2,684. An Unpaid Watchman and an Oath of Deposit

Hilchos Shevuos 8:4

If person A accuses person B of injuring him and person B denies it with an oath, or if A claims that B’s ox killed his ox and B denies it with an oath, B would be liable for an oath of deposit. This is because if he conceded to the claim, he would be obligated to pay the damages.

Hilchos Shevuos 8:5

One isn’t liable for an oath of deposit if someone entrusted his ox to an unpaid watchman, the ox died, and the owner filed a claim against the watchman with one of the following exchanges: The owner asks for the ox and the watchman denies ever having received it, or he acknowledges receiving it but he claims that it was lost or stolen, and he supports his claim with an oath. The reason he’s exempt is because if he had admitted the truth, he wouldn’t have been financially responsible as an unpaid watchman. He is, however, liable for an oath of expression because he made a false oath. The same is true in all comparable cases.