What other actions require the presence of two people and which require three? In the context of this discussion, the Gemara elaborates on the laws of moda’a, a preemptive declaration. Rav Yehuda ruled that a document gift that is “hidden” is not effective. Why? Can it be used as a preemptive declaration?
Bava Batra
Masechet Bava Batra is sponsored by Lori Stark in loving memory of her mother in law, Sara Shapiro z”l and her father Nehemiah Sosewitz z”l.
This month’s learning is dedicated to the refuah shleima of our dear friend, Phyllis Hecht, גיטל פעשא בת מאשה רחל by all her many friends who love and admire her. Phyllis’ emuna, strength, and positivity are an inspiration.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
Bava Batra
Masechet Bava Batra is sponsored by Lori Stark in loving memory of her mother in law, Sara Shapiro z”l and her father Nehemiah Sosewitz z”l.
This month’s learning is dedicated to the refuah shleima of our dear friend, Phyllis Hecht, גיטל פעשא בת מאשה רחל by all her many friends who love and admire her. Phyllis’ emuna, strength, and positivity are an inspiration.
Bava Batra 40
וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר ״כְּתוֹבוּ״; מוֹדָעָא – בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר ״כְּתוֹבוּ״;
and the prior owner does not need to say to the witnesses: Write a document detailing the protest; they can write one even absent a directive. Similarly, one who desires to state a declaration, preemptively invalidating a bill of sale by notifying the court that it was executed under duress, needs to state the declaration in the presence of two witnesses, and he does not need to say to them: Write a document detailing the declaration; they can write one even absent a directive.
הוֹדָאָה – בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם, וְצָרִיךְ לוֹמַר ״כְּתוֹבוּ״; קִנְיָן – בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם, וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר ״כְּתוֹבוּ״; וְקִיּוּם שְׁטָרוֹת בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה;
The Gemara continues with the statement of Rava: An admission of a monetary obligation needs to be stated in the presence of two witnesses, and in this case, the one stating the admission needs to say to the witnesses: Write a document detailing the admission, as this document is to his detriment; they may not write one absent a directive. Acquisition by means of a symbolic act utilizing a cloth needs to be done in the presence of two witnesses, and the parties do not need to say to the witnesses: Write a document detailing the acquisition; they can write one even absent a directive. And ratification of legal documents needs to be done by means of three people.
סִימָן – ממה״ק.
The Gemara presents a mnemonic for the cases discussed above: Mem, protest [meḥa’a]; mem, declaration [moda’a]; heh, admission [hoda’a]; kuf, acquisition [kinyan].
אָמַר רָבָא: אִי קַשְׁיָא לִי, הָא קַשְׁיָא לִי – הַאי קִנְיָן, הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי כְּמַעֲשֵׂה בֵּית דִּין דָּמֵי, לִיבְעֵי תְּלָתָא! אִי לָא כְּמַעֲשֵׂה בֵּית דִּין דָּמֵי, אַמַּאי אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר ״כְּתוֹבוּ״?
Rava now discusses the statement of Rav Naḥman that he quoted. Rava said: If any part of this statement is difficult to me, this is what is difficult to me. This acquisition, what is it like? If it is like an act of the court, it should require three witnesses for it to take effect, as a court must consist of at least three men. If it is not like an act of the court, why does he not have to say to the witnesses that they should write the document detailing the acquisition? Isn’t transferring an item to another tantamount to admitting a monetary obligation?
בָּתַר דְּבָעֵי, הֲדַר פַּשְׁטַאּ: לְעוֹלָם לָאו כְּמַעֲשֵׂה בֵּית דִּין דָּמֵי; וְהָכָא, טַעְמָא מַאי דְּאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר ״כְּתוֹבוּ״ – מִשּׁוּם דִּסְתַם קִנְיָן לִכְתִיבָה עוֹמֵד.
After Rava raised the dilemma, he then resolves it. Actually, it is not considered like an act of the court. And here, what is the reason that he does not have to say to the witnesses that they should write? It is due to the fact that a record of an unspecified acquisition is ready to be written. A symbolic act of acquisition indicates one’s intention to do everything possible to finalize the transaction as soon as possible without waiting for the actual transfer of the item. Therefore, it is assumed that the parties would desire that a document be written, and no explicit authorization is necessary.
רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: לָא כָּתְבִינַן מוֹדָעָא, אֶלָּא אַמַּאן דְּלָא צָיֵית דִּינָא. אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: אֲפִילּוּ עָלַי וְעָלֶיךָ. אָמְרִי נְהַרְדָּעֵי: כֹּל מוֹדָעָא
§ The Gemara discusses the halakhot of a preemptive declaration. Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: We write a preemptive declaration only concerning one who does not generally listen to and implement the judgment of the court. In such a case, there is no recourse other than to write a preemptive declaration on behalf of the seller nullifying the transaction. If the buyer would be willing to listen to the court, the seller is expected to deal with the matter in court, rather than participating in the sale and writing a preemptive declaration. Abaye and Rava both say: A preemptive declaration may be written even concerning someone who is law abiding, such as for me and for you, as not every issue can be settled through the courts. The Sages of Neharde’a say: Any preemptive declaration
דְּלָא כְּתִיב בָּהּ: ״אֲנַן יָדְעִינַן בֵּיהּ בְּאוּנְסָא דִפְלָנְיָא״ – לָאו מוֹדָעָא הִיא.
that does not have written in it the formulation: We are aware of so-and-so’s duress, i.e., we are aware of the nature of the coercion that forced him to enter this arrangement against his will, is not a valid preemptive declaration.
מוֹדָעָא דְמַאי? אִי דְּגִיטָּא וּדְמַתַּנְתָּא – גַּלּוֹיֵי מִילְּתָא בְּעָלְמָא הִיא! וְאִי דִּזְבִינֵי, וְהָאָמַר רָבָא: לָא כָּתְבִינַן מוֹדָעָא אַזְּבִינֵי!
For what type of transaction is the preemptive declaration being stated? If one were to say that it is a preemptive declaration for a bill of divorce or for a gift, the preemptive declaration is merely revealing the matter. Since these actions can’t take place unless he desires it, it is sufficient that he stated that he does not desire them, and he need not specify a particular reason for nullifying them. And if it is for a sale, but doesn’t Rava say: We do not write a preemptive declaration for a sale?
לְעוֹלָם דִּזְבִינֵי; מוֹדֵי רָבָא הֵיכָא דַּאֲנִיס – וּכְמַעֲשֶׂה דְּפַרְדֵּיסָא; דְּהָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּמַשְׁכֵּין פַּרְדֵּיסָא לְחַבְרֵיהּ לִתְלָת שְׁנִין. בָּתַר דְּאַכְלַהּ תְּלָת שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה, אֲמַר: אִי מְזַבְּנַתְּ לִי – מוּטָב, וְאִי לָא – כָּבֵישְׁנָא לִשְׁטַר מַשְׁכַּנְתָּא, וְאָמֵינָא: ״לְקוּחָה הִיא בְּיָדִי״. כְּהַאי גַּוְונָא כָּתְבִינַן מוֹדָעָא.
The Gemara answers: Actually, it is referring to a preemptive declaration for a sale, as Rava concedes in a case where one was compelled to act due to a threat of monetary loss, as with the incident of the orchard, as there was a certain man who mortgaged his orchard to another for three years. After he worked and profited from it for the three years necessary for establishing the presumption of ownership, he said: If you sell the orchard to me, it is well. And if not, then I will hide the mortgage document and I will say that this land is purchased and that is why it is in my possession, and you will receive no payment for the orchard. In a case like this, we write a preemptive declaration. The declaration states that he does not actually desire to sell his property but was forced to do so.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הַאי מַתַּנְתָּא טְמִירְתָּא – לָא מַגְבֵּינַן בַּהּ. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי מַתַּנְתָּא טְמִירְתָּא? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף, דְּאָמַר לְהוּ לְסָהֲדִי: ״זִילוּ אִטַּמּוּרוּ וְכִתְבוּ לֵיהּ״. וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף, דְּלָא אָמַר לְהוּ: ״תִּיתְּבוּ בְּשׁוּקָא וּבְבָרָיָתָא וְתִכְתְּבוּ לֵיהּ״. מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ סְתָמָא.
