בבא קמא י׳:ו׳ - י׳:ז׳

על מנת לצאת במדבר – not that he should say to him explicitly: “on condition that you go out into the wilderness, and you should repay me”, for this is a simple matter. But even if his fellow said to him: “Let me make this deposit with you, for I am going out in the wilderness.” But the other said to him, “and I also want to go out to the wilderness”, and now, if he wants to restore it to him in the wilderness, he can return it to him.

האומר לחבירו גזלתיך וכו' - and for example, that his fellow claims evidently/with certainty that you stole from me, and he says, it is true that I stole from you. But if he doesn’t know if I returned it to you, he is liable to pay. But if his fellow claims that perhaps you stole from me or I lent you, and he (i.e., the other) states, it is true truthfully, I stole from you or you let me, but he doesn’t know if he restored it (i.e., the lent object), he is exempt from the laws of mankind, and if he wants to fulfill according to the [Laws of] heaven, he should pay him.

איני יודע אם גזלתיך וכו' – he is exempt from paying. But however, he should take an oath that he doesn’t know that he is liable to him, for pleading ignorance or offering a possible alternative is not preferable to a certainty, But alternatively, if he would make a claim to him that he doesn’t have in his hand anything, he would have him take the equitable oath. (This is applied, if one who is sued for a debt, denies the latter entirely, in contradistinction to the legal oath which is required when the defendant admits a part of the claim. It being presumed that nobody will go to law unless he has a claim, it is a matter of equity to put the opponent to an oath, to which he may in return put the claimant. See Talmud Shevuot 40b).