2,676. Why Shouldn't One Be Liable for an Oath of Deposit?

Hilchos Shevuos 7:4

In the previous halacha we discussed one who is exempt for violating an oath of deposit. One might wonder why he should be exempt in such cases since, had he admitted the claim he would have been obligated to pay what he denied. The reason is because Leviticus 5:21-22 requires an oath of deposit for “an entrusted item, a deposit, a theft; (if) he oppressed his fellow or found a lost object.” These are all cases of movable goods for which one would have to make restitution from his own property if he admitted the claim. This doesn’t include real estate, which isn’t movable property; a person always knows where his real estate is and it’s always in his possession. Servants are likewise not included since they’re comparable to real estate. Promissory notes aren’t included because the thing itself has no intrinsic value.

Hilchos Shevuos 7:5

The same halachos apply regardless of whether one took an oath after a claim was filed against him or whether he took the oath on his own without a claim being filed against him. For example, if a person was proactive and said, “Why are you shadowing me? Do I have any money of yours? I take an oath that I don't have any of your money in my possession!” Since he denied with an oath, he is liable even though a claim wasn’t filed against him.