Today’s daf is sponsored by Rikki and Alan Zibitt in loving memory of Alan’s father, Irving Zibitt, Yitzhak Eisig ben Eliyah haCohen Z”L, on his 43rd Yahrzeit. “May his neshama have the highest Aliyah.”
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 week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
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 week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
Bava Batra 49
אֵין נֶאֱמָנִים; ״מוֹדָעָא הָיוּ דְּבָרֵינוּ״ – אֵין נֶאֱמָנִין!
they are not deemed credible. And similarly, witnesses who said: Our statement that we signed was accompanied by a preemptive declaration, are not deemed credible. They cannot negate the testimony of the document that they themselves signed by claiming that there had been a preemptive declaration. Similarly, how could Rabba bar bar Ḥana’s signing of the preemptive declaration override his signing the bill of sale?
הָנֵי מִילֵּי עַל פֶּה – דְּלָא אָתֵי עַל פֶּה וּמַרַע לִשְׁטָרָא, אֲבָל בִּשְׁטָרָא – אָתֵי שְׁטָרָא וּמַרַע לִשְׁטָרָא.
The Gemara answers: That matter of witnesses not being deemed credible to nullify a document applies only when the witnesses attempt to nullify the document by means of an oral declaration, as an oral declaration cannot come and weaken a written document. But if the witnesses attempt to nullify the bill of sale by means of testimony in another document, e.g., by signing the preemptive declaration, then this preemptive document can come and weaken a written document, in this case, the bill of sale.
גּוּפָא – אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: ״אֲמָנָה הָיוּ דְּבָרֵינוּ״ – אֵין נֶאֱמָנִין, ״מוֹדָעָא הָיוּ דְּבָרֵינוּ״ – אֵין נֶאֱמָנִין.
The Gemara returns to discuss the matter itself: Rav Naḥman says that witnesses who said: Our statement that we signed was a document of trust, are not deemed credible. And similarly, witnesses who said: Our statement that we signed was accompanied by a preemptive declaration, are not deemed credible.
וּמָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: ״אֲמָנָה הָיוּ דְּבָרֵינוּ״ – אֵין נֶאֱמָנִין, ״מוֹדָעָא הָיוּ דְּבָרֵינוּ״ – נֶאֱמָנִין. מַאי טַעְמָא? שֶׁזֶּה נִיתַּן לִיכָּתֵב, וְזֶה לֹא נִיתַּן לִיכָּתֵב.
And Mar bar Rav Ashi says that witnesses who said: Our statement that we signed was a statement of trust, are not deemed credible; but witnesses who said: Our statement that we signed was accompanied by a preemptive declaration, are deemed credible. What is the reason for the difference between the cases? The reason is that this document that was accompanied by a preemptive declaration may be written, as it is merely written under duress, but that document of trust may not be written, as it is a false document. Testifying that they wrote it is self-incriminating, and the witnesses are not deemed credible to incriminate themselves.
וְלֹא לָאִישׁ חֲזָקָה בְּנִכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ וְכוּ׳. פְּשִׁיטָא – כֵּיוָן דְּאִית לֵיהּ לְפֵירָא, פֵּירָא הוּא דְּקָאָכֵיל!
§ The mishna teaches that a man does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership with regard to his wife’s property and a wife does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership with regard to her husband’s property. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? Since he has the right to enjoy the profits of her property while they are married, it is known that he is only enjoying the profits and that he has no claim to the field itself. On what grounds, then, would he establish the presumption of ownership?
לָא צְרִיכָא, דִּכְתַב לַהּ: ״דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בִּנְכָסַיִיךְ״.
The Gemara responds: No, it is necessary to teach this halakha in a case where the husband wrote to his wife: I do not have any legal dealings or involvement with your property, i.e., he forfeits his right to enjoy the profits of her property, and therefore if he subsequently did enjoy the profits of her field, one might assume that it is because he acquired the land from her. It was therefore necessary for the mishna to teach that this does not indicate that he owns the land, since it is possible that she does not prevent him from enjoying the profits, due to their relationship.
וְכִי כְּתַב לַהּ – מַאי הָוֵי? וְהָתַנְיָא, הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ: ״דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי עַל שָׂדֶה זוֹ״, וְ״אֵין לִי עֵסֶק בָּהּ״, וְ״יָדַי מְסוּלָּקוֹת מִמֶּנָּה״ – לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם!
The Gemara asks: And if he wrote this to her, what of it? And isn’t it taught in a baraita: One who says to another: I do not have any legal dealings or involvement concerning this field, or: I have no dealings with it, or: My hands are removed from it, has not said anything. That is to say, these statements have no legal standing.
