## Bava Batra Daf 48a

###### Bava Batra 48a:1
[Bava Batra 48a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/48a:1)

״יַקְרִיב אֹתוֹ״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ. יָכוֹל בְּעַל כׇּרְחוֹ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לִרְצוֹנוֹ״. הָא כֵּיצַד? כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר: ״רוֹצֶה אֲנִי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to one who pledges to bring a burnt-offering, the verse states: “If his offering be a burnt-offering of the herd, **he shall offer it** a male without blemish; he shall bring it to the door of the Tent of Meeting, according to his will, before the Lord” (Leviticus 1:3). The seemingly superfluous phrase “he shall offer it” **teaches that they** can **coerce him** to bring the offering. One **might** have thought that it can be offered entirely **against his will,** by taking it from his possession and sacrificing it. Therefore, **the verse states: “According to his will”** (Leviticus 1:3). **How** can **these** texts be reconciled? **They coerce him** with various punishments **until he says: I want** to bring the offering. This seems to prove that consent resulting from coercion is considered to be valid consent. Perhaps this principle can apply to acquisition, as a source for Rav Huna’s ruling.


###### Bava Batra 48a:2
[Bava Batra 48a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/48a:2)

וְדִלְמָא שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּנִיחָא לֵיהּ דְּתִיהְוֵי לֵיהּ כַּפָּרָה! וְאֶלָּא מִסֵּיפָא: וְכֵן אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בְּגִיטֵּי נָשִׁים – כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר: ״רוֹצֶה אֲנִי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this proof: **But perhaps there it is different, since he is** in fact **amenable to** achieving **atonement,** despite his earlier statement to the contrary. **But rather,** prove Rav Huna’s ruling **from the latter clause** of a mishna (*Arakhin* 21a): **And similarly you find** this *halakha* **with bills of divorce,** that when the court rules that he must divorce his wife, **they coerce him until he says: I want** to divorce my wife.


###### Bava Batra 48a:3
[Bava Batra 48a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/48a:3)

וְדִלְמָא שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּמִצְוָה לִשְׁמוֹעַ דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים! אֶלָּא סְבָרָא הוּא – אַגַּב אוּנְסֵיהּ גָּמַר וּמַקְנֵה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this proof as well: **But perhaps there it is different, because it is a mitzva to listen to the statement of the Sages.** The assumption is that when he is required by the court to divorce his wife, his real desire is to perform the mitzva of listening to the Sages, and therefore he actually wants to divorce her. This does not apply to the case of a transaction performed under duress. **Rather,** Rav Huna’s ruling does not have a source in a mishna or *baraita*, but **is** based on **logical reasoning: By means of his being coerced,** the seller then willingly **decides** to sell the field **and transfers** it.


###### Bava Batra 48a:4
[Bava Batra 48a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/48a:4)

מוֹתֵיב רַב יְהוּדָה: גֵּט הַמְעוּשֶּׂה; בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל – כָּשֵׁר, וּבְגוֹיִם – פָּסוּל. וּבְגוֹיִם – חוֹבְטִין אוֹתוֹ, וְאוֹמְרִין לוֹ: עֲשֵׂה מַה שֶּׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל אוֹמֵר לָךְ. וְאַמַּאי? הָתָם נָמֵי, נֵימָא: אַגַּב אוּנְסֵיהּ גָּמַר וּמְגָרֵשׁ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yehuda raises an objection** to Rav Huna’s ruling from a mishna (*Gittin* 88b): With regard to **a bill of divorce that** the husband **was compelled** by the court to write and give his wife, if he was compelled **by a Jewish** court it is **valid, but** if he was compelled **by gentiles** it is **not valid. And with regard to gentiles, they may beat him** at the request of the Jewish court **and say to him: Do what the Jews are telling you,** and the divorce would then be valid. The Gemara asks: **But why** is a bill of divorce compelled by a gentile court invalid? **There too, let us say** that **as a result of his coercion,** the husband **decides** to do what the court says **and divorces** her.


