Responsa for Bava Batra 308:8
אמר ליה לא שאני אומר דברי הכל מודה בשטר שכתבו אינו צריך לקיימו והא מיפלג פליגי דתנן אין נאמנין לפוסלו דברי ר' מאיר וחכמים אומרים נאמנין
Are we to assume [asked Resh Lakish, that] this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The statement that one is to be guided by the deed (v. previous note). ');"><sup>26</sup></span> is [in accordance with the opinion of] R. Meir, who stated that where one admits that he wrote the deed, attestation is not required, but not [in accordance with the view of] the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is it likely that Bar Kappara's Mishnah represents the view of an individual only? ');"><sup>27</sup></span> — He [R. Johanan] replied to him: No; because I maintain [that] all<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even the Sages. (This statement is modified infra.) ');"><sup>28</sup></span> agree<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the words of all'. ');"><sup>29</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.