Musar for Bava Batra 329:13
אלא קשיא
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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely, the evidence of one witnesses is never sufficient to tender a document valid. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> Abaye replied: This was required<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it was not required (but)'. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> [for the following]. That even [where, in addition to] the signature of one witness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'one witness in writing'. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> there is also the oral evidence of another<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and one witness by (word of) mouth'. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> [the deed is invalid]. Amemar [once] declared [a deed] valid on the signature of one witness<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. n. 5. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> and the oral evidence of another.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and one witness by (word of) mouth'. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> Said R. Ashi to Amemar: And what [about] the [view] of Abaye?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who maintains that in such a case the deed is invalid. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> [The other] replied to him: I did not hear [of it], that is to say<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'as if to say'. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> I do not share his view. But, [if so],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That Abaye's view is not accepted. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> the difficulty