Reference for Bava Metzia 232:8
כדאמר ר"נ כגון שיש עסק שבועה ביניהן הכא נמי כגון שיש עסק שבועה ביניהן
IF ONE RECOGNISED etc. Now, what does the other plead. If he agrees, then it is obvious. If not, why should this one take them? Hence it must mean that he replied. 'I do not know.' Shall we say that this refutes R. Nahman? For it has been stated: [If A says to B.] 'You owe me a <i>maneh</i>,' and B pleads. 'I do not know': R. Huna and Rab Judah rule that he must pay; R. Nahman and R. Johanan say: He is not liable! — It is as R. Nahman answered [elsewhere]: E.g., there is a dispute between them involving an oath; so here too, there is a dispute between them involving an oath. What is meant by a dispute involving an oath? — As Raba's dictum. For Raba said: [If A says to B,] 'You owe me a <i>maneh</i>,' to which he replies. 'I [certainly] owe you fifty <i>zuz</i>, but as for the rest, I do not know,' since he cannot swear, he must pay [all].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 97b and 98a for notes. So here too, A claims that he recognises a certain quantity of materials, and B admits part of it and pleads ignorance with respect to the rest. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>