Talmud for Shevuot 7:2
הַנִּגְזָל כֵּיצַד, הָיוּ מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁנִּכְנַס לְבֵיתוֹ לְמַשְׁכְּנוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בִרְשׁוּת, הוּא אוֹמֵר כֵּלַי נָטַלְתָּ, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא נָטַלְתִּי, הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא שָׁם מִקְצָת הוֹדָאָה. כֵּיצַד, אָמַר לוֹ שְׁנֵי כֵלִים נָטַלְתָּ, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא נָטַלְתִּי אֶלָּא אֶחָד:
One who has been robbed — how so? If they testified against him that he entered the other's house to take a pledge from him without being authorized to do so, [as when witnesses saw him enter the other's house with nothing in his hand and he left with vessels projecting from the folds of his garment] — He says: "You took my vessels"; the other says: "I did not," he (the claimant) swears and takes. [For the indications are (that he did steal). For the witnesses testify that he took a pledge without authorization. This, when he claims something which he is likely to own, but if he claims "a silver chalice," or the like, which he is not likely to own, it is not for him to swear and take (in all instances), but the claimee swears and exempts himself.] R. Yehudah says: (He does not swear) unless there is partial admission. How so? As when he said: "You took two vessels," and the other said: "I took only one."
Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma
Since the Sages agree with R. Jehudah that for matters within general practice one believes the claimant of fire damages without proof, must the “general practice” be interpreted narrowly or may one admit, e. g., practices of rich people for a poor claimant?? Let us hear from the following: Bar Ziza’s sharecropper deposited a pound112A Roman pound, 345 g, an enormous value in the early 3rd Century. of gold with somebody. Bar Ziza and Bar Ziza’s sharecropper died; the case came before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose. He said, does not everybody know that all Bar Ziza’s sharecrooper had was Bar Ziza’s property? It should be given to Bar Ziza’s sons. Bar Ziza had adult and underage sons. He said, the adult one should take half and when the underage ones grow up, they should receive half. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose died; the case came before Rebbi Ḥiyya who said, that argument113R. Ismael ben R. Yose’s. means nothing [since there are people who do not flout their wealth]114Missing here, added from the text of Alfasi (#125) and the parallel in Šebuot. In the latter text, the position of R. Ḥiyya is explicitly endorsed by R. Joḥanan who quotes Prov. 13:7: “There are those who pose as rich and have nothing, pose as poor and have great wealth”.; it should be given to the sharecropper’s sons. The trustee told him, I already disbursed half of it. He told him, what you gave, you gave by court order and what you will give, you will give by court order. May the sharecropper’s sons say to Bar Ziza’s sons, give us what you took? They can tell them, what was done was done by court order. May the underage ones say to the adult, let us share with you? May they tell them, we found a find? Rebbi Isaac said, the case between the adult and underaged ones is compared to one who gave a gift115Since R. Ismael ben R. Yose said that “it should be given to Bar Ziza’s sons,” all have to share equally..