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 40
August 04, 2024 | כ״ט בתמוז תשפ״ד
Share this shiur:
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 for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah
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 for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah
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 got my job through the NY Times” was an ad campaign when I was growing up. I can headline “I got my daily Daf shiur and Hadran through the NY Times”. I read the January 4, 2020 feature on Reb. Michelle Farber and Hadran and I have been participating ever since. Thanks NY Times & Hadran!
Deborah Aschheim
New York, United States
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
Cindy Dolgin
HUNTINGTON, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi because my sister, Ruth Leah Kahan, attended Michelle’s class in person and suggested I listen remotely. She always sat near Michelle and spoke up during class so that I could hear her voice. Our mom had just died unexpectedly and it made me feel connected to hear Ruth Leah’s voice, and now to know we are both listening to the same thing daily, continents apart.
Jessica Shklar
Philadelphia, United States
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Sandrine Simons
Atlanta, United States
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Laura Shechter
Lexington, MA, United States
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Sharona Guggenheim Plumb
Givat Shmuel, Israel
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
Meira Shapiro
NJ, United States
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Harriet Hartman
Tzur Hadassah, 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
While vacationing in San Diego, Rabbi Leah Herz asked if I’d be interested in being in hevruta with her to learn Daf Yomi through Hadran. Why not? I had loved learning Gemara in college in 1971 but hadn’t returned. With the onset of covid, Daf Yomi and Rabbanit Michelle centered me each day. Thank-you for helping me grow and enter this amazing world of learning.
Meryll Page
Minneapolis, MN, United States
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Karena Perry
Los Angeles, United States
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 began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
Dena Heller
New Jersey, United States
“I got my job through the NY Times” was an ad campaign when I was growing up. I can headline “I got my daily Daf shiur and Hadran through the NY Times”. I read the January 4, 2020 feature on Reb. Michelle Farber and Hadran and I have been participating ever since. Thanks NY Times & Hadran!
Deborah Aschheim
New York, United States
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Goldie Gilad
Kfar Saba, Israel
I saw an elderly man at the shul kiddush in early March 2020, celebrating the siyyum of masechet brachot which he had been learning with a young yeshiva student. I thought, if he can do it, I can do it! I began to learn masechet Shabbat the next day, Making up masechet brachot myself, which I had missed. I haven’t missed a day since, thanks to the ease of listening to Hadran’s podcast!
Judith Shapiro
Minnesota, United States
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Hannah Greenberg
Pennsylvania, United States
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Leah Goldford
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Sara Averick
Jerusalem, Israel
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Susan Handelman
Jerusalem, Israel
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
