## Bava Batra Daf 47b

###### Bava Batra 47b:1
[Bava Batra 47b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/47b:1)

בִּמְגוֹרֶשֶׁת וְאֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת, וְכִדְרַבִּי זֵירָא – דְּאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת וְאֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת – בַּעְלָהּ חַיָּיב בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**in** a case where there is uncertainty whether **she is divorced or** whether **she is not divorced, and** this is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Zeira. As Rabbi Zeira says** that **Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba says** that **Shmuel says: Wherever the Sages said** with regard to a woman that there is uncertainty whether **she is divorced or** whether **she is not divorced, her husband** is still **obligated with regard to her sustenance.** One might have thought that since she still has some right to her husband’s property, insofar as he still has an obligation with regard to her sustenance he would not lodge a protest if she used his land without his authorization. It is therefore necessary to clarify that this is not so, and she has the ability to establish the presumption of ownership in her husband’s property.


###### Bava Batra 47b:2
[Bava Batra 47b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/47b:2)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, אָמַר לִי הוּנָא: כּוּלָּן שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ רְאָיָה – רְאָיָיתָן רְאָיָה, וּמַעֲמִידִין שָׂדֶה בְּיָדָן. גַּזְלָן שֶׁהֵבִיא רְאָיָה – אֵין רְאָיָיתוֹ רְאָיָה, וְאֵין מַעֲמִידִין שָׂדֶה בְּיָדוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Naḥman said:** Rav **Huna said to me** that with regard to **all of** the types of people who do not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership, **when they bring proof** by means of a document or witnesses that a field belongs to them, **their proof is** a valid **proof and** the court **places** the **field in their possession.** But if there is **a robber who brings proof** that a field is his, **his proof is not** a valid **proof, and** the court **does not place** the **field in his possession.** This is due to a concern that the proof was obtained through illegitimate means.


###### Bava Batra 47b:3
[Bava Batra 47b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/47b:3)

מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? תְּנֵינָא: לָקַח מִסִּיקָרִיקוֹן, וְחָזַר וְלָקַח מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת – מִקָּחוֹ בָּטֵל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is** this **teaching us? We** already **learned** in a mishna (*Gittin* 55b): If one **purchased** land **from a Sicarius [*Sikarikon*],** a violent gentile who had extorted the field from its owner with threats, **and** afterward one **returned and purchased** the same field **from the** prior **owner, his purchase is void,** as the owner of the field can say that he did not actually intend to sell him the field. This teaches that a purchase following a robbery is invalid, despite the existence of documents or testimony, rendering the statement of Rav Huna superfluous.


###### Bava Batra 47b:4
[Bava Batra 47b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/47b:4)

לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַב – דְּאָמַר רַב: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״לֵךְ חֲזֵק וּקְנִי״, אֲבָל בִּשְׁטָר – קָנָה;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Rav Huna’s statement serves **to exclude that which Rav** says, **as Rav says: They taught** that the purchase of a field from the prior owner after one purchased it from a Sicarius is void **only** when the prior owner **said to** the buyer at the time of the sale: **Go take possession and** thereby **acquire** the field, but did not write a document. **But** if the transaction was performed along **with a document** being given, the buyer **acquired** the field.


###### Bava Batra 47b:5
[Bava Batra 47b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/47b:5)

קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן כְּדִשְׁמוּאֵל – דְּאָמַר: אַף בִּשְׁטָר נָמֵי לֹא קָנָה, עַד שֶׁיִּכְתּוֹב אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, Rav Huna **teaches us** that he rules **in accordance with** the opinion **of Shmuel, as** Shmuel **says: He does not acquire** the field **even** if the transaction was performed along **with a document** being given, **until** the owner of the field **writes a property guarantee,** i.e., a document that states that if the property is seized by the seller’s creditor, the seller will reimburse the buyer for his loss. Writing such a document indicates that it is a sincere transaction.


###### Bava Batra 47b:6
[Bava Batra 47b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/47b:6)

וְרַב בִּיבִי מְסַיֵּים בַּהּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן: קַרְקַע אֵין לוֹ, אֲבָל מָעוֹת יֵשׁ לוֹ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – שֶׁאָמְרוּ עֵדִים: ״בְּפָנֵינוּ מָנָה לוֹ״, אֲבָל אָמְרוּ עֵדִים: ״בְּפָנֵינוּ הוֹדָה לוֹ״ – לֹא; כִּדְרַב כָּהֲנָא, דְּאָמַר: אִי לָאו דְּאוֹדִי לֵיהּ, הֲוָה מַמְטֵי לֵיהּ לְדִידֵיהּ וְלַחֲמָרֵיהּ לְשַׁחְווֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Beivai concludes that** discussion of the statement of Rav Huna, that a robber does not retain possession of the field even if he brings proof of the transaction, with a comment **in the name of Rav Naḥman:** The robber **does not have** rights to the **land, but he does have** rights to the **money** that he paid for the land, and the owner has to reimburse him. **In what** case **is this statement** that the robber is reimbursed **said?** It is specifically **where** the **witnesses said:** The robber **counted** out the money **for** the owner and gave it to **him in our presence; but** if the **witnesses said:** The owner **admitted to** the robber **in our presence** that he received payment, then the robber is **not** reimbursed, as the admission may have been made under duress. This is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rav Kahana, who says: If** the owner would **not** have **admitted to** the robber that he received payment, the robber **would have brought him and his donkey to** the **taskmaster.**


###### Bava Batra 47b:7
[Bava Batra 47b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/47b:7)

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: תַּלְיוּהוּ וְזַבֵּין – זְבִינֵיהּ זְבִינֵי. מַאי טַעְמָא? כֹּל דִּמְזַבֵּין אִינִישׁ, אִי לָאו דַּאֲנִיס – לָא הֲוָה מְזַבֵּין, וַאֲפִילּוּ הָכִי זְבִינֵיהּ זְבִינֵי. וְדִילְמָא שָׁאנֵי אוּנְסָא דְנַפְשֵׁיהּ מֵאוּנְסָא דְאַחֲרִינֵי! אֶלָּא כִּדְתַנְיָא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Apropos transactions performed under duress, the Gemara cites that which **Rav Huna says:** If one was **suspended,** e.g., from a tree, and thereby coerced to sell a certain item, **and he sold** it, **his sale is valid. What is the reason?** The Gemara suggests that it is because **whatever a person sells, were it not** for the fact **that** he is **compelled** by his need for money, he **would not sell** it, **and even so, his sale is valid.** This indicates that a transaction performed under duress is valid. The Gemara rejects this: **But perhaps duress** that results **from his own** needs, such as his need for money, **is different from duress** that results **from another,** as in this case. **Rather,** the basis for Rav Huna’s ruling is **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: