Bava Metzia 32A

תרי מגו תלתא, ואי נמי תרי סהדי דפלגת באפי בי תלתא.

two of the 3 of them to testify that you dissolved the partnership before them. Or alternatively, bring two witnesses to testify that you dissolved the partnership before a court of 3.

אמר ליה: מנא לך הא? אמר ליה, דתנן: אם יש שם בית דין ⁠– מתנה בפניהם, אין שם בית דין ⁠– בפני מי יתנה? שלו קודם.

Rav Safra said to Rabba bar Rav Huna: From where do you know this halakha, that dissolution of the partnership may be accomplished only before a court? Rabba bar Rav Huna said to him: It is as we learned in the Mishnah: If there are 3 men there who can convene as a court, he may stipulate before the court that he will undertake to return the item provided that he receives full compensation for lost income. But if there is no court there, before whom can he stipulate his condition? Rather, in that case, his financial interests take precedence, and he need not return the lost item. Apparently, one stipulates binding conditions with regard to another’s property only before a court.

אמר ליה: מי דמי?! התם דמפיק ממונא מהאי ומותיב להאי בעינן בית דין, אבל הכא דידיה שקלי גילוי מילתא בעלמא הוא בתרי סגי ליה. תדע, דתנן: אלמנה מוכרת שלא בפני בית דין!

Rav Safra said to Rabba bar Rav Huna: Is that case in the Mishnah comparable to this case? There, where he is removing property from the possession of this person and giving it to that person, we require a court. But here, referring to himself in the third person, he is merely taking his own property, and not the property of any other person. There is no transaction effected here. It is mere disclosure of the matter that he divided the joint property equitably, and two witnesses are sufficient for him to disclose that fact. Rav Safra cites proof. Know that this is so, as we learned in a Mishnah (Ketubot 97a) that a widow owed sustenance from her husband’s estate sells the property of the estate when not before a court. Apparently, one need not involve the court when reclaiming property that belongs to him.