Bava Batra

— But the fine shades  of slander [were meant]. Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: Most [people are guilty] of robbery,  a minority of lewdness, and all of slander. 'Of slander'? [How] could one imagine [such a thing]! — But the fine shades of slander  [were meant]. RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: ALL DEPENDS ON THE USAGE OF THE COUNTRY. And does not the first Tanna hold [the principle of the] 'usage of the country'?  — R. Ashi  replied: Where  it is the custom [to use] plain [deeds] and one said to [the scribe]. 'Prepare for me a plain deed', and [the latter] prepared for him a folded [one], the objection [is valid].  [Where it] is the custom [to use] folded [deeds] and one said to [the scribe]. 'Prepare for me a folded deed', and [the latter] prepared for him a plain [one, legal] objection [may be raised.  Their dispute relates to a place where [both] plain and folded [deeds] are in use, and he said to [the scribe], 'Prepare for me a plain [deed],' and [the latter] prepared for him a folded [one]. [In such a case],  [one] master  is of the opinion [that legal] objection [may be raised]  and [the other] master  is of the opinion [that] it was merely an intimation. Abaye said: Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel and R. Simeon and R. Eleazar are of the opinion [that, in such a case,  the instruction] is [regarded as] a mere intimation.  [As to] Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, [proof may be brought from] what has [just] been said. [As to] R. Simeon? — Because we learnt: R. Simeon said, If his mistake was in her favour, she is betrothed.  [As to] R. Eleazar? — Because we learnt: If a woman said [to an agent] 'Receive a bill of divorce on my behalf at  such and such a place', and he received it on her behalf at a different place [the divorce is] invalid; but R. Eleazar considers it valid.  [for one] master is of the opinion [that by her instruction  she expressed her] objection.  while [the other] master holds the opinion [that] it was merely an intimation to him of the place. A PLAIN [DEED] THAT BEARS THE SIGNATURE OF ONE WITNESS etc.  One can well understand why it was necessary [to state]. A FOLDED [ONE] THAT BEARS THE SIGNATURES OF TWO WITNESSES is invalid; [since] it might have been imagined [that] because elsewhere [such evidence is] valid, it is valid here also, it [was necessary] to teach us that it is invalid. [In the case] however, [of] A PLAIN [DEED] THAT BEARS THE SIGNATURE OF ONE WITNESS, [is not this] obvious?  Abaye replied: This was required  [for the following]. That even [where, in addition to] the signature of one witness,  there is also the oral evidence of another  [the deed is invalid]. Amemar [once] declared [a deed] valid on the signature of one witness  and the oral evidence of another.  Said R. Ashi to Amemar: And what [about] the [view] of Abaye?  [The other] replied to him: I did not hear [of it], that is to say  I do not share his view. But, [if so],  the difficulty