Bava Kamma

There is here an 'interweaving of sections',  as the words, this is it written here  have reference to loans.  But why a loan [in particular]? In accordance with Rabbah, for Rabbah stated:  'On what ground did the Torah lay down  that he who admits a part of a claim has to take an oath?  Because of the assumption that no man is so brazen-faced as to deny [outright] in the presence of his creditor  [the claim put forward against him].  It could therefore be assumed that he  was desirous of repudiating the claim altogether, and the reason that he did not deny it outright is  because no man is brazen-faced [enough to do so].  It may consequently be argued that he was on this account inclined  to admit the whole claim; the reason that he denied a part was because he considered: Were I to admit [now] the whole liability, he will soon demand the whole claim from me; I should therefore [better] at least for time being get rid of him,  and as soon as I have the money will pay him.  It was on account of this that the Divine Law  imposed an oath upon him so that he should have to admit the whole of the claim.  Now, it is only in the case of a loan that such reasoning could apply.  whereas regarding a deposit the bailee would surely brazen it out [against the depositor]. Rami b. Mama learnt: The four bailees