§ Rav Yehuda says: With regard to this document detailing a concealed gift, we do not collect with it. The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of a concealed gift? Rav Yosef said: It is referring to a case in which the giver said to witnesses: Go and hide and write a document for the recipient of this gift. And there are those who say that Rav Yosef said: It is referring to a case in which the giver did not say to witnesses: Sit outdoors in the marketplace and write it for him. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between the two versions of Rav Yosef’s statement? The Gemara answers: The difference between the two versions is in a case where his instructions were without specification, i.e., he did not tell them to write the document in private or in public.
אָמַר רָבָא: וְהָוְיָא מוֹדָעָא לַחֲבֶרְתַּהּ. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הָא דְּרָבָא – לָאו בְּפֵירוּשׁ אִיתְּמַר, אֶלָּא מִכְּלָלָא אִיתְּמַר.
Rava said: But a concealed gift is effective as a preemptive declaration for another gift. In other words, if he first gave an item as a concealed gift to one person, and then he gave this item as a gift to someone else, the second gift is null and void. Rav Pappa said: This ruling of Rava was not stated explicitly; rather, it was stated by inference, and he did not, in fact, hold accordingly.
דְּהָהוּא גַּבְרָא דַּאֲזַל לְקַדּוֹשֵׁי אִתְּתָא, אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: ״אִי כָּתְבַתְּ לִי כּוּלְּהוּ נִכְסָיךְ – הָוֵינָא לָךְ, וְאִי לָא – לָא הָוֵינָא לָךְ״. אֲזַל כַּתְבֵיהּ לַהּ לְכוּלְּהוּ נִכְסֵי. אֲתָא בְּרֵיהּ קַשִּׁישָׁא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״וְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא – מָה תִּהְוֵי עֲלֵיהּ?״ אֲמַר לְהוּ לְסָהֲדֵי: ״זִילוּ אִטַּמּוּרוּ בַּעֲבַר יַמִּינָא, וְכִתְבוּ לֵיהּ״. אֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, אֲמַר לְהוּ: לָא מָר קְנָה, וְלָא מָר קְנָה.
Rav Pappa explains the inference: As there was a certain man who went to betroth a woman. She said to him: If you write a document signing over all of your property to me, then I will be your wife, and if not, I will not be your wife. He went and wrote a document signing over all of his property to her. His eldest son came and said to him: And that man, i.e., me, what will become of him if you give all of your property to this woman? The father said to two witnesses: Go hide in Avar Yemina and write a document for the son, giving him the father’s property as a gift. Later, the witnesses came before Rava. He said to them: This Master, i.e., the son, did not acquire the property and that Master, i.e., the wife, did not acquire it either. The son did not acquire the property because it was a concealed gift.
מַאן דַּחֲזָא, סָבַר – מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוְיָא מוֹדָעָא לַחֲבֶרְתַּהּ. וְלָא הִיא; הָתָם – מוֹכְחָא מִילְּתָא דְּמֵחֲמַת אוּנְסָא הוּא דִּכְתַב לַהּ; אֲבָל הָכָא – מָר נִיחָא לֵיהּ דְּלִיקְנֵי, וּמָר לָא נִיחָא לֵיהּ דְּלִיקְנֵי.
The Gemara explains why the wife does not acquire it as well. One who observed this incident assumed that Rava invalidated the wife’s acquisition because the concealed gift to his son was a preemptive declaration to the other gift, but that is not so. There, in the case of the woman and the son, the matter is self-evident that he wrote a document signing over his property to her because of duress, as she had told him that she would not marry him otherwise; but here, in a typical case of giving one person a concealed gift and then giving a public gift to another, that is not the case. It is possible that it is simply amenable to him that this Master, i.e., the one to whom he gave it publicly, should acquire the gift, and it is not amenable to him that this Master, i.e., the one to whom he gave it privately, should acquire the gift. Consequently, an incorrect inference was drawn concerning Rava’s opinion.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ:
A dilemma was raised before the Sages:
Follow 
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Anne Mirsky
Maale Adumim, Israel
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Rookie Billet
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Mona Fishbane
Teaneck NJ, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Caroline Levison
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
I graduated college in December 2019 and received a set of shas as a present from my husband. With my long time dream of learning daf yomi, I had no idea that a new cycle was beginning just one month later, in January 2020. I have been learning the daf ever since with Michelle Farber… Through grad school, my first job, my first baby, and all the other incredible journeys over the past few years!
