Reference for Bava Kamma 123:13

א"ל אי יהיב דמי חמסן קרית ליה והאמר רב הונא תלוה וזבין זביניה זביני לא קשיא הא דאמר רוצה אני הא דלא אמר רוצה אני

there could be no question that also against informers we should not give judgment. But the question could still be raised according to the view that we should give judgment [against the defendant even] in cases where the damage was [not actually done but effectively and directly] caused by him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as, e.g., in the case of informers. ');">¹⁰</span> Would the judges make the ordinance enacted for the benefit of a robbed person extend also to the case of an informer so that the plaintiff would by taking an oath [as to the exact amount of his loss] be paid accordingly, or should this perhaps not be so? — Let this remain undecided. A certain man kicked another's money-box into the river. The owner came [into Court] and said: 'So much and so much did I have in it.' R. Ashi was sitting and pondering on it: What should be the law in such a case? — Rabina said to R. Aha the son of Raba, or, as others report, R. Aha the son of Raba said to R. Ashi: Is this not exactly what was stated in the Mishnah? For we learnt: 'THE SAGES AGREE WITH R. JUDAH IN THE CASE OF ONE WHO SET FIRE TO A CASTLE, THAT PAYMENT SHOULD BE FOR ALL THAT WAS KEPT THEREIN, AS IT IS SURELY THE CUSTOM OF MEN TO KEEP [VALUABLES] IN [THEIR] HOMES. [Is this not equivalent to the case in hand?]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For just as it is the custom of men to keep valuables in their homes, it is surely the custom of men to keep money in money boxes. ');">¹¹</span> — He, however, said to him: If he would have pleaded that he had money there, it would indeed have been the same.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For just as it is the custom of men to keep valuables in their homes, it is surely the custom of men to keep money in money boxes. ');">¹¹</span> But we are dealing with a case where he pleads that he had jewels there. What should then be the legal position? Do people keep jewels in a money-box or not? — Let this remain undecided. R. Yemar said to R. Ashi: If he pleads that he had silver cups in the castle [which was burnt], what would be the law? — He answered him: We consider whether he was a wealthy man who was [likely] to have silver cups, or whether he was a trustworthy man with whom people would deposit such things. [If he is,] he would be allowed to swear and be reimbursed accordingly, but if not, he would not be believed [in his allegations without corroborative evidence]. R. Adda the son of R. Iwya said to R. Ashi: What is the [practical] difference between gazlan<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. robber. ');">¹²</span> and hamsan?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., violent person. ');">¹³</span> — He replied: A hamsan [one who expropriates forcibly] offers payment [for what he takes], whereas a gazlan does not make payment. The other rejoined: If he is prepared to make payment, how can you call him hamsan? Did R. Huna not say<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.B. 47b. ');">¹⁴</span> that [even] where the vendor was [threatened to be] hanged [unless he would agree] to sell, the sale would be a valid sale?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since he took the money the sale could not be called forced. ');">¹⁵</span> — This, however, is no contradiction, as in that case, the vendor did [finally]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the pressure brought to bear upon him. ');">¹⁶</span> say 'I agree', whereas here [in the case of hamsan] he never said 'I agree'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sale could therefore not become valid. ');">¹⁷</span>

Jastrow