Israel obligated to confirm and uphold the oath? b) The spies themselves were coerced at the time. Their lives were in danger if they did not heed her. Had they not wanted to swear, she would have gone and disclosed that spies were afoot, and they would have been sentenced to death. c) Their oath does not take effect for those who are oath-bound to safeguard the word of the King on the matter of the oath to God: “you shall not let a soul remain alive. You must doom them to destruction.” d) She, her family, and all those who accompanied her were idolaters. e) The seven nations were wicked and sinful against God, and they perpetrated all manner of abomination that God hates.

Q. Before A and B entered, as equal partners, into a business transaction wherein B was to be the active partner, A said to B: "Give me your faithful word as a religious Jew that you will not deny me my share of the profits." B complied with A's request. When they came to divide the profits, A demanded that B take an oath to the effect that there were no other profits except those he had admitted. B claimed that he had already given his word to A, which is equivalent to an oath.
A. B must take the oath usually taken by all partners, which is administered by the hazzan holding the Scroll of the law. Although giving one's faithful word is also considered an oath, it is not as solemn as the oath administered while holding the scroll of the Law, and can not take its place.
SOURCES: Cr. 171; Pr. 606; L. 379; Mord. Shebu. 765; cf. Hag. Maim. Shebuoth 11, 3; Moses, Minz, Responsa 17.

Q. A's widow and son, through their representative, summoned B, A's brother, before us. The representative claimed that A had given wine to B for the purpose of transporting it to Magdeburg and selling it there, and that B bartered this wine for a horse. He demanded, therefore, that B return the horse either to the widow, in payment of her ketubah, or to the orphan who was the rightful heir. B claimed that he had become surety to a Gentile for a loan of five and one quarter marks, contracted by A, that A's wife had vowed to repay this debt and release him from his suretyship; that A had given him the wine for the purpose of selling it and buying his release with that money; that the horse was worth only three marks, and that the widow, therefore, still owed him two and one quarter marks. The representative, however, claimed that A had effected B's release from his suretyship. We decided, temporarily, that B should take an oath to the effect that he has as yet not been released from his suretyship and that he had received the wine for the purpose of buying such release; in which case he should be entitled to retain the horse. However, before B took the prescribed oath, he sold the horse for six pounds, which now had a value of four and one-quarter marks, and he made a settlement with the Gentile (A's creditor for the 5¼ marks) to pay him one mark per year for six years. B wanted to give the six pounds to his mother-in-law for investment purposes, she promising to pay the one mark per year for six years to the Gentile. The representative, however, claimed that B was in possession of an amount equal to the value of the horse only and that B must pay out of his own pocket the difference between this amount and the amount due the Gentile. He demanded that B return the six pounds to the widow and her son, who were willing to provide sureties to the Gentile guaranteeing the payment of one mark per year for six years. B, on the other hand, claimed that he was entitled to benefit from the advantageous settlement he negotiated with A's creditor; that being able to release himself completely from his suretyship by his shrewdness in the use of the four and one-quarter marks, he was entitled to do so; and that he was taking a risk since (the coins comprising) the six pounds were almost certain to be invalidated and be worth less than four and one quarter marks. Moreover, B claimed that A had promised to pay him for his efforts in selling the wine, and that he had guaranteed another debt of A which had not been paid. We shall follow your decision in this matter. Furthermore, please inform us whether or not B may exact an oath from the widow to the effect that she did not vow to release him from his suretyship.
A. B has no claim on the money he received for the horse if his complete release from his suretyship is effected in other ways, especially since he had as yet not taken the required oath. Since the widow and her son are willing to guarantee such a release, B must return that money to them. However, if B take an oath to the effect that A owed him a certain amount of money, either for his effort in selling the wine or for becoming surety for another debt, he will be entitled to retain such an amount. B may exact an oath from the widow (to the effect that she did not vow to pay the above debt of five and one-quarter marks) under the following conditions only: a) If it is an established fact that A did not effect the release of B from his suretyship; b) if B claims that the widow had made the vow mentioned above before he became surety for A. If the former condition is lacking, the widow is not required to take an oath when the claim against her is based on a doubtful premise; and if the latter condition is lacking, the widow never became responsible for that debt. If she made the vow referred to above, she is still under solemn obligation to keep her vow, but is not required to take an oath. However, the representative's claim that B was in possession of an amount equal to the value of the horse only, is baseless.
SOURCES: L. 218, 219; cf. Hag. Maim., Shebuoth 11, 3.

Q. A sold his house to B and undertook to settle with the abutter so that the latter would not take the house away from B. The abutter, also, told B that having no money he did not want to buy the house. B, however, failed to bind the abutter by a kinyan. A borrowed jewelry from his wife and deposited it with C stating: take formal possession of this jewelry on condition that if I fail to settle with the abutter it will belong to B from now on. B, on the other hand, deposited twenty^*Cr. reads: “two;” Mord. reads: “four;” L. and Tesh. Maim. read: “twenty.” marks with C as a guaranty that he would pay the price of the house and that he would not change his mind. After the transaction was concluded, however, the abutter obtained money, paid off B, and took away the house; B, therefore, demanded of C that he turn over to him the valuables A had deposited with him. C told A in the presence of witnesses of B's demand and A replied that he should give the valuables to B "since it is legally coming to him". Is B entitled to the valuables?
A. A gave the valuables to C in order that he deliver them to B should a certain condition not be fulfilled. Such a transaction is called asmakhta and is not binding since it was not made before an authoritative court. When A finally told C to deliver the valuables to B, he was acting under misapprehension that they were due him legally, as his statement indicates. His order, therefore, was not binding and B should return the valuables to A.
SOURCES: Cr. 290; L. 309; Mord. B. B. 324; Tesh. Maim to Kinyan, 3.

Q. Before A and B entered, as equal partners, into a business transaction wherein B was to be the active partner, A said to B: "Give me your faithful word as a religious Jew that you will not deny me my share of the profits." B complied with A's request. When they came to divide the profits, A demanded that B take an oath to the effect that there were no other profits except those he had admitted. B claimed that he had already given his word to A, which is equivalent to an oath.
A. B must take the oath usually taken by all partners, which is administered by the hazzan holding the Scroll of the law. Although giving one's faithful word is also considered an oath, it is not as solemn as the oath administered while holding the scroll of the Law, and can not take its place.
SOURCES: Cr. 171; Pr. 606; L. 379; Mord. Shebu. 765; cf. Hag. Maim. Shebuoth 11, 3; Moses, Minz, Responsa 17.

Q. Before A and B entered, as equal partners, into a business transaction wherein B was to be the active partner, A said to B: "Give me your faithful word as a religious Jew that you will not deny me my share of the profits." B complied with A's request. When they came to divide the profits, A demanded that B take an oath to the effect that there were no other profits except those he had admitted. B claimed that he had already given his word to A, which is equivalent to an oath.
A. B must take the oath usually taken by all partners, which is administered by the hazzan holding the Scroll of the law. Although giving one's faithful word is also considered an oath, it is not as solemn as the oath administered while holding the scroll of the Law, and can not take its place.
SOURCES: Cr. 171; Pr. 606; L. 379; Mord. Shebu. 765; cf. Hag. Maim. Shebuoth 11, 3; Moses, Minz, Responsa 17.