###### Bava Batra 48a:5
[Bava Batra 48a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/48a:5)

הָא אִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה – אֲפִילּוּ בְּגוֹיִם כָּשֵׁר, וּמַה טַּעַם אָמְרוּ בְּגוֹיִים פָּסוּל? כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת הוֹלֶכֶת וְתוֹלָה עַצְמָהּ בְּיַד גּוֹי, וּמַפְקַעַת עַצְמָהּ מִיַּד בַּעְלָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: In fact that reasoning is correct, as for this reason **wasn’t it stated with regard to that** mishna that **Rav Mesharshiyya says: By Torah law** a bill of divorce that the husband was compelled to give, **even** if he was compelled **by gentiles,** is **valid. And what is the reason** the Sages **said** that if it is compelled **by gentiles** it is **not valid?** It is **so that each and every** woman **will not go and** through temptation or bribery **depend on a gentile** to compel her husband to divorce her, **and** thereby **release herself from her husband** illegitimately.


###### Bava Batra 48a:6
[Bava Batra 48a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/48a:6)

מוֹתֵיב רַב הַמְנוּנָא: לָקַח מִסִּיקָרִיקוֹן, וְחָזַר וְלָקַח מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת – מִקָּחוֹ בָּטֵל. וְאַמַּאי? הָתָם נָמֵי נֵימָא: אַגַּב אוּנְסֵיהּ גְּמַר וּמַקְנֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Hamnuna raises an objection** to Rav Huna’s ruling from a mishna (*Gittin* 55b): If one **purchased** land **from a Sicarius and** afterward **returned and purchased** the same field **from the** prior **owner, his purchase is void,** as the prior owner of the field can say that he did not actually intend to sell the field to this buyer. **But why** is the sale invalid? **There too, let us say** that **by means of his being coerced,** the seller then willingly **decides** to sell the field **and transfers** it.


###### Bava Batra 48a:7
[Bava Batra 48a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/48a:7)

הָא אִתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַב: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״לֵךְ חֲזֵק וּקְנִי״, אֲבָל בִּשְׁטָר – קָנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: In fact that reasoning is correct, as **it was stated with regard to that** mishna that **Rav says: They taught** that the purchase from the prior owner after the purchase 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 bill of sale. **But** if the transaction was performed along **with a bill** of sale being given, the buyer **acquires** the field.


###### Bava Batra 48a:8
[Bava Batra 48a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/48a:8)

וְלִשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר: אַף בִּשְׁטָר נָמֵי לֹא קָנָה, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? מוֹדֶה שְׁמוּאֵל הֵיכָא דִּיהַב זוּזֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to Shmuel, who says: He does not acquire** the field **even** if the transaction was performed along **with a bill** of sale being given, **what can be said?** The Gemara answers: **Shmuel concedes** that the sale is valid **where** the buyer **gave money** for the field even though the owner sold it under duress, as is the case in the ruling of Rav Huna.


###### Bava Batra 48a:9
[Bava Batra 48a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/48a:9)

וּלְרַב בִּיבִי, דִּמְסַיֵּים בַּהּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן: קַרְקַע אֵין לוֹ, מָעוֹת יֵשׁ לוֹ – מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? רַב בִּיבִי מֵימְרָא הוּא, וּמֵימְרָא לְרַב הוּנָא לָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to Rav Beivai, who concludes that** statement of Rav Huna 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, **what can be said?** Rav Beivai, who is referring to a case where there was a payment, as the robber is being reimbursed, seems to hold that the sale is invalid even where the robber paid for the field. The Gemara answers: The statement of **Rav Beivai is an** amoraic **statement,** not a citation of a tannaitic ruling, **and Rav Huna,** who is also an *amora*, **does not hold** in accordance with that amoraic **statement.**


###### Bava Batra 48a:10
[Bava Batra 48a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/48a:10)

אָמַר רָבָא, הִלְכְתָא: תַּלְיוּהוּ וְזַבֵּין – זְבִינֵיהּ זְבִינֵי. וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says:** The ***halakha*** is that if one was **suspended** and thereby coerced to sell a certain item, **and he sold** it, **his sale is valid. And we said** that this is the *halakha* **only**