שמות, פרק כ״ב, פסוק י׳

When property entrusted to a guardian is damaged by an unavoidable accident, such as death or a broken limb, and there are no witnesses to the event, a legal mechanism relying on a severe oath is established. The guardian is exempt from paying for the loss, but he must back his claim by swearing in the explicit name of God [תורה תמימה]. This oath serves as a direct appeal to Divine justice, intervening exactly where a human court cannot issue a ruling due to a lack of evidence [רש ר הירש]. However, if the accident occurred in a public area where witnesses are typically present, the guardian cannot simply rely on an oath; he must bring actual proof of his claim [בכור שור, חזקוני].

The requirement that this process takes place strictly between the original parties introduces several legal and moral principles. From a legal standpoint, the oath applies only to the individuals initially involved in the dispute and does not transfer to their heirs [תורה תמימה, רש ר הירש, מלבי״ם]. Furthermore, the court cannot force the oath if the parties prefer to reach a compromise or waive it entirely [תורה תמימה, רש ר הירש, צפנת פענח]. This rule also excludes individuals who are already suspected of lying; in such cases, the right to swear transfers to the claimant [תורה תמימה, מלבי״ם, חזקוני]. On a moral level, the burden of the oath rests on both sides. The property owner bears a degree of responsibility for entrusting his belongings to someone who might be unreliable, thereby indirectly contributing to the potential desecration of God's name should a false oath be taken [אור החיים, תורה תמימה, רש ר הירש].

The core of the oath requires the guardian to swear that his account of the accident is true, and crucially, that he did not use the entrusted animal or tools for his own personal needs [אבן עזרא, רבנו בחיי, מזרחי, שד״ל, גור אריה, דברי דוד]. This condition is critical. If the guardian used the deposited property without permission, he assumes full liability. Even if no damage occurred during his unauthorized use, he would still be obligated to pay if the animal later died in a completely unavoidable accident [רש״י, רבנו בחיי, שפתי חכמים]. Another perspective suggests that the oath specifically affirms that the accident happened entirely on its own, rather than as a result of the guardian's negligence or criminal action [הכתב והקבלה].

Following the oath, the dispute reaches its resolution, though commentators differ on how this conclusion plays out practically [ביאור שטיינזלץ]. The primary approach among commentators is that the owner simply accepts the oath, and the guardian is entirely exempt from any payment [רש״י, רשב״ם, מזרחי, נתינה לגר, פרדס יוסף]. Alternatively, others explain that the owner physically takes back whatever remains of his property, such as the animal's carcass or the injured beast, while the guardian pays nothing for the financial loss [העמק דבר, שד״ל, תורה תמימה, מלבי״ם, קאסוטו]. A unique interpretation suggests that it is actually the guardian who takes what is owed to him, specifically collecting his guarding fee up until the moment the accident occurred [הכתב והקבלה]. Ultimately, this resolution establishes a fundamental rule in monetary law: an oath is designed solely to exempt a defendant from having to pay, and it cannot be used by a claimant as a tool to extract money from another person [תורה תמימה, רש ר הירש].