אָמְרִי לַהּ דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי: מַתְנִיתִין בְּכוֹתֵב לָהּ וְעוֹדָהּ אֲרוּסָה – וְכִדְרַב כָּהֲנָא, דְּאָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא:
The scholars of the school of Rabbi Yannai said with regard to this: The mishna states its ruling with regard to one who writes this formulation to her while she is still only betrothed, before he had any rights to her property. Therefore, he is able to prevent his rights from taking effect after the marriage. And this is in accordance with the statement of Rav Kahana, as Rav Kahana says:
נַחֲלָה הַבָּאָה לוֹ לְאָדָם מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר, אָדָם מַתְנֶה עָלֶיהָ שֶׁלֹּא יִירָשֶׁנָּה. וְכִדְרָבָא – דְּאָמַר רָבָא: כׇּל הָאוֹמֵר ״אִי אֶפְשִׁי בְּתַקָּנַת חֲכָמִים״ כְּגוֹן זֹאת, שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ.
With regard to an inheritance that comes to a person from another place, i.e., an inheritance one will receive in the future, a person can make a condition about it from the outset that he will not inherit it, since one can waive his future rights to property that is not currently his. And this ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rava, as Rava said that with regard to anyone who says: I do not want to avail myself of an ordinance of the Sages such as this one that was instituted for my benefit, one listens to him.
מַאי ״כְּגוֹן זֹאת״? כִּדְרַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב – דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: יְכוֹלָה אִשָּׁה שֶׁתֹּאמַר לְבַעְלָהּ: ״אֵינִי נִיזּוֹנֶת וְאֵינִי עוֹשָׂה״.
The Gemara asks: What is meant by: Such as this one? The Gemara explains: Rava is referring to that statement of Rav Huna, who said that Rav says a certain ruling. As Rav Huna says that Rav says: A woman can say to her husband: I will not be sustained by you and, in turn, I will not work, i.e., you will not keep my earnings. The Sages instituted that a husband must provide sustenance for his wife, and in exchange is entitled to her wages. Since this was instituted for the benefit of wives, the wife is able to opt out of this arrangement. Similarly, the husband may waive his rights to the profits from his wife’s land. It is in such a circumstance that the mishna rules that even if he relinquished his rights, he does not establish the presumption of ownership by enjoying the profits.
הָא רְאָיָה – יֵשׁ? תֵּימָא: ״נַחַת רוּחַ עָשִׂיתִי לְבַעְלִי״!
§ The mishna teaches that a husband does not establish the presumption of ownership of his wife’s field by enjoying its profits. The Gemara suggests: By inference, the husband has the ability to bring proof that he purchased the field from his wife or received it as a gift from her and consequently be regarded as the owner of the field. The Gemara asks: Why is this proof decisive? Let her say: I did it, i.e., I gave or sold the field to my husband, only to please my husband, but I did not mean it.
מִי לָא תְּנַן: לָקַח מִן הָאִישׁ, וְחָזַר וְלָקַח מִן הָאִשָּׁה – מִקָּחוֹ בָּטֵל; אַלְמָא אָמְרָה: ״נַחַת רוּחַ עָשִׂיתִי לְבַעְלִי״, הָכָא נָמֵי תֵּימָא: ״נַחַת רוּחַ עָשִׂיתִי לְבַעְלִי״!
The Gemara quotes a source for this claim: Didn’t we learn in a mishna (Gittin 55b): If one first purchased land from the husband and afterward returned and purchased it from the wife, i.e., he purchased her rights to this land for after the death of her husband or in the event of their divorce, as stipulated in her marriage contract, then his transaction is void. Apparently, she said: I did it, i.e., signed this bill of sale, only to please my husband, but I did not mean it. Here too let her say: I did it only to please my husband but did not mean to give or sell the field to him.
הָא אִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא בְּאוֹתָן שָׁלֹשׁ שָׂדוֹת – אַחַת שֶׁכָּתַב לָהּ בִּכְתוּבָּתָהּ,
The Gemara answers: But wasn’t it stated with regard to that mishna that Rabba bar Rav Huna says: The halakha that a woman can claim that she acted only in order to please her husband is not stated with regard to all of her property, but is necessary only with regard to those three types of fields that have special status: One field about which he wrote to her in her marriage contract that it would serve as payment of her marriage contract;
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.
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Jeanne Yael Klempner
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
When the new cycle began, I thought, If not now, when? I’d just turned 72. I feel like a tourist on a tour bus passing astonishing scenery each day. Rabbanit Michelle is my beloved tour guide. When the cycle ends, I’ll be 80. I pray that I’ll have strength and mind to continue the journey to glimpse a little more. My grandchildren think having a daf-learning savta is cool!
