had wrongfully seized and sold it. Rather, they continued to deny having received it despite having sold it, or else claimed that he had bequeathed it to them; this latter possibility is unlikely.

The apparent meaning of the verse is that when a defendant accused of a breach of trust or something similar—as in this case—is shown to have lied and betrayed his trust, this constitutes incriminating circumstantial evidence that gives greater weight to the claimant’s case. The claimant therefore swears an oath and recovers what he claims, exactly as we have said concerning homicide. The rationale is the same in both cases. Since killing ordinarily takes place secretly rather than openly, establishing proof is difficult. Yet the claimant’s statement cannot be accepted unconditionally, so the statement of the party whose case carries greater weight is accepted. In the absence of incriminating circumstantial evidence, the defendant’s position is stronger. When, however, a killing is accompanied by such evidence, the claimant’s position becomes stronger, and he swears the oath.

Likewise, establishing proof of a breach of trust or theft is ordinarily difficult. Someone who allows himself to steal may have no scruples about lying. Where there is no incriminating circumstantial evidence, the presumption is freedom from liability. But if such evidence emerges—for example, some of the stolen property is found in the defendant’s possession—the claimant swears an oath and recovers what he claims. The same applies if the defendant initially swears an oath, but some of the stolen property is subsequently found in the possession of someone who purchased it from him, received it from him as a gift, or otherwise obtained it from him. Such circumstantial evidence gives still stronger grounds for a preponderant judgment. In a homicide case, however, it may be certain that a killing occurred while the killer’s identity remains uncertain; the claim thus concerns only identifying the killer.

As for property:

At times, both the loss of the property and its amount are known with certainty—for example, when it was