Responsa for Shevuot 81:9
אמר רב פפא האי מאן דאפיק שטרא על חבריה ואמר ליה שטרא פרוע הוא אמרינן ליה לאו כל כמינך זיל שלים ואם אמר לשתבע לי אמרינן ליה אשתבע ליה
but in the case of a Rabbinic oath, it is an enactment and we do not institute one enactment on top of another enactment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To impose an oath on a is itself a Rabbinic ordinance; and to transfer the oath from debtor to creditor is also a Rabbinic ordinance; we do not impose both; if the debtor is suspect and cannot take the oath, the creditor is not permitted to take the oath, but loses his money.');"><sup>14</sup></span> And according to the Rabbis who disagree with R'Jose, holding that in the case of a Rabbinic [law] We do not go down to his property,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Court has no power to extract from the thief who stole from the deaf-mute the object he found.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
A. A trustee appointed by both parties is not required to take an oath regarding the terms of his trusteeship. But, Leah was not appointed trustee by both parties. She was only appointed by the husband, and, therefore, is required to take an oath. Leah's husband cannot object to imposing an oath on her. If the law requires that a woman take an oath, the husband has no right to protest against her being degraded in court. But, since Leah, as long as she is married, has no money of her own, and were she to claim that she had already returned the deposit, no oath would be imposed on her, we now lend credence to her words and require no oath. However, the court should give A a writ stating that after Leah will be divorced or widowed she will have to return the money to A or take an oath to the effect that A deposited the money with her on condition that she return it upon his wife's consent only.
SOURCES: L. 306–7; Mord. B. K. 89. Cf. Pr. 739; Tesh. Maim. to Mishpatim, 44.