Bava Batra

R. Simeon b. Gamaliel holds [that] 'letters' are not acquired by delivery  and Rabbi holds [that] 'letters' are acquired by delivery. Said Abaye to him: If so,  [this would present] a disagreement with the Master!  [The other] replied to him, 'Then let there be disagreement!'  'I mean to say to you this', said [Abaye] to him, '[that] the Baraitha cannot be [well] explained except on the lines which the Master had laid down; and since [that is] so, [there would emerge] a contradiction between one statement of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel and the other statement of his!'  But, said Abaye, here it is a case  where one of them  was found to be a relative  or [otherwise] disqualified; and they differ on the [same principle that underlies the] dispute of R. Meir and R. Eleazar. Rabbi holds the [same] View as R. Eleazar who maintains [that] the witnesses to the delivery  effect the legal separation;  while R. Simeon b. Gamaliel is of the [same] opinion as R. Meir who maintains [that] the witnesses who signed  [the letter of divorce] are the main factor in the legal separation. But, surely. R. Abba had said: R. Eleazar agrees that [a deed] is invalid if the irregularity is internal!  — But, said Rabina, all agree  that [the deed] is invalid if it  contains the entry.  'we have dealt with the evidence of the witnesses and their evidence was found to be irregular'.  in accordance with [the law laid down by] R. Abba; they only differ in [the case of] a deed which bears no [signatures of] witnesses at all [in] which [case] Rabbi holds the [same] view as R. Eleazar who maintains [that] the witnesses to the delivery effect the legal separation;  while R. Simeon b. Gamaliel holds the [same] view as R. Meir who maintains [that] the witnesses who signed the deed  effect the final separation. If you prefer, however, I might say, [that] they differ on [the question whether in the case] where a person  admitted that he wrote a deed,  [independent legal] attestation is required. For Rabbi holds [that where a person] admitted that he wrote a deed, no [independent] attestation is required;  while R. Simeon b. Gamaliel holds [that independent] attestation is required. [Did] we [not], however, hear [that] they hold contrary [views]? for it was taught:  Where two men  cling to a deed, the creditor pleading. 'It is mine, I dropped it, and you found it', and the borrower pleading. 'It is  [indeed] yours but I have paid you'. the [validity of the] deed is established by those who signed it.  So  Rabbi. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Let them  divide it.  And when this was discussed [the following] question was raised: Does not Rabbi accept  what we have learnt: Where two [men] hold a cloth, one pleading, 'I found it' and the other [also] pleading, 'I found it', the one must take an oath that he possesses in it no less than a half and the other must take an oath that he possesses in it no less than a half and they divide [it]?  And Raba in the name of R. Nahman replied: In [the case of] an attested  [deed] no one disputes [the law] that they  must divide;  they differ only in [the case of a deed] which has not been attested, [since] Rabbi holds the opinion [that where one] admitted that he wrote a deed [independent] attestation is required, and [consequently] if [the creditor is able to] secure its attestation he collects a half, and if not [the deed is regarded as] a mere potsherd; while Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel holds the opinion [that where one] admits that he wrote [a deed] no [independent] attestation is required and they divide!  — Reverse. If you prefer, however, it may be said [that] there is really no [need] to reverse [the reported opinions],  but the dispute here  is on [the question of] proving [all one's pleas];  such as [the case] of R. Isaac b. Joseph [who] claimed [a sum of] money from R. Abba. [When] he came before R. Isaac Nappaha. [R. Abba] pleaded. 'I repaid to you in the presence of X and Y'. 'Let X and Y come', said R. Isaac to him, 'and let them give [their] evidence'. 'If they will not come', said [R. Abba] to him, 'am I not to be believed? Surely we have it as an established law [that] a loan made in the presence  of witnesses need not be repaid  in the presence of witnesses!' 'In this [case', R. Isaac] replied to him, 'I am of the same opinion as [that in] the reported statement of the Master.  for R. Abba in the name of R. Adda b. Ahabah in the name of Rab said: Where one said to another, 'I paid you [your debt] in the presence of X and Y', it is necessary that X and Y should come and give evidence. 'But surely', said [R. Abba] to him,  'R. Giddal said in the name of Rab: The halachah is in accordance with the statement of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel;  and even Rabbi