Sigal Spitzer Flamholz
Bronx, United States
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Michelle Lewis
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
linda kalish-marcus
Efrat, Israel
My first Talmud class experience was a weekly group in 1971 studying Taanit. In 2007 I resumed Talmud study with a weekly group I continue learning with. January 2020, I was inspired to try learning Daf Yomi. A friend introduced me to Daf Yomi for Women and Rabbanit Michelle Farber, I have kept with this program and look forward, G- willing, to complete the entire Shas with Hadran.
Lorri Lewis
Palo Alto, CA, United States
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Terri Krivosha
Minneapolis, United States
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Gila Loike
Ashdod, Israel
I’ve been studying Talmud since the ’90s, and decided to take on Daf Yomi two years ago. I wanted to attempt the challenge of a day-to-day, very Jewish activity. Some days are so interesting and some days are so boring. But I’m still here.
Wendy Rozov
Phoenix, AZ, United States
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
Madeline Cohen
London, United Kingdom
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Sharon Mink
Haifa, Israel
See video
Susan Fisher
Raanana, Israel
A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul
Phyllis Hecht
Hashmonaim, Israel
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Martha Tarazi
Panama, Panama
I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Joséphine Altzman
Teaneck, United States
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Shoshana Ruerup
Berlin, Germany
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Michelle Lewis
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I started with Ze Kollel in Berlin, directed by Jeremy Borowitz for Hillel Deutschland. We read Masechet Megillah chapter 4 and each participant wrote his commentary on a Sugia that particularly impressed him. I wrote six poems about different Sugiot! Fascinated by the discussions on Talmud I continued to learn with Rabanit Michelle Farber and am currently taking part in the Tikun Olam course.
Yael Merlini
Berlin, Germany
Bava Batra 40
וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר ״כְּתוֹבוּ״; מוֹדָעָא – בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר ״כְּתוֹבוּ״;
and the prior owner does not need to say to the witnesses: Write a document detailing the protest; they can write one even absent a directive. Similarly, one who desires to state a declaration, preemptively invalidating a bill of sale by notifying the court that it was executed under duress, needs to state the declaration in the presence of two witnesses, and he does not need to say to them: Write a document detailing the declaration; they can write one even absent a directive.
הוֹדָאָה – בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם, וְצָרִיךְ לוֹמַר ״כְּתוֹבוּ״; קִנְיָן – בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם, וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר ״כְּתוֹבוּ״; וְקִיּוּם שְׁטָרוֹת בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה;
The Gemara continues with the statement of Rava: An admission of a monetary obligation needs to be stated in the presence of two witnesses, and in this case, the one stating the admission needs to say to the witnesses: Write a document detailing the admission, as this document is to his detriment; they may not write one absent a directive. Acquisition by means of a symbolic act utilizing a cloth needs to be done in the presence of two witnesses, and the parties do not need to say to the witnesses: Write a document detailing the acquisition; they can write one even absent a directive. And ratification of legal documents needs to be done by means of three people.
סִימָן – ממה״ק.
The Gemara presents a mnemonic for the cases discussed above: Mem, protest [meḥa’a]; mem, declaration [moda’a]; heh, admission [hoda’a]; kuf, acquisition [kinyan].
אָמַר רָבָא: אִי קַשְׁיָא לִי, הָא קַשְׁיָא לִי – הַאי קִנְיָן, הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי כְּמַעֲשֵׂה בֵּית דִּין דָּמֵי, לִיבְעֵי תְּלָתָא! אִי לָא כְּמַעֲשֵׂה בֵּית דִּין דָּמֵי, אַמַּאי אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר ״כְּתוֹבוּ״?
Rava now discusses the statement of Rav Naḥman that he quoted. Rava said: If any part of this statement is difficult to me, this is what is difficult to me. This acquisition, what is it like? If it is like an act of the court, it should require three witnesses for it to take effect, as a court must consist of at least three men. If it is not like an act of the court, why does he not have to say to the witnesses that they should write the document detailing the acquisition? Isn’t transferring an item to another tantamount to admitting a monetary obligation?
בָּתַר דְּבָעֵי, הֲדַר פַּשְׁטַאּ: לְעוֹלָם לָאו כְּמַעֲשֵׂה בֵּית דִּין דָּמֵי; וְהָכָא, טַעְמָא מַאי דְּאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר ״כְּתוֹבוּ״ – מִשּׁוּם דִּסְתַם קִנְיָן לִכְתִיבָה עוֹמֵד.
