Bava Batra

has it been confuted in regard to the father? May we say that [in principle] the difference between R. Nahman and Raba here is the same as that between R. Huna and R. Hisda in the following statement: If two sets  of witnesses contradict one another [so that one set must be giving false evidence], R. Huna says that each set may give evidence as a whole [in another case];  R. Hisda, however, says, What have we to do with false witnesses?' May we say then that R. Nahman here follows R. Huna  and Raba, R. Hisda? — No. There is no difference between them in the application of R. Hisda's ruling.  Where they differ is in the application of R. Huna's ruling. R. Nahman would thus have acted on the ruling of R. Huna, whereas Raba [would maintain] that R. Huna only meant it to apply to evidence given in another case entirely, but not, as here, to another part of the same case. He  then brought witnesses to prove that the land had belonged to his father. R. Nahman [thereupon] said: As we put him out, so we can put him in;  and we disregard any disrepute that this may bring on the Beth din.  Raba [or others say R. Ze'ira] objected [to this ruling on the strength of the following]: If two witnesses declare that a man is dead and two others declare that he is not dead, or if two declare that his wife had been divorced from him and two that she had not been divorced, she must not marry again, but if she has married she need not leave [her husband]. R. Menahem, son of R. Jose, says that she must leave [the second husband]. Said R. Menahem, son of R. Jose: When do I say that she must leave the husband? — If the witnesses [who say he is not dead] came first and she married afterwards;  but if she was married before these witnesses came she need not leave her husband.'  R. Nahman replied: I was going to act [according to the declaration I just made].  Now, however, that you have brought arguments against me and that R. Hamnuna in Sura has [likewise] refuted me, I shall not act so. [In spite of this statement, however,] he subsequently did act so Those who saw it thought he had made a mistake, but this was not the case, because he had the support of great authorities.  For we learnt: A man is not given the status of priest  On the evidence of one witness. Said R. Eliezer: This is only when his title is called into question; but if no one calls his title into questions one witness is sufficient. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said in the name of R. Simeon the son of the Segan:  One witness is sufficient to prove a man's title to be a priest. Is not Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel merely repeating R. Eliezer? And should you say that they differ in regard to the case where there is only one challenger, R. Eliezer holding that an objection is valid if raised by one challenger, and Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel holding