Wendy Dickstein
Jerusalem, Israel
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Miriam Pollack
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
See video
Susan Fisher
Raanana, 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
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Gitta Jaroslawicz-Neufeld
Far Rockaway, United States
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Caroline Ben-Ari
Karmiel, Israel
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
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
Vitti Kones
מיתר, ישראל
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Diana Bloom
Tampa, United States
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Gitta Jaroslawicz-Neufeld
Far Rockaway, United States
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Linda Brownstein
Mitspe, Israel
I start learning Daf Yomi in January 2020. The daily learning with Rabbanit Michelle has kept me grounded in this very uncertain time. Despite everything going on – the Pandemic, my personal life, climate change, war, etc… I know I can count on Hadran’s podcast to bring a smile to my face.
Deb Engel
Los Angeles, United States
A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.
Sheila Hauser
Jerusalem, Israel
Robin Zeiger
Tel Aviv, Israel
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Susan Vishner
Brookline, United States
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Batsheva Pava
Hashmonaim, Israel
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Diana Bloom
Tampa, United States
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Janine Rubens
Virginia, United States
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Emma Rinberg
Raanana, Israel
Bava Batra 49
אֵין נֶאֱמָנִים; ״מוֹדָעָא הָיוּ דְּבָרֵינוּ״ – אֵין נֶאֱמָנִין!
they are not deemed credible. And similarly, witnesses who said: Our statement that we signed was accompanied by a preemptive declaration, are not deemed credible. They cannot negate the testimony of the document that they themselves signed by claiming that there had been a preemptive declaration. Similarly, how could Rabba bar bar Ḥana’s signing of the preemptive declaration override his signing the bill of sale?
הָנֵי מִילֵּי עַל פֶּה – דְּלָא אָתֵי עַל פֶּה וּמַרַע לִשְׁטָרָא, אֲבָל בִּשְׁטָרָא – אָתֵי שְׁטָרָא וּמַרַע לִשְׁטָרָא.
The Gemara answers: That matter of witnesses not being deemed credible to nullify a document applies only when the witnesses attempt to nullify the document by means of an oral declaration, as an oral declaration cannot come and weaken a written document. But if the witnesses attempt to nullify the bill of sale by means of testimony in another document, e.g., by signing the preemptive declaration, then this preemptive document can come and weaken a written document, in this case, the bill of sale.
גּוּפָא – אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: ״אֲמָנָה הָיוּ דְּבָרֵינוּ״ – אֵין נֶאֱמָנִין, ״מוֹדָעָא הָיוּ דְּבָרֵינוּ״ – אֵין נֶאֱמָנִין.
The Gemara returns to discuss the matter itself: Rav Naḥman says that witnesses who said: Our statement that we signed was a document of trust, are not deemed credible. And similarly, witnesses who said: Our statement that we signed was accompanied by a preemptive declaration, are not deemed credible.
וּמָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: ״אֲמָנָה הָיוּ דְּבָרֵינוּ״ – אֵין נֶאֱמָנִין, ״מוֹדָעָא הָיוּ דְּבָרֵינוּ״ – נֶאֱמָנִין. מַאי טַעְמָא? שֶׁזֶּה נִיתַּן לִיכָּתֵב, וְזֶה לֹא נִיתַּן לִיכָּתֵב.
And Mar bar Rav Ashi says that witnesses who said: Our statement that we signed was a statement of trust, are not deemed credible; but witnesses who said: Our statement that we signed was accompanied by a preemptive declaration, are deemed credible. What is the reason for the difference between the cases? The reason is that this document that was accompanied by a preemptive declaration may be written, as it is merely written under duress, but that document of trust may not be written, as it is a false document. Testifying that they wrote it is self-incriminating, and the witnesses are not deemed credible to incriminate themselves.
וְלֹא לָאִישׁ חֲזָקָה בְּנִכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ וְכוּ׳. פְּשִׁיטָא – כֵּיוָן דְּאִית לֵיהּ לְפֵירָא, פֵּירָא הוּא דְּקָאָכֵיל!
§ The mishna teaches that a man does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership with regard to his wife’s property and a wife does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership with regard to her husband’s property. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? Since he has the right to enjoy the profits of her property while they are married, it is known that he is only enjoying the profits and that he has no claim to the field itself. On what grounds, then, would he establish the presumption of ownership?
לָא צְרִיכָא, דִּכְתַב לַהּ: ״דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בִּנְכָסַיִיךְ״.
The Gemara responds: No, it is necessary to teach this halakha in a case where the husband wrote to his wife: I do not have any legal dealings or involvement with your property, i.e., he forfeits his right to enjoy the profits of her property, and therefore if he subsequently did enjoy the profits of her field, one might assume that it is because he acquired the land from her. It was therefore necessary for the mishna to teach that this does not indicate that he owns the land, since it is possible that she does not prevent him from enjoying the profits, due to their relationship.
