Reference for Bava Kamma 208:16
וכי איכא אחריות נכסים מאי הוי מלוה על פה היא ומלוה על פה אינו גובה לא מן היורשין ולא מן הלקוחות
said to him: Did the Master mean to say Yesh Talmud [i.e. there is a definite teaching on this subject] or did the Master mean to say Yishtallemu [i.e., it stands to reason that the heirs should have to pay]? He replied to him: I said Yesh Talmud [i.e. there is a definite teaching on the subject] as I maintain that this could be amplified from the [added] Scriptural expressions.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the objects of payment enumerated in detail in Lev. V, 23. But if no admission whatever was made why should even the principal be paid? ');"><sup>27</sup></span> — It must therefore be said that what was meant by the statement 'he made no admission' was that the father made no admission though the son did. But why should the son not become liable to pay even a Fifth for his own oath?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When he took it falsely. ');"><sup>28</sup></span>