Ketubot 85B

כשיקרא לא חיישינן.

of falsehood, as it was written prior to the second loan, we are not concerned. So too here, the fact that the judges wrote the document before the event is not a matter of concern.

ההוא גברא דאפקיד שב מרגניתא דציירי בסדינא בי רבי מיאשא בר בריה דרבי יהושע בן לוי. שכיב רבי מיאשא ולא פקיד. אתו לקמיה דרבי אמי, אמר להו: חדא, דידענא ביה ברבי מיאשא בר בריה דרבי יהושע בן לוי דלא אמיד. ועוד, הא קא יהיב סימנא.

The Talmud examines cases involving disputes concerning the property of the deceased. There was a certain man who deposited 7 pearls [marganita] tied up in a sheet in the house of R' Meyasha, son of the son of R' Yehoshua ben Levi. R' Meyasha passed away without instructing the members of his household on his deathbed, and without explaining to whom the gems belonged. R' Meyasha’s family and the depositor came before R' Ami to discuss the ownership of the gems. He said to them: They belong to the claimant, first of all, since I know about R' Meyasha, son of the son of R' Yehoshua ben Levi, that he is not wealthy enough to be able to afford such gems. And furthermore, the depositor has provided a distinguishing mark that proves that he is the owner.

ולא אמרן אלא דלא רגיל דעייל ונפיק להתם. אבל רגיל דעייל ונפיק להתם, אימא איניש אחרינא אפקיד ואיהו מיחזא חזא.

The Talmud comments: And we said that a distinguishing mark is effective only if the claimant does not usually enter and exit there. But if that person usually enters and exits there, one can say that a different person might have deposited the object, and he merely saw it there and was able to provide distinguishing marks.

ההוא גברא דאפקיד כסא דכספא בי חסא. שכיב חסא, ולא פקיד. אתו לקמיה דרב נחמן אמר להו: ידענא ביה בחסא דלא אמיד. ועוד, הא קא יהיב סימנא. ולא אמרן אלא דלא רגיל דעייל ונפיק להתם, אבל רגיל דעייל ונפיק להתם, אימר איניש אחרינא אפקיד ואיהו מיחזא חזא.

The Talmud relates a similar incident: There was a certain man who deposited a silver goblet in the house of the Sage Ḥasa. Ḥasa passed away without instructing anything about the goblet. They came before Rav Naḥman to discuss the ownership of the goblet. He said to them: I know about Ḥasa that he is not wealthy, and this goblet would not have belonged to him. And furthermore, the depositor has provided a distinguishing mark. And we said so only if the claimant does not usually enter and exit there. But if that person usually enters and exits there, one can say that a different person might have deposited the object and he merely saw it there.