Sotah 072

12:
We now come to the two last items that were stated in our present mishnah as being texts that could be stated in any language. Firstly, the "testimony adjuration".

13:
On many occasions over the years we have had occasion to mention one great difference between the halakhic legal system and other legal systems with which we are familiar today. The halakhic system must assume that there is no coercive state and no organized police force. (While 'police' are mentioned in Deuteronomy 16:18 they are not really 'police' at all. As Rashi points out in his commentary on that verse they are officers of the court whose task it is to ensure that the decisions of the court, once handed down, are enforced and obeyed.) With no organized police force whose task it is to detect crime and bring the perpetrators to justice the wronged individual will have to be his own detective, his own arresting agent and his own prosecutor. The way this was done was by the aggrieved party summoning his suspect into court and producing what evidence he had as to the suspect's guilt of a crime perpetrated against him.

14:
Let us assume that Re'uven wishes to recover a debt from a recalcitrant Shim'on. In a less sophisticated society it may well have been the case that the two friends did not write out and sign a formal deed of debt and repayment: Re'uven lent his friend Shim'on 100 dinars in the full expectation that the money would be returned to him by an agreed date. When Re'uven eventually confronts Shim'on, the latter entirely denies the debt: no monies were exchanged, or the money was a gift and not a loan and so forth. The only recourse that Re'uven has is to bring Shim'on into court. But there, in court, he will need evidence that the loan was effected and under what terms it was effected. There is a 'golden rule' of evidence in halakhic jurisprudence [Gittin 48b]: "the onus of proof is on the plaintiff" – or, more literally: "the onus of proof is upon him who would extract money from someone else".

15:
Now, Re'uven was not so foolish as to lend a large sum of money to Shim'on without witnesses. Both Levi and Yehudah were present at the time that the loan was effected, but now, when Re'uven summons them to court as his witnesses against Shim'on, both Levi and Yehudah claim that they were not present and have no testimony to offer. According to the sages, the Torah [Leviticus 5:1] has already put into the hand of Re'uven a powerful tool:

Re'uven may summon Levi and Yehudah into court and require them to swear an oath that they have no testimony to offer on behalf of Re'uven. The most potent element in this matter is the fact that an oath is sworn using the Divine Name. The assumption is that any person uttering an oath invoking the name of God will be too afraid to utter a falsehood, being aware, as it were, that "he shall bear his iniquity" before the omnipresent and omnipotent ultimate power of the universe.

16:
This matter is codified in Tractate Shevu'ot 4:3 as follows:

Our present mishnah states that this adjuration may be administered in any language. The justification for this is the fact that the original biblical text [Leviticus 5:1] uses the phrase "hears the voice of adjuration" – any language that he hears, understands.

17:
The last item in our present mishnah is "the deposit adjuration". This is connected with the halakhah concerning someone who is legally in possession of the property of someone else. The Torah [Exodus 22:6-14] recognizes four situations in which Sarah can be in possession of the property of Rivkah with the latter's knowledge and consent:

1. Rivkah gave the property (money or objects) for safe keeping with no remuneration involved;
2. Sarah is looking after the property for a fee;
3. Sarah hired the property from Rivkah for a fee, for her use;
4. Sarah is borrowing Rivkah's property.

We are concerned here with the first possibility. Rivkah leaves her purse with Sarah while she visits the ladies' room; when she returns Sarah does not return the purse (for whatever reason). All that Rivkah can now do under halakhic law is to haul Sarah into court and make her swear an oath that she safeguarded the purse to the best of her ability, that it is not now in her possession and that she does not know anything of its whereabouts. As long as Sarah is not found to be perjuring herself she is free from any obligation to Rivkah because she was doing her a favour since no fee was involved. Our present mishnah states that this adjuration may be made in any language.