Musar for Bava Kamma 235:11
<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הגונב טלה מן העדר והחזירו ומת או נגנב חייב באחריותו לא ידעו בעלים לא בגניבתו ולא בחזירתו ומנו את הצאן ושלימה היא פטור:
We have learnt: BUT IF HE SAYS, 'I DO NOT KNOW WHETHER I HAVE BORROWED MONEY FROM YOU,' HE IS NOT LIABLE TO MAKE RESTITUTION. Now, how are we to understand this? If we say that there was no demand on the part of the plaintiff, then the first clause must surely refer to a case where he did not demand it, [and if so] why is there liability? It must therefore refer to a case where a demand was presented and it nevertheless says in the concluding clause,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the doubt was not as to payment but as to the initial liability. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> 'HE IS NOT LIABLE to PAY'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is this not in conflict with the view of R. Huna and Rab Judah? ');"><sup>18</sup></span>