After Rava raised the dilemma, he then resolves it. Actually, it is not considered like an act of the court. And here, what is the reason that he does not have to say to the witnesses that they should write? It is due to the fact that a record of an unspecified acquisition is ready to be written. A symbolic act of acquisition indicates one’s intention to do everything possible to finalize the transaction as soon as possible without waiting for the actual transfer of the item. Therefore, it is assumed that the parties would desire that a document be written, and no explicit authorization is necessary.
רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: לָא כָּתְבִינַן מוֹדָעָא, אֶלָּא אַמַּאן דְּלָא צָיֵית דִּינָא. אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: אֲפִילּוּ עָלַי וְעָלֶיךָ. אָמְרִי נְהַרְדָּעֵי: כֹּל מוֹדָעָא
§ The Gemara discusses the halakhot of a preemptive declaration. Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: We write a preemptive declaration only concerning one who does not generally listen to and implement the judgment of the court. In such a case, there is no recourse other than to write a preemptive declaration on behalf of the seller nullifying the transaction. If the buyer would be willing to listen to the court, the seller is expected to deal with the matter in court, rather than participating in the sale and writing a preemptive declaration. Abaye and Rava both say: A preemptive declaration may be written even concerning someone who is law abiding, such as for me and for you, as not every issue can be settled through the courts. The Sages of Neharde’a say: Any preemptive declaration
דְּלָא כְּתִיב בָּהּ: ״אֲנַן יָדְעִינַן בֵּיהּ בְּאוּנְסָא דִפְלָנְיָא״ – לָאו מוֹדָעָא הִיא.
that does not have written in it the formulation: We are aware of so-and-so’s duress, i.e., we are aware of the nature of the coercion that forced him to enter this arrangement against his will, is not a valid preemptive declaration.
מוֹדָעָא דְמַאי? אִי דְּגִיטָּא וּדְמַתַּנְתָּא – גַּלּוֹיֵי מִילְּתָא בְּעָלְמָא הִיא! וְאִי דִּזְבִינֵי, וְהָאָמַר רָבָא: לָא כָּתְבִינַן מוֹדָעָא אַזְּבִינֵי!
For what type of transaction is the preemptive declaration being stated? If one were to say that it is a preemptive declaration for a bill of divorce or for a gift, the preemptive declaration is merely revealing the matter. Since these actions can’t take place unless he desires it, it is sufficient that he stated that he does not desire them, and he need not specify a particular reason for nullifying them. And if it is for a sale, but doesn’t Rava say: We do not write a preemptive declaration for a sale?
לְעוֹלָם דִּזְבִינֵי; מוֹדֵי רָבָא הֵיכָא דַּאֲנִיס – וּכְמַעֲשֶׂה דְּפַרְדֵּיסָא; דְּהָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּמַשְׁכֵּין פַּרְדֵּיסָא לְחַבְרֵיהּ לִתְלָת שְׁנִין. בָּתַר דְּאַכְלַהּ תְּלָת שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה, אֲמַר: אִי מְזַבְּנַתְּ לִי – מוּטָב, וְאִי לָא – כָּבֵישְׁנָא לִשְׁטַר מַשְׁכַּנְתָּא, וְאָמֵינָא: ״לְקוּחָה הִיא בְּיָדִי״. כְּהַאי גַּוְונָא כָּתְבִינַן מוֹדָעָא.
The Gemara answers: Actually, it is referring to a preemptive declaration for a sale, as Rava concedes in a case where one was compelled to act due to a threat of monetary loss, as with the incident of the orchard, as there was a certain man who mortgaged his orchard to another for three years. After he worked and profited from it for the three years necessary for establishing the presumption of ownership, he said: If you sell the orchard to me, it is well. And if not, then I will hide the mortgage document and I will say that this land is purchased and that is why it is in my possession, and you will receive no payment for the orchard. In a case like this, we write a preemptive declaration. The declaration states that he does not actually desire to sell his property but was forced to do so.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הַאי מַתַּנְתָּא טְמִירְתָּא – לָא מַגְבֵּינַן בַּהּ. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי מַתַּנְתָּא טְמִירְתָּא? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף, דְּאָמַר לְהוּ לְסָהֲדִי: ״זִילוּ אִטַּמּוּרוּ וְכִתְבוּ לֵיהּ״. וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף, דְּלָא אָמַר לְהוּ: ״תִּיתְּבוּ בְּשׁוּקָא וּבְבָרָיָתָא וְתִכְתְּבוּ לֵיהּ״. מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ סְתָמָא.
