## Bava Batra Daf 40a

###### Bava Batra 40a:1
[Bava Batra 40a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/40a:1)

וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר ״כְּתוֹבוּ״; מוֹדָעָא – בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר ״כְּתוֹבוּ״;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bava Batra 40a:2
[Bava Batra 40a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/40a:2)

הוֹדָאָה – בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם, וְצָרִיךְ לוֹמַר ״כְּתוֹבוּ״; קִנְיָן – בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם, וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר ״כְּתוֹבוּ״; וְקִיּוּם שְׁטָרוֹת בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Batra 40a:3
[Bava Batra 40a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/40a:3)

סִימָן – ממה״ק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*].


###### Bava Batra 40a:4
[Bava Batra 40a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/40a:4)

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״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Bava Batra 40a:5
[Bava Batra 40a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/40a:5)

בָּתַר דְּבָעֵי, הֲדַר פַּשְׁטַאּ: לְעוֹלָם לָאו כְּמַעֲשֵׂה בֵּית דִּין דָּמֵי; וְהָכָא, טַעְמָא מַאי דְּאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר ״כְּתוֹבוּ״ – מִשּׁוּם דִּסְתַם קִנְיָן לִכְתִיבָה עוֹמֵד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bava Batra 40a:6
[Bava Batra 40a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/40a:6)

רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: לָא כָּתְבִינַן מוֹדָעָא, אֶלָּא אַמַּאן דְּלָא צָיֵית דִּינָא. אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: אֲפִילּוּ עָלַי וְעָלֶיךָ. אָמְרִי נְהַרְדָּעֵי: כֹּל מוֹדָעָא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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**