Bava Batra 128b (קכח:) — the Talmud in English

And from here:

Tiyuvta of all of them, a conclusive refutation.

Further,

Rabbi Abba sent to Rav Yosef bar Hama: One who says concerning a child among the sons that he is credible.

What he said about him will be explained below.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: He is not credible.

The Gemara explains:

What is he saying?

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

cited below (130a), who says that if one states, “One of my sons shall inherit all my property,” his statement takes effect.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: He is not credible, in accordance with the Rabbis.

Who are cited there.

Rava raised an objection to this: Is the issue phrased as “credible” and “not credible”?! It should have said: “He shall inherit” or “he shall not inherit”!

Rather, Rava said: This is what he is saying: One who says concerning a child among the sons that he is the firstborn is credible, in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: He is not credible,

Since another son is established in our possession 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 granted her that share as a gift of a שכיב מרע, or through an act of acquisition,

she takes like one of the sons.

Rava said: And this applies to the property that exists now,

meaning that she does not take from whatever property increases thereafter, since a person cannot acquire something that has not yet come into the world.

And to sons who are born afterward.

That is, if additional sons are born later and the share of each of them in the inheritance becomes smaller, she takes only according to the time of distribution.

Further,

Rabbi Abba sent to Rav Yosef bar Hama: One who produces a promissory note against another, and the creditor says, “I have received no payment at all,” while the debtor says, “I paid half,” and the witnesses testify that he paid it all,

in accordance with the debtor’s claim,

he takes an oath

the oath of one who partially admits 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

is it collected.

Because they say: We rely on the witnesses

who said, “He paid it all,” and we are concerned that perhaps the debtor and the creditor conspired together to cause a loss to the purchasers.

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

here he is liable for an oath, as

this applies only where there are no witnesses,

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

But where there are witnesses,

since he does not know what they came to testify about,

he is frightened

and fears lying; therefore, he admitted part of the claim and is liable for an oath.

Mar bar Rav Ashi raised an objection to this: On the contrary, even according to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, who says that one who partially admits the claim is subject to an oath, this applies only 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 testimony,

he is certainly like one who returns a lost object

with regard to what he admitted partially, and we should exempt him from the oath?!

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

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: What is the status of Rav Nahman’s ruling?

That is, we have established that the halakha follows Rav Nahman in monetary matters, while above Rav Nahman disagreed with Rav Abba’s statement and said, “We do not collect from slaves.” This presents a difficulty: one halakha contradicts another.

He said to him: We teach the statement of Rav Abba as saying, “We do not collect”

from slaves.

And Rav Nahman likewise said so.

Then what does the halakha come to exclude?