Responsa for Bava Batra 308:12
והא איפכא תנן וחכמים אומרים המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה איפוך והא תניא אין נאמנין לפוסלו דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים נאמנין איפוך
and [as to the expression] 'all agree',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and what (is meant by) " the="" words="" of="" all"?="" surely,="" according="" to="" what="" has="" been="" said,="" r.="" meir="" disagrees'.="" ');"=""><sup>41</sup></span> [the words] of the Rabbis in relation to [those of] R. Meir [may be described as] the words of all. But, surely, we learnt the reverse: AND THE SAGES SAY: HE WHO CLAIMS FROM THE OTHER HAS TO PRODUCE THE PROOF?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the donee; which shows that, according to the Sages. the admission by the donor that he wrote the deed does not remove from the donee the need of attestation, while according to R. Meir it does ');"><sup>42</sup></span> — Reverse [the order].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The view in the last clause of our Mishnah, which is attributed to the Sages. is really the view of R. Meir, while the view attributed to R. Meir is in reality that of the Sages. ');"><sup>43</sup></span> But, surely. it was taught. 'They are not believed [so far as] to invalidate it; these are the words of R. Meir. And the Sages say: They are believed'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra, quoted from Keth, 18b. V. 154a for notes. ');"><sup>44</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
A. A trustee appointed by both parties is not required to take an oath regarding the terms of his trusteeship. But, Leah was not appointed trustee by both parties. She was only appointed by the husband, and, therefore, is required to take an oath. Leah's husband cannot object to imposing an oath on her. If the law requires that a woman take an oath, the husband has no right to protest against her being degraded in court. But, since Leah, as long as she is married, has no money of her own, and were she to claim that she had already returned the deposit, no oath would be imposed on her, we now lend credence to her words and require no oath. However, the court should give A a writ stating that after Leah will be divorced or widowed she will have to return the money to A or take an oath to the effect that A deposited the money with her on condition that she return it upon his wife's consent only.
SOURCES: L. 306–7; Mord. B. K. 89. Cf. Pr. 739; Tesh. Maim. to Mishpatim, 44.