Tosefta su Levitico 5:1

The one who imposes an oath on an idolator, or on women, or on minors, or on relatives, or on those invalid [to testify], they are exempt, as it says, “Though he was a witness” (Lev 5:1). [It speaks] of a witness that is suitable to extract money [from a defendant]. Rabbi Eliezer says, the one who imposes an oath on a single witness is exempt, as he is not suitable to extract money. Testimony about money is established on what one has seen but not known or what one has known but not seen. What [is a case] where one has seen but does not have knowledge? “Give me two hundred zuz which are in your hand!” “You have no money in my hand.” “Didn’t I count for you in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so?” “They should say, and I will give you!” This is seeing without having knowledge. And what is having knowledge without seeing? “Give me two hundred zuz that are in your hand!” “You don’t have two hundred zuz in my hand.” “Didn’t ou admit to me in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so?” “Let them say, and I will pay you.” This is knowledge without seeing.

They are liable for deliberate testimony with a deliberate oath, and for a deliberate testimony with an inadvertent oath, and for inadvertent testimony he is exempt. And what is deliberate testimony with a deliberate oath for which he is liable? If he knew testimony for someone and he knew that whoever makes a [false] oath brings a sacrifice, this is deliberate testimony with a deliberate oath for which he is liable. And what is deliberate testimony with an inadvertent oath for which he is liable? If he knew testimony for him but did not know that one who makes a [false] oath brings a sacrifice, this is deliberate testimony with an inadvertent oath for which he is liable. And which is inadvertent testimony for which he is exempt? He did not know any testimony for him or he knew and forgot it at the moment he took the oath, he is exempt, as it says, “And he took an oath falsely” (Lev 5:1).

They are liable for deliberately [denying] a deposit and deliberately taking an oath, and for deliberately [denying] a deposit with an inadvertent oath, but for inadvertently [denying] a deposit, he is exempt. Which is the case of deliberately [denying] a deposit with a deliberate oath for which he is liable? If he knew that he had a deposit in his possession and he knew that anyone who makes a [false] oath [in this situation] brings a sacrifice, this is a deliberate [denying] a deposit and deliberately [taking a false] oath, for which he is liable. Which is deliberately [denying] a deposit and inadvertently [taking a false] oath, for which he is liable? If he knew that he had a deposit in his possession but he did not know that one who takes a [false] oath [in this situation] brings a sacrifice, this is deliberately [denying] a deposit and inadvertently [taking a false] oath, for which he is liable. Which is inadvertently [denying] a deposit, for which he is exempt? If he didn’t know that he had a deposit in his possession or if he knew but then forgot in the moment that he took the oath, he is exempt, as it says, “And he took an oath falsely” (Lev 5:1). If he went after witnesses and they said, “Why are you coming after us? By oath, we know no testimony for you,” they are exempt until he makes a claim against them. But [in the case of] a bailment, it is not like that. “Why are you coming after me? By oath, I have nothing of yours in my possession,” he is exempt [liable?]. The rule of an oath relating to a bailment is stricter than the rule of an oath about testimony. If he said to the witnesses, “Come and testify for me that I have in so-and-so’s possession 200 zuz, the wage of a hired man or money for my wife and daughters.” “By oath, we will not testify for you,” these are exempt until they say, “By oath, we do not know any testimony on your behalf.” And thus regarding bailment: If he said to him, “Give me two hundred zuz that I have in your possession from the business of a hired man’s wages or the money for my wife and daughters.” “By oath, I will not give to you,” he is exempt until he says to him, “By oath, I have nothing of yours in my possession.” If he said to the witnesses, “Come and testify for me that so-and-so said to give to me two hundred zuz and he didn’t give it to me” [or] “a garment that he said he would clothe me [with] and he did not clothe me.” “By oath, we do not know any testimony for you,” these are exempt as he might say to him, “He told me to give to you but it is not possible to give to you.” Or, “he said he would clothe you but it is not possible to clothe you.” And thus for a bailment: If he said, “He said [he would] give two hundred zuz but he did not give it to me,” [or] “a garment that he said he would [use] to clothe me, and he did not clothe me.” “By oath, I have nothing of yours in my possession,” he is exempt, for he could say to him, “I said I would give to you but it is not possible to give to you.” Or “I said I would clothe you but it is not possible to clothe you.”