§ Rav Yehuda says: With regard to this document detailing a concealed gift, we do not collect with it. The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of a concealed gift? Rav Yosef said: It is referring to a case in which the giver said to witnesses: Go and hide and write a document for the recipient of this gift. And there are those who say that Rav Yosef said: It is referring to a case in which the giver did not say to witnesses: Sit outdoors in the marketplace and write it for him. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between the two versions of Rav Yosef’s statement? The Gemara answers: The difference between the two versions is in a case where his instructions were without specification, i.e., he did not tell them to write the document in private or in public.
אָמַר רָבָא: וְהָוְיָא מוֹדָעָא לַחֲבֶרְתַּהּ. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הָא דְּרָבָא – לָאו בְּפֵירוּשׁ אִיתְּמַר, אֶלָּא מִכְּלָלָא אִיתְּמַר.
Rava said: But a concealed gift is effective as a preemptive declaration for another gift. In other words, if he first gave an item as a concealed gift to one person, and then he gave this item as a gift to someone else, the second gift is null and void. Rav Pappa said: This ruling of Rava was not stated explicitly; rather, it was stated by inference, and he did not, in fact, hold accordingly.
דְּהָהוּא גַּבְרָא דַּאֲזַל לְקַדּוֹשֵׁי אִתְּתָא, אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: ״אִי כָּתְבַתְּ לִי כּוּלְּהוּ נִכְסָיךְ – הָוֵינָא לָךְ, וְאִי לָא – לָא הָוֵינָא לָךְ״. אֲזַל כַּתְבֵיהּ לַהּ לְכוּלְּהוּ נִכְסֵי. אֲתָא בְּרֵיהּ קַשִּׁישָׁא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״וְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא – מָה תִּהְוֵי עֲלֵיהּ?״ אֲמַר לְהוּ לְסָהֲדֵי: ״זִילוּ אִטַּמּוּרוּ בַּעֲבַר יַמִּינָא, וְכִתְבוּ לֵיהּ״. אֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, אֲמַר לְהוּ: לָא מָר קְנָה, וְלָא מָר קְנָה.
Rav Pappa explains the inference: As there was a certain man who went to betroth a woman. She said to him: If you write a document signing over all of your property to me, then I will be your wife, and if not, I will not be your wife. He went and wrote a document signing over all of his property to her. His eldest son came and said to him: And that man, i.e., me, what will become of him if you give all of your property to this woman? The father said to two witnesses: Go hide in Avar Yemina and write a document for the son, giving him the father’s property as a gift. Later, the witnesses came before Rava. He said to them: This Master, i.e., the son, did not acquire the property and that Master, i.e., the wife, did not acquire it either. The son did not acquire the property because it was a concealed gift.
מַאן דַּחֲזָא, סָבַר – מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוְיָא מוֹדָעָא לַחֲבֶרְתַּהּ. וְלָא הִיא; הָתָם – מוֹכְחָא מִילְּתָא דְּמֵחֲמַת אוּנְסָא הוּא דִּכְתַב לַהּ; אֲבָל הָכָא – מָר נִיחָא לֵיהּ דְּלִיקְנֵי, וּמָר לָא נִיחָא לֵיהּ דְּלִיקְנֵי.
The Gemara explains why the wife does not acquire it as well. One who observed this incident assumed that Rava invalidated the wife’s acquisition because the concealed gift to his son was a preemptive declaration to the other gift, but that is not so. There, in the case of the woman and the son, the matter is self-evident that he wrote a document signing over his property to her because of duress, as she had told him that she would not marry him otherwise; but here, in a typical case of giving one person a concealed gift and then giving a public gift to another, that is not the case. It is possible that it is simply amenable to him that this Master, i.e., the one to whom he gave it publicly, should acquire the gift, and it is not amenable to him that this Master, i.e., the one to whom he gave it privately, should acquire the gift. Consequently, an incorrect inference was drawn concerning Rava’s opinion.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ:
A dilemma was raised before the Sages:
Follow
