Responsa for Bava Batra 308:2
מי סברת נכסי בחזקת בני משפחה קיימי וקא אתו לקוחות ומערערי נכסי בחזקת לקוחות קיימי וקא אתו בני משפחה וקא מערערי
— Do you think, [replied R. Lakish], that the property was in the possession of the members of the family and that the buyers came to protest? [This was not the case.] The property was in the possession of the buyers, and the members of the family came and protested.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the members of the family did not, of course, possess the deed, the question of their procuring attestation of the deed cannot possibly arise, ');"><sup>5</sup></span> Logical reasoning also [supports] this [view]. Since when he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Akiba. ');"><sup>6</sup></span> said to them, 'You are not permitted to dishonour him', they remained silent. If it is granted [that] the members of the family protested, one can well understand why they remained silent;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They had consideration for the honour of their relative. ');"><sup>7</sup></span> if, however, it be assumed [that] the buyers protested, why [it may be asked] did they remain silent? They should have replied to him, 'We paid him money; let him be dishonoured!'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'let him be …' (bis). Would strangers consent to lose their purchase money out of consideration for the corpse of the men who appropriated their money? ');"><sup>8</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.