When Both Litigants Are Suspect and the Oath Has Nowhere to Go

"An oath of the LORD shall be between the two of them" (Exodus 22:10): one who is suspect regarding oaths - his opponent swears and collects. If both of them were suspect, the oath returns to its place. These are the words of Rabbi Yose. Rabbi Meir says: they divide. To where does it return? Rabbi Ami said: our rabbis in Babylonia said the oath returns to Sinai; our rabbis in the Land of Israel said the oath returns to the one obligated in it. "Our rabbis in Babylonia" - this is Rav and Shmuel. "Our rabbis in the Land of Israel" - this is Rabbi Abba. Rava said: it stands to reason like Rabbi Abba, for Rabbi Ami taught: "an oath of the LORD shall be between the two of them" - and not between the heirs. What is the case? If we say it is where the claimant said to the heir, "my father had a maneh in your father's keeping," and the heir said, "of fifty he has, and of fifty he does not," then what difference is there between him and his own father? Rather it must be where the claimant said, "my father had a maneh in your father's keeping," and the heir said, "of fifty I know, and of fifty I do not know." If you say his own father in such a case would be liable, then the verse was needed to exempt the heir; but if you say his own father in such a case is exempt, why would I need a verse to exempt the heir? And how do Rav and Shmuel expound "an oath of the LORD shall be between the two of them"? They need it for what was taught: it teaches that the oath falls upon both of them. Rav Chiyya bar Yosef said: one who pleads the claim of a thief regarding a deposit is not liable until he himself lays a hand upon it. What is the reason? The verse says, "an oath of the LORD shall be between the two of them - if he has not laid his hand" (Exodus 22:10), which tells us we are dealing with a case where he did lay his hand upon it.