Halakhah su Levitico 19:11

For example, R. David ibn Zimra, Teshuvot Radvaz, IV, no. 1,223, (152) addresses a situation involving a defendant who was ordered to swear a solemn oath affirming that he did not owe a sum of money and who was quite prepared to swear to that effect. The claimant, knowing that the oath would be false, queried whether he should allow the defendant to swear falsely or whether he should withdraw his claim. Radvaz responded that the claimant was under no obligation²⁵Cf., the concluding statement in Teshuvot Radvaz, I, no. 354, in which Radvaz reports that, when he had reason to suspect that a defendant would swear falsely, it was his practice to effect a compromise between the litigants and recommends that other judges adopt a similar policy. to absolve the defendant from the required oath.²⁶In this responsum Radvaz focuses upon the financial loss that would be incurred in preventing a false oath and remarks that one who assumes such loss is a “pious fool.” Cf., however, Rashi, Shevu’ot 39b, s.v. halah, and Tosafot, Shevu’ot 47b, s.v. halah, who aver that a plaintiff who has entrusted his funds to an unworthy person is not without blame. See also R. Chaim Palaggi, Nishmat kol Ḥai, II, no. 9, who declares that there is no obligation to accept financial loss in order to prevent transgression on the part of another. Cf., however, R. Chaim Hizkiyahu Medini, Sedei Ḥemed, Kelalim, ma’arekhet ha-heh, sec. 45 and ma’arekhet vav, sec. 30. See also, Teivat Goma, ḥakirah daled, cited by Pitḥei Teshuvah, Yoreh De’ah 157:5. Accepting that premise, R. Shimon ben Gamliel may well be understood as announcing the principle hal’itehu la-rasha only as justification for avoidance of a financial burden such as is entailed in redemption of kerem reva’i. See R. Shimon ha-Levi Gottlieb, Ateret Mordekhai, no. 8, sec. 2. See also infra, note 31.
Cf., R. Aaron Halberstam, Teshuvot Muẓal me-Esh, no. 45, who poses the question more generally in querying how it is ever possible to demand an oath since doing so is, in effect, “placing a stumbling block before the blind” and a person is obligated to sacrifice his entire fortune rather than transgress a negative commandment. Muẓal me-Esh responds cryptically by invoking the principle hal’itehu la-rasha. See also R. Shlomoh Zalman Auerbach, Teshuvot Minḥat Shlomoh, I, no. 7. That comment, however, begs the question in that it fails to spell out why hal’itehu la-rasha supersedes other halakhic principles. Cf. also, R. David Shlomoh Frankel, Teshuvot Be’er David, no. 24, who argues rather tenuously that, because of the general nature of the prohibition, avoidance of lifnei iver requires an outlay of funds no greater than required for fulfillment of a positive commandment. Cf., ibid., no. 3. The issue is also addressed by R. Amram Bloom, Teshuvot Bet She’arim, Yoreh De’ah, no. 17. R. Chaim Halberstam, Teshuvot Divrei Ḥayyim, Ḥoshen Mishpat, no. 8, asserts that it is permissible to demand an oath because of a statutory presumption that the defendant will not swear falsely. See also the comments of Imrei Barukh on Turei Even, Megillah 28a. Cf., the comments of R. Chaim ibn Attar, Or ha-Ḥayyim, Leviticus 19:11, to the effect that the plaintiff is forbidden to cause the defendant to swear if he knows that the latter is swearing falsely. Cf., Sedei Ḥemed, Kelalim, ma’arekhet ha-heh, sec. 45 and ma’arekhet vav, sec. 30.
For a discussion of the propriety of, and punishment for, causing a person to swear even a truthful oath see Midrash Rabbah, Leviticus 6:5; Tosafot, Shevu’ot 47b, s.v. halah; Sema, Ḥoshen Mishpat 87:1; and R. Moses Sofer, Teshuvot Ḥatam Sofer, Ḥoshen Mishpat, nos. 73 and 90.

To not steal any money: To not steal any money, as it is stated (Leviticus 19:11), "You shall not steal." And they, may their memory be blessed, said (Sanhedrin 86a) that this is the warning [about] stealing money. And the content of theft is like I explained in the Order of Mishpatim (Sefer HaChinukh 54).

That we do not disavow money that is in our hand from another: That we not disavow that which is deposited into our hand, and about anything that is to us of someone else's, as it is stated (Leviticus 19:11), "you shall not disavow." And the explanation came (Shevuot 37b) that the verse is referring to money. And the language of Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 2:3 is: "Since it is stated (Leviticus 5:22), 'and he disavows it and swears falsely,' we have learned the punishment. From where is the warning? [Hence,] we learn to say, 'and you shall not disavow.'" This is also from the commandments about which the intellect testifies.