Bava Batra

[Now]. according to my interpretation  [of our Mishnah that] evidence [is produced] by [the testimony of] witnesses, one can well understand why, when he  asked the buyers [to] bring witnesses and they [could] not obtain [them]. they came to ask him whether the body might [not] be examined. But according to your interpretation  that evidence [consists] in the attestation of the deed, why should they [wish] to examine [the body]? Let them procure the attestation of their deeds and [thus] gain possession of the property!  — Do you think, [replied R. Lakish], that the property was in the possession of the members of the family and that the buyers came to protest? [This was not the case.] The property was in the possession of the buyers, and the members of the family came and protested.  Logical reasoning also [supports] this [view]. Since when he  said to them, 'You are not permitted to dishonour him', they remained silent. If it is granted [that] the members of the family protested, one can well understand why they remained silent;  if, however, it be assumed [that] the buyers protested, why [it may be asked] did they remain silent? They should have replied to him, 'We paid him money; let him be dishonoured!'  — If [only] because of this  [there would be] no argument. [for R. Akiba may] have said to them  thus: In the first place,  [a post mortem must not be held] because you are not permitted to dishonour him; and, furthermore, in case you might say. 'He took [our] money. let him be dishonoured', the signs [of maturity] usually undergo a change after death. R. Simeon b. Lakish enquired of R. Johanan: With reference  to what has been taught in the Mishnah of Bar Kappara  [that], 'If a person was enjoying  [the usufruct of] a field on the strength  of the current belief that it [was] his, and someone lodged  a protest against him claiming.  "It is mine"; and the first  produced his deed, stating,  "You sold it to me" or "You gave it to me as a gift", if [the latter] said, "I never saw this deed",  the deed is to be attested by those who signed it;  if, [however], he said, "It was a deed of trust  or a deed [given on] trust  [for something] which I sold you but [for which] you did not pay me the price", then if witnesses  are available, one must be guided by  witnesses, but if [they are] not [available] one is to be guided by  the deed.'  Are we to assume [asked Resh Lakish, that] this  is [in accordance with the opinion of] R. Meir, who stated that where one admits that he wrote the deed, attestation is not required, but not [in accordance with the view of] the Rabbis?  — He [R. Johanan] replied to him: No; because I maintain [that] all  agree  [that where] one admitted that he wrote a deed no attestation is required. But, surely, [Resh Lakish rejoined,] they  are actually in dispute [on this question]; as it was taught, 'They are not believed [so far as] to invalidate it; these are the words of R. Meir. But the Sages say: They are believed'!  — He replied to him: [Should] he, because  witnesses are all-powerful and [may] impair [the validity of] a deed,  [have the same power as if] all depended on him!  But, Resh Lakish asked him again, in your [own] name it was reported that, 'the members of the family have justly protested'!  — He replied to him, 'This [was] said [by] Eleazar;  I have never said such a thing.' R. Zeira said: If R. Johanan could contradict his disciple R. Eleazar,  would he contradict his master R. Jannai? For R. Jannai said in the name of Rabbi: [Though] one admits that he wrote a deed, attestation is [nevertheless] required. And R. Johanan said to him: 'Is not this, Master, [the law enunciated in] our Mishnah [where it is stated] AND THE SAGES SAY: HE WHO CLAIMS FROM THE OTHER HAS TO PRODUCE THE PROOF, [and] proof [can be produced] only through the attestation of the deed?'  Acceptable, however, are the words of our master Joseph. For our Master Joseph, in the name of Rab Judah in the name of Samuel, said: 'This  is the view of the Sages. but R. Meir said: [Though] one admits the writing of a deed, attestation is [nevertheless] required;  and [as to the expression] 'all agree',  [the words] of the Rabbis in relation to [those of] R. Meir [may be described as] the words of all. But, surely, we learnt the reverse: AND THE SAGES SAY: HE WHO CLAIMS FROM THE OTHER HAS TO PRODUCE THE PROOF?  — Reverse [the order].  But, surely. it was taught. 'They are not believed [so far as] to invalidate it; these are the words of R. Meir. And the Sages say: They are believed'?  — Reverse [the order]. But, surely, R. Johanan said: Proof [must be produced] by witnesses?  — Reverse [the order].  Is it [then] to be assumed [that] the objection also is to be reversed?  — No;