Bava Batra

In what [manner is] proof [produced]?  — R, Huna said: Proof [is produced] by witnesses.  R. Hisda and Rabbah, son of R. Huna, said: Proof  [is produced] by the attestation of the deed.  R. Huna said, 'Proof [is produced] by witnesses' [for he holds that] they  differ on [the same] principles  [as those] of R. Jacob and R. Nathan;  (Mnemonic: MeNIaH)  R. Meir [is of the same opinion] as R. Nathan  and the Rabbis  [are of the same opinion] as R. Jacob.  R. Hisda and Rabbah, son of R. Huna, said, 'Proof [is produced] by the attestation of the deed,' [because] they differ [on the question whether, in the case] where a person admitted that he wrote a deed, [independent] attestation  is required;  for R. Meir is of the opinion [that] where one admitted that he wrote a deed,  no [independent] attestation is required  and the Rabbis  are of the opinion [that], where one admitted that he wrote a deed, [independent] attestation [also] is required. But [did] they  [not], however, once dispute on this [question]?  For it was taught [in a Baraitha]: They  are not believed [so far as] to invalidate it;  these are the words of R. Meir.  But the Sages say: They are believed!  — [Both are] required. Because if [their] dispute] had been stated [in connection with] that [alone],  [it might have been assumed that] in that [case only] did the Rabbis say [that attestation of the witnesses was necessary] because the witnesses are all-powerful and they themselves impair [the validity of] the document,  but here,  where all [the force of the document] does not depend on him,  it might have been assumed [that he is] not [believed].  And if [their dispute] had been stated in [connection with] this [alone], [it might have been assumed that] in this [case only] did R. Meir say [that the donor is not believed], but in that [case] it might have been assumed [that] he agrees with the Rabbis. [Hence both were] required. Rabbah likewise stated [that the] proof  is by witnesses. Abaye said unto him: What is the reason?  If it be said  'Because in all [deeds]  it is entered,  "As he was [able] to walk about  in the street", and in this [deed] no such entry is made,  [therefore] it is to be concluded [that when the gift was made] he was a dying man', [it may be retorted], 'On the contrary! Since in all [deeds]  it is entered,  "As he was lying sick in his bed,", and [in] this [deed] no such entry is made,  [therefore] it is to be concluded [that when he made the gift] he was in good health!' — As one inference is just as reasonable as the other,  [replied Rabbah,] the money  is to remain in the possession of its [original] owner. And [the following are] in the [same] dispute.  For R. Johanan said: Proof [must be produced] by witnesses; and R. Simeon b. Lakish said: Proof [consists] in the attestation of the deed. R. Johanan pointed out [the following] objection against R. Simeon b. Lakish: It once happened at Bene-Berak that a person sold his father's estate, and died. The members of the family, thereupon,  protested [that] he was a minor at the time of [his] death.  They  came [to] R. Akiba and asked whether the body might be examined.  He replied to them: You are not permitted to dishonour him; and, furthermore, [the] signs [of maturity] usually undergo a change after death.