Our Gemara on Amud aleph discusses a scenario when a defendant swears falsely, and later is proven to have lied, certain exemptions of liabilities remain in effect nonetheless. The idea is that having made the oath, there was a certain settlement between the owner and him. Even though the oath was false, certain liabilities are dismissed by the act of swearing itself, almost in exchange for making the oath, true or not.
The derivation for this unusual law is from the verse (Shemos 22:10) “And the owner will accept the oath”, as if to hint that there is quid quo pro release of liability between the defendant to the plaintiff, just for agreeing to make the oath.
Agra Dekallah (Mishpatim 23) notes that the verse uses terminology which also hints that the oath is metaphorically put on the accuser as well. It can be considered improper to be so unyielding in legal proceedings as to compel the defendant to swear, see Shulchan Aruch (C.M. 87:22.). This stems from an interesting Jewish ethic, even when a person intends to tell the truth, it is preferable to avoid an oath and instead seek some form of settlement or payment. Chasam Sofer (Responsum 90, and Pischei Teshuva, Shulchan Aruch 87:22) explains that it is considered a lack of respect to invoke God’s name for an oath, even if true. To illustrate, it is likened to lowly, feuding ministers who demand that the King review their dispute instead of settling it among themselves.
The bottom line is that it is better to incur financial loss than induce an oath, and both the plaintiff and defendant are responsible for this sin. They should have found a way to compromise for the sake of peace, and not bother God with it, so to speak, like squabbling siblings.
However, this seems to contradict a teaching from Devarim Rabbah (5:15) which states:
Rabbi Akiva said: Know how great is the power of peace! The Holy One Blessed Be He said that when a man has grounds to suspect his wife of adultery, let the very Holy Name of God be erased in water, in order to perform the Sotah ritual and restore peace in the home.
This shows that God’s honor is sacrificed to bring about peace. If so, why should the plaintiff or defendant be reluctant to invoke an oath that will help settle the matter? If you were to argue, the plaintiff shouldn’t be petty and instead forgive, so too, the jealous husband should also forgive and let go! You might try to answer this contradiction by arguing that infidelity is different, since it is a sin before Man and God, so a restoration of fidelity in marriage brings honor to God as well. The problem with this answer is not the logic, but the text. The Midrash does not say God had His name erased on behalf of His holiness, but rather to promote peace in the home. This suggests that the key distinction is not the unholiness of the infidelity, but the lack of peace and trust. The Midrash apparently believes that once trust is broken, mere forgiveness or letting go is not realistic without drastic measures to enable a restoration.
This underscores the fundamental difference between the emotional betrayal of sexual infidelity and milder forms of financial betrayal (though, of course, still serious.) It is expected to compromise and let go when it comes to financial disputes, but loss of trust in a marriage is not forgiven as quickly, and even God is willing to step in and help.
Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation 
Do you like what you see? Please subscribe and also forward any articles you enjoy to your friends, (enemies too, why not?)