Reference for Bava Batra 339:18

אמר ליה אנא בההיא כשמעתא דמר סבירא לי דאמר רבי אבא אמר רב אדא בר אהבה אמר רב האומר לחבירו פרעתיך בפני פלוני ופלוני צריך שיבואו פלוני ופלוני ויעידו [א"ל] והא אמר רב גידל אמר רב הלכה כדברי רבן שמעון בן גמליאל ואף רבי לא

And Raba in the name of R. Nahman replied: In [the case of] an attested<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Legally endorsed by a court of law. ');">³⁴</span> [deed] no one disputes [the law] that they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Creditor and debtor. ');">³⁵</span> must divide;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The amount of the debt; as the cloth is divided between the two who claim to have found it. The creditor is entitled to his half by virtue of the endorsed deed; the debtor also is entitled to his half by virtue of his holding on to the deed jointly with the creditor. ');">³⁶</span> 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!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. previous note. Thus it follows that Rabbi does not, and Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel does require independent attestation. How, then, could it have been assumed supra that their respective opinions were directly the opposite? ');">³⁷</span> — Reverse.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One or other of the two reported statements, so that Rabbi and Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel should hold respectively the same opinions in both cases. ');">³⁸</span> If you prefer, however, it may be said [that] there is really no [need] to reverse [the reported opinions],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' OF Rabbi and Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel. ');">³⁹</span> but the dispute here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Baraitha. supra 169b. ');">⁴⁰</span> is on [the question of] proving [all one's pleas];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case where one of two pleas is essential, and the other superfluous. According to Rabbi both pleas must be proved since they were both advanced together. Hence it is necessary for the buyer (supra 169b) to prove the validity of the deed though, had he based his claim on the tight of undisturbed possession only, there would have been no need for him to produce any deed at all, no one being expected to preserve a deed after three years which is the statutory period of undisturbed possession. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, holds that the superfluous plea is altogether disregarded. Hence it is sufficient for the buyer to prove undisturbed possession to secure judgement in his favour. ');">⁴¹</span> 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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'who lends to his friend with'. ');">⁴²</span> of witnesses need not be repaid<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to pay him'. V. Shebu. 41b, Ket. 18a. ');">⁴³</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab. ');">⁴⁴</span> 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Rashal, a.l. ');">⁴⁵</span> 'R. Giddal said in the name of Rab: The <i>halachah</i> is in accordance with the statement of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who maintains that where a superfluous plea was advanced together with one which is essential, the former is altogether disregarded. Here, then, since it is not necessary to repay a loan in the presence of witnesses, why should it be necessary to bring the witnesses that were needlessly mentioned? ');">⁴⁶</span> and even Rabbi

Jastrow

Jastrow