Responsa for Bava Batra 308:7
לימא ר' מאיר היא דאמר מודה בשטר שכתבו אינו צריך לקיימו ולא רבנן
[for something] which I sold you but [for which] you did not pay me the price", then if witnesses<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To testify that his statement, which invalidates the deed, is in accordance with the facts, ');"><sup>23</sup></span> are available, one must be guided by<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'go after'. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> witnesses, but if [they are] not [available] one is to be guided by<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To testify that his statement, which invalidates the deed, is in accordance with the facts, ');"><sup>23</sup></span> the deed.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., since the seller once admitted that the deed was written by him, his attempt to disqualify it is disregarded. ');"><sup>25</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.