The Gemara, basing itself on the verse: "He who has a grievance should approach you," teaches that we are to listen first to the words of a plaintiff, and only then to the words of a defendant.
The Shach explains that whose side of an argument is heard first makes a difference when there is a partial admission, a modeh b'miktzas, regarding the application of a Torah oath. For example, if the plaintiff states that he is owed $100 and the defendant admits to $50, then the defendant must take a Torah oath concerning the $50 that he denies.
If the defendant first admits to owing $50, and only then does the plaintiff demand $100, the defendant is not considered a modeh b'miktzas, and need not take an oath to back up his statement.
Thus, a plaintiff who states his case first is assured of the defendant's having to take a Torah oath.
The source of this oath is the verse: "In every case of dishonesty... anything that was lost ... which he says 'this is it'," i.e., the defendant offers a partial admission.
Every aspect of the revealed portion of Torah has a spiritual counterpart in the esoteric portion, and in terms of man's spiritual service. In fact, since Torah descended from the spiritual realms to the physical, its esoteric inner dimension is the source of the revealed portion. Moreover, there are many things in the revealed portion of Torah that can be fully understood only with an explanation on a more esoteric level.
This principle applies here, for, on a simple level, the explanation of the Shach does not appear entirely cogent. The statement of our Sages that "We are to listen first to the words of the plaintiff" seems to address itself to all situations involving plaintiffs and defendants; according to the Shach, however, the ruling would only make a difference in a situation where the defendant offers a partial admission.
In a spiritual context, however, the overwhelming majority of lawsuits involve modeh b'miktzas.
The yetzer hora, the evil inclination, acts as a Jew's plaintiff, first leading him to sin, or at least to "sin" in the sense of faultiness and a loss of spirituality, and then acting as claimant, demanding that the person be given over to its clutches.
The response of the Jew - the defendant - is to offer a "partial admission." The Jew responds by saying that, while it is true that he succumbed to sin, the sin was only "partial;" it involved only an external aspect of his being, and not his soul's essence, for the quintessential aspect of his soul transcends sin and cannot possibly be tainted by it.
Moreover, even on a revealed level, every Jew possesses an abundance of good, so that "Even the sinners in Israel are as filled with mitzvos as a pomegranate [is filled with seeds]." It is therefore impossible for a Jew to be, G-d forbid, entirely evil.
The fact that every Jew, whether an actual sinner or a righteous individual who merely lost some degree of spirituality, falls into the category of modeh b'miktzas is alluded to in the verse "In every case of dishonesty... anything that was lost... which he says 'this is it' ":
In spiritual terms, the plaintiff's complaint extends both to "cases of dishonesty" (i.e., actual sin) and to "anything that was lost" (referring to a person who lost some measure of spirituality by not fulfilling his soul's mission to the best of his ability.)
In answer to both of these complaints, the Jew says "this is it," i.e., that in which he sinned or in which he is lacking, is minor and partial compared to both his greater whole - the essence of his soul that is always at one with G-d - and the revealed aspect of his being, which is as full of mitzvos as a pomegranate is filled with seeds.
Based on Likkutei Sichos, Vol. XVI, pp. 269-271
