Sanhedrin 32B

טעו ⁠– לא ישלמו? כל שכן שתנעול דלת בפני לווין!

then if the judges erred they should not need to pay the party they wronged, as they can claim that they were prevented from examining the witnesses effectively. The Talmud answers: If that were to be the halakha, all the more so that this would lock the door in the face of potential borrowers. If people know that the courts are not responsible for an error in judgment, they will not be willing to lend money.

רבא אמר: מתניתין דהכא בדיני קנסות, ואידך בהודאות והלואות.

Rava says: The ruling of the Mishnah here, that cases of monetary law require inquiry and interrogation, is stated with regard to laws of fines, not standard cases of monetary law. And the other sources, i.e., the Mishnah in tractate Shevi’it and the baraita, which do not require inquiry and interrogation, are stated with regard to cases of admissions and loans, in which there is cause to relax the procedures of deliberation, as explained.

רב פפא אמר: אידי ואידי בהודאה והלואה. כאן ⁠– בדין מרומה, כאן ⁠– בדין שאינו מרומה.

Rav Pappa says: This and that, i.e., both the Mishnah here and the other sources, are stated with regard to cases of an admission and a loan. The distinction between them is that the Mishnah here, which rules that cases of monetary law require inquiry and interrogation, is stated with regard to a possibly fraudulent trial, where the court suspects that one party is attempting to defraud the other party and have witnesses offer false testimony on his own behalf. There, in the baraita and in the Mishnah in tractate Shevi’it, which do not require inquiry and interrogation, the ruling is stated with regard to a trial that does not appear fraudulent.