Ketubot

in respect of amelioration,  an oath,  and the Sabbatical year,  in respect of him who assigned all his property to his sons,  or the recovery of payment out of real estate and from the worst part of it,  also in respect of [the law of a widow] while in her father's house,  and of the kethubah for male children. It was stated: The kethubah for the male children,  [the scholars of] Pumbeditha  ruled, may not be collected from sold or mortgaged property,  for we have learned,  'They shall inherit';  and the scholars of  Matha Mehasia  ruled: It may be collected from sold or mortgaged property, for we have learned,  'They shall take'.  The law, however, is that it may not be collected from sold or mortgaged property, since we have learned,  'They shall inherit'. Movables  which are available  [may be collected]  without an oath;  but if they are not available,  [the kethubah may, the scholars of] Pumbeditha ruled, [be collected]  without an oath  and the scholars  of Matha Mehasia ruled: Only with an oath. The law [is that they may be collected] without an oath. If [her husband] has set aside for her a plot of land [defining it] by its four boundaries  [she  may collect from it] without an oath;  but if [he only defined it] by one boundary, [the scholars of] Pumbeditha ruled [that collection  may be made from it] without an oath,  but the scholars of Matha Mehasia ruled: Only with an oath.  The law, however, is that collection  may be effected without an oath.  If a man said to witnesses, 'Write out [a deed],  sign it and give it to a certain person',  and they took from him symbolic possession there is no need  to consult him.  [If, however,] no symbolic possession was taken, [the scholars of] Pumbeditha ruled, there is no need  to consult him,  but the scholars of Matha Mehasia ruled: It is necessary to consult him. The law is that it is necessary to consult him. R. ELEAZAR B. AZARIAH etc. It was stated: Rab and R. Nathan [differed]. One maintained that the halachah was in agreement with R. Eleazar b. Azariah and the other maintained that the halachah was not in agreement with R. Eleazar b. Azariah. You may conclude that it was R. Nathan who maintained that the halachah was in agreement with R. Eleazar b. Azariah  since R. Nathan was heard [elsewhere] to follow [the rule of] assumption,  he  having stated that the halachah was in agreement with R. Simeon Shezuri in the case of a man dangerously ill