Bava Batra

for one another.' What [is really] your opinion [on the matter]? If [Samuel] holds the same view as the Rabbis,  he should have sent [word] to them, according to the Rabbis; if he holds the same view as R. Judah.  he should have sent [word] to them according to R. Judah! — He was in doubt as to whether [the law is] according to R. Judah or according to the Rabbis. What is that [dispute]?  — It was taught: He shall acknowledge  [implies]. 'he shall [be entitled to] acknowledge him before others'.  From this R. Judah deduced that a person is believed when he declares, 'This son of mine is firstborn'.  And as a person is believed when he declares 'this son of mine is firstborn', so one is believed when one declares, 'this is the son of a divorced woman', or 'this is the son of a haluzah.'  But the Sages say he is not believed. R. Nahman b. Isaac said to Raba: According to R. Judah it is correct for Scripture to say, he shall acknowledge,'  according to the Rabbis, however, what need is there for  [the expression] he shall acknowledge? — When acknowledgment is required.  In what legal respect?  As regards giving him a double portion? Should he [even] be [regarded as] but a stranger, could he  not give [it]  to him if he desired to make a gift of it? — This  is required only [in the case] where property has come into his possession  afterwards.  But according to R. Meir Who said, 'a man may give possession of a thing that has not come into existence',  what need is there for, he shall acknowledge?  — [It is needed for the case] where property came into his possession  while he was dying. Our Rabbis taught: [Where a son] was held to be a firstborn, and his father declared another [son] to be the firstborn, [the father] is believed. [Where, however, a son] was held not to be a first-born, and his father declared him to be a firstborn, [the father] is not believed. The first [clause harmonises with the view of] R. Judah,  and the last [clause harmonises with that of] the Rabbis. R. Johanan said: [If] a person declared, 'this is my son', and then retracted and declared, 'He is my slave', he is not believed. [If, however, he said], 'He is my slave', and then he retracted and declared, 'He is my son', he is believed, for he [may] mean,  'who attends upon me as a slave'. [This law,] however, is reversed [when the statements were made] at a custom house. If, when passing the custom house, he declared, 'This is my son', and then he retracted, and said, 'He is my slave', he is to be believed.  [If, however,] he declared, 'He is my slave', and then he retracted, and said,'He is my son', he is not believed. An objection was raised: [It was taught:] If a man attended upon another as a son  and the latter came [before the court] and declared, 'He is my son' and, then, he retracted and stated, 'He is my slave', he is not believed. [If, however], he attended upon him as a slave, and [the latter] came [to the court] and declared, 'he is my slave', and then he retracted, and stated, 'He is my son', he is not believed!  — R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: [The case] there  [refers to one] whom he called, 'a slave of a rope of a hundred'.  What [is meant By] 'a rope of a hundred'? — A rope of a slave [who is worth] a hundred zuz. R. Abba sent to R. Joseph b. Hama: If one says to another, 'You stole my slave', and the other says, 'I did not steal [him]'. [And when the first inquires, 'In] what capacity [is he] with you?' [the latter replies]. 'You sold him to me,