In this matter, some scholars say: if it is established by evidence that it was destroyed, then his denial is shown to have been a lie, and the evidence is to be accepted. The relied-upon position, however, is that his own statement establishes the falsity of the evidence: he has implicitly admitted that the evidence is false.

But some scholars say: once evidence has been produced, it should be acted upon, because it becomes clear that he is the one who lied. In that case, however, the judge should impose a discretionary punishment upon him for his lie, his breach of trust, the trouble he caused the depositor by forcing him to bring a lawsuit, and for burdening the judge and the witnesses. He thus deserves discretionary punishment on several grounds, and so that no one else may engage in such manipulation. For if he is told, “You are only liable to compensate for the deposit,” that may not concern him; but if he is disciplined, it serves as a deterrent.

Rather, this applies when he says, “You have nothing with me,” or something similar; or when he claims, after his denial, that it was destroyed. If his heir claims that it was returned by him or by his testator, his claim is not accepted except with evidence. ........

His statement, “Rather, this applies when he says, ‘You have nothing with me,’ or something similar”: an example is that this man is told on Thursday, “You have a deposit,” and he replies, “I have nothing.” It is then established by evidence that he had a deposit, after which he claims that it was destroyed on Wednesday—that is, before his denial—and produces evidence for this. His claim is accepted, whether supported by evidence or not, because the man said, “You have nothing with me.” It is known that if a deposit is destroyed without transgression or negligence, the depositary is not liable for anything. Thus, he is truthful when he says, “You have nothing with me.”

This differs from his saying, “You did not deposit anything with me.” The difference is clear: when he says, “You did not deposit anything with me,” he has denied the very existence of the deposit. But when he says, “You have nothing with me,” he is denying liability for the deposit; therefore, his statement is accepted even if the deposit itself is established by evidence, because his statement does not conflict with the establishment of the deposit. He is saying, “Yes, I said, ‘You have nothing with me,’ because I was neither negligent nor transgressive.” If the deposit is destroyed without transgression or negligence, then I bear no liability.