וְכִי כְּתַב לַהּ – מַאי הָוֵי? וְהָתַנְיָא, הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ: ״דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי עַל שָׂדֶה זוֹ״, וְ״אֵין לִי עֵסֶק בָּהּ״, וְ״יָדַי מְסוּלָּקוֹת מִמֶּנָּה״ – לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם!
The Gemara asks: And if he wrote this to her, what of it? And isn’t it taught in a baraita: One who says to another: I do not have any legal dealings or involvement concerning this field, or: I have no dealings with it, or: My hands are removed from it, has not said anything. That is to say, these statements have no legal standing.
אָמְרִי לַהּ דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי: מַתְנִיתִין בְּכוֹתֵב לָהּ וְעוֹדָהּ אֲרוּסָה – וְכִדְרַב כָּהֲנָא, דְּאָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא:
The scholars of the school of Rabbi Yannai said with regard to this: The mishna states its ruling with regard to one who writes this formulation to her while she is still only betrothed, before he had any rights to her property. Therefore, he is able to prevent his rights from taking effect after the marriage. And this is in accordance with the statement of Rav Kahana, as Rav Kahana says:
נַחֲלָה הַבָּאָה לוֹ לְאָדָם מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר, אָדָם מַתְנֶה עָלֶיהָ שֶׁלֹּא יִירָשֶׁנָּה. וְכִדְרָבָא – דְּאָמַר רָבָא: כׇּל הָאוֹמֵר ״אִי אֶפְשִׁי בְּתַקָּנַת חֲכָמִים״ כְּגוֹן זֹאת, שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ.
With regard to an inheritance that comes to a person from another place, i.e., an inheritance one will receive in the future, a person can make a condition about it from the outset that he will not inherit it, since one can waive his future rights to property that is not currently his. And this ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rava, as Rava said that with regard to anyone who says: I do not want to avail myself of an ordinance of the Sages such as this one that was instituted for my benefit, one listens to him.
מַאי ״כְּגוֹן זֹאת״? כִּדְרַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב – דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: יְכוֹלָה אִשָּׁה שֶׁתֹּאמַר לְבַעְלָהּ: ״אֵינִי נִיזּוֹנֶת וְאֵינִי עוֹשָׂה״.
The Gemara asks: What is meant by: Such as this one? The Gemara explains: Rava is referring to that statement of Rav Huna, who said that Rav says a certain ruling. As Rav Huna says that Rav says: A woman can say to her husband: I will not be sustained by you and, in turn, I will not work, i.e., you will not keep my earnings. The Sages instituted that a husband must provide sustenance for his wife, and in exchange is entitled to her wages. Since this was instituted for the benefit of wives, the wife is able to opt out of this arrangement. Similarly, the husband may waive his rights to the profits from his wife’s land. It is in such a circumstance that the mishna rules that even if he relinquished his rights, he does not establish the presumption of ownership by enjoying the profits.
הָא רְאָיָה – יֵשׁ? תֵּימָא: ״נַחַת רוּחַ עָשִׂיתִי לְבַעְלִי״!
§ The mishna teaches that a husband does not establish the presumption of ownership of his wife’s field by enjoying its profits. The Gemara suggests: By inference, the husband has the ability to bring proof that he purchased the field from his wife or received it as a gift from her and consequently be regarded as the owner of the field. The Gemara asks: Why is this proof decisive? Let her say: I did it, i.e., I gave or sold the field to my husband, only to please my husband, but I did not mean it.
מִי לָא תְּנַן: לָקַח מִן הָאִישׁ, וְחָזַר וְלָקַח מִן הָאִשָּׁה – מִקָּחוֹ בָּטֵל; אַלְמָא אָמְרָה: ״נַחַת רוּחַ עָשִׂיתִי לְבַעְלִי״, הָכָא נָמֵי תֵּימָא: ״נַחַת רוּחַ עָשִׂיתִי לְבַעְלִי״!
The Gemara quotes a source for this claim: Didn’t we learn in a mishna (Gittin 55b): If one first purchased land from the husband and afterward returned and purchased it from the wife, i.e., he purchased her rights to this land for after the death of her husband or in the event of their divorce, as stipulated in her marriage contract, then his transaction is void. Apparently, she said: I did it, i.e., signed this bill of sale, only to please my husband, but I did not mean it. Here too let her say: I did it only to please my husband but did not mean to give or sell the field to him.
הָא אִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא בְּאוֹתָן שָׁלֹשׁ שָׂדוֹת – אַחַת שֶׁכָּתַב לָהּ בִּכְתוּבָּתָהּ,
The Gemara answers: But wasn’t it stated with regard to that mishna that Rabba bar Rav Huna says: The halakha that a woman can claim that she acted only in order to please her husband is not stated with regard to all of her property, but is necessary only with regard to those three types of fields that have special status: One field about which he wrote to her in her marriage contract that it would serve as payment of her marriage contract;
Follow
