בבא בתרא מ

בבא בתרא מ

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: