Bava Batra 128b — the Talmud in English

And from here

a refutation of all of them—a complete refutation.

Further,

Rabbi Abba sent to Rav Yosef bar Hama: One who says concerning an infant among the sons, “He is trustworthy.”

What he said about him will be explained below.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: He is not trustworthy.

The Gemara explains:

What is he saying?

Abaye said: This is what he is saying: One who says concerning an infant among the sons, “He shall inherit all my property,” is trustworthy, in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka,

who is cited below (130a), that if he said, “One of my sons shall inherit all my property,” his words stand.

And Rabbi Yohanan said, he is not trustworthy, in accordance with the Rabbis.

who are cited there.

Rava raised an objection against this: Is this a matter of “he is trustworthy” and “he is not trustworthy”?! It should have been a matter of whether he shall inherit or shall not inherit!

Rather, Rava said: This is what he is saying: One who says concerning an infant among the sons, “He is the firstborn,” is trustworthy, in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

And Rabbi Yohanan said he is not trustworthy,

since another is established for us as the firstborn.

In accordance with the Rabbis.

Mentioned above.

Further,

Rabbi Abba sent to Rav Yosef bar Hama: One who says, “My wife shall take”

a share of my property

like one of

the sons,

and transferred that share to her as a gift of a dangerously ill person, or through an act of acquisition,

she takes like one of the sons.

Rava said: And with the property that exists now,

that is, she does not take from what the property will increase by afterward, since a person cannot transfer something that has not yet come into the world.

And with sons who come afterward.

That is: If additional sons were born afterward, and the share of each one of them in the inheritance became smaller, she takes only according to the time of division.

Further,

Rabbi Abba sent to Rav Yosef bar Hama: One who produces a promissory note against another: The creditor says, “I was repaid nothing.” And the debtor says, “I repaid half.” And the witnesses testify that he repaid all of it.

Like the words of the debtor.

This one swears

the oath of one who admits to part of the claim,

and

the creditor

collects half from unencumbered property.

But from property that has been encumbered

But from encumbered property [

that is, from property that the debtor sold to purchasers]

not

do they collect.

For they say: We rely upon the witnesses

who said, “He repaid everything,” and we are concerned that perhaps the debtor and the creditor made a collusion between themselves in order to cause the purchasers a loss.

And even according to Rabbi Akiva, who says that he is like one who returns a lost object ,

here he is liable for an oath, for

these words apply where there are no witnesses,

and he is not afraid to claim, “There were two and not three”; then he is considered like one who returns a lost object.

But where there are witnesses,

since he does not know what they came to testify,

he becomes frightened [

he fears] to lie, and therefore he admitted to part and is liable for an oath.

Mar bar Rav Ashi raised an objection against this: On the contrary, even according to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, who says that he is one who admits to part of the claim, these words apply where there are no witnesses assisting him. But where there are witnesses assisting him,

and he can exempt himself from the entire sum on the basis of their words,

he is certainly like one who returns a lost object

with regard to what he admitted to in part, and we ought to exempt him from an oath?

Mar Zutra expounded in the name of Rav Shimi bar Ashi: The halakha in all these statements is in accordance with what Rabbi Abba sent to Rav Yosef bar Hama.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: What of Rav Nahman?

That is, we have established that the halakha follows Rav Nahman in monetary matters, and above Rav Nahman disagreed with the words of Rav Abba and said, “We do not collect from slaves.” And the halakha contradicts the halakha?

He said to him: “We do not collect” is how we teach it

in the words of Rav Abba.

And Rav Nahman likewise said.

But if so, the halakha—to exclude what?