His statement, “or after it, with evidence,” means: or if he claims that it was destroyed “after it,” that is, after the denial, “with evidence,” then his claim is accepted. This is because it is possible that the deposit came into his possession after the denial. In that case, the evidence testifying that it was destroyed after the denial does not conflict with his denial, and thus no contradiction arises. Why, then, is his statement not accepted unconditionally, given that he is a depositary? Because, by denying it, he forfeited his status as a trustee; therefore, his statement concerning its destruction or return is not accepted without evidence.

Thus, a deposit was demanded from this man, and he said to the depositor, “You did not leave a deposit with me,” thereby denying it. The depositor then produced evidence that he had entrusted it to him, and his denial had been on Thursday. If he then claims that it was destroyed on Friday, his claim is accepted if supported by evidence, but without evidence it is not accepted. His claim is accepted with evidence because there is no contradiction between his denial and the evidence he produces concerning its return.

If it is said, “Do you not hold that the depositary’s statement concerning its return is accepted?” the answer is: Yes, we do hold this. However, we say that his statement concerning its return is accepted so long as he remains a trustee. But once he has betrayed that trust by denying the deposit, his statement is accepted only with evidence.

In summary: if he denies the deposit, then it is established against him by evidence, and he subsequently claims that it was returned or destroyed, then if the return or destruction he claims took place before his denial, his claim is not accepted at all, whether or not he produces evidence. But if he claims that the return or destruction occurred after his denial, it is accepted with evidence, though it is not accepted without evidence. This applies where he denied the deposit.

But if he says, “You have nothing with me,” then his statement is accepted in all cases. This is because his statement, “You have nothing with me,” does not conflict with the establishment of the deposit. If it was destroyed without transgression or negligence, then he has spoken truthfully: the one claiming to have left the deposit has no claim against him. For he is saying: “Yes, you entrusted it to me, and you are truthful; but it was destroyed, and once it was destroyed, you no longer had anything with me.” Thus, in this case, his acknowledgment of the deposit—or