Shevuos, Chapter 7, Mishnah 8. The Mishnah opens: "V'eilu nishba'in shelo bit'anah" - these are the ones who take an oath even when no definite claim has been made against them. The claimant does not know for certain that anything went wrong, and he has no actual proof, yet even so he is entitled to demand of the other party an oath that everything was done properly. The Mishnah lists and explains these cases.
Those who swear without a definite claim:
"HaShutafin" - two partners in a single business: each of them may impose an oath on his fellow that everything was done properly and that he did not take more than the share coming to him.
"V'ha'arisin" - the sharecropper who leases the field and works it, and who undertakes to give a percentage of the produce to the owner. The owner may say to him: "I want you to swear that you did not take anything extra."
"V'ha'apotropin" - those appointed over the property of others, as well as one whom the court appointed over the estate of orphans. They too swear that they kept nothing for themselves.
"V'ha'ishah hanoseis v'nosenes b'toch habayis" - a woman whose husband appointed her to buy and sell from his goods, or whom he made trustee and manager over his property. He may require her to swear that she did everything properly and took nothing extra.
"U'ven habayis" - brothers who hold an estate that belonged to their father, and one of them was appointed to handle all the financial matters. The brothers too may impose an oath on him.
What all these cases have in common: those who handle money that is not entirely their own tend to be lenient with themselves and to reason that a little more is coming to them - perhaps because they toiled more than the others - and to permit themselves things that are not entirely legitimate. For this reason the other party was given the right to demand an oath of them.
The Mishnah describes the scenario that would arise in these cases: "Amar lo mah atah to'anani" - the suspected party asks what claim his fellow has against him. "Retzoni shetishava li" - the claimant answers: I do not know that anything improper occurred, I simply want an oath. And the ruling of the Mishnah: "Chayav" - he is obligated to swear.
A limitation on this ruling - after the division:
"Chalku hashutafin v'ha'arisin - eino yachol lehashbi'o" - once the partners have divided between themselves and each has taken the share coming to him, and likewise once the sharecroppers have divided that year's produce, he can no longer impose an oath on him. This law applies only as long as the goods have not yet been divided.
"Nisgalgelah lo shevuah mimakom acher - megalgelin alav es hakol" - if there is another monetary matter between the parties, on account of which that partner or sharecropper becomes obligated in an oath for some other reason, then even though they have already divided and there is no longer a basis to impose an oath on him in the ordinary way - since he is swearing anyway, through the mechanism of rolling over an oath we attach and add on that he must swear also about what occurred during the time that financial connection existed between them.
"V'hashevi'is meshammetes es hashevuah":
This statement does not refer to the oaths listed above, but stands on its own, and it concerns one who became obligated in the oath of a partial admission. How so? One party claims: "You owe me a hundred," and the other answers: "I owe you only fifty," and therefore he must swear that he owes only fifty and not the rest.
The Mishnah teaches us: just as the Sabbatical year cancels debts and brings about the forgiveness of a loan, so too it brings about the forgiveness of the oath. If the Sabbatical year arrived before he managed to swear - just as he no longer owes the money, so he no longer owes his fellow an oath.
In summary: in this Mishnah we learned the list of those who swear without a definite claim - the partners, the sharecroppers, the guardians, the woman who buys and sells within the house, and the member of the household - because of the concern for the leniency that those who handle other people's money may rationalize for themselves; we saw that this law applies only as long as they have not divided between themselves, and that through the mechanism of rolling over an oath one can attach even an obligation for which he could not be made to swear on its own; and finally, the law that the Sabbatical year cancels the oath, just as it cancels the debt.