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 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 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 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
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 started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
Dena Lehrman
אפרת, Israel
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Naomi Niederhoffer
Toronto, Canada
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Shoshana Shinnar
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
Medinah Korn
בית שמש, Israel
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
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Nancy Kolodny
Newton, United States
About a year into learning more about Judaism on a path to potential conversion, I saw an article about the upcoming Siyum HaShas in January of 2020. My curiosity was piqued and I immediately started investigating what learning the Daf actually meant. Daily learning? Just what I wanted. Seven and a half years? I love a challenge! So I dove in head first and I’ve enjoyed every moment!!
Nickie Matthews
Blacksburg, United States
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Catriella Freedman
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Jenifer Nech
Houston, 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 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
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Lori Stark
Highland Park, United States
At almost 70 I am just beginning my journey with Talmud and Hadran. I began not late, but right when I was called to learn. It is never too late to begin! The understanding patience of staff and participants with more experience and knowledge has been fabulous. The joy of learning never stops and for me. It is a new life, a new light, a new depth of love of The Holy One, Blessed be He.
Deborah Hoffman-Wade
Richmond, CA, United States
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Shira Krebs
Minnesota, United States
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dianne Kuchar
Dover Heights, Australia
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Julie Mendelsohn
Zichron Yakov, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.
Patti Evans
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Deborah Dickson
Ra’anana, 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
