## Bava Batra Daf 48b

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

בְּ״שָׂדֶה״ סְתָם, אֲבָל בְּ״שָׂדֶה זוֹ״ – לֹא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**in** a case where the seller was compelled to sell **an unspecified field.** Since he had a choice as to which field to sell, the presumption is that he sold it sincerely. **But in** a case where the one coercing him specified **this** specific **field** to be sold, the sale is **not** valid, as the seller did not decide freely on any aspect of the sale.


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

וּבְ״שָּׂדֶה זוֹ״ נָמֵי לָא אֲמַרַן – אֶלָּא דְּלָא אַרְצִי זוּזֵי, אֲבָל אַרְצִי זוּזֵי – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And even in** a case where the one coercing him specified **this** specific **field** to be sold, **we said** that the sale is invalid **only where** the seller **did not count [*artzei*]** the **money** for the field, **but** if the seller **did count** the **money,** then we do **not** say that the sale is invalid.


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

וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלָא הֲוָה לְאִישְׁתְּמוֹטֵי, אֲבָל הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְאִישְׁתְּמוֹטֵי – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And we said** that the sale is invalid in the case of a specified field when money was not counted **only where** the seller **had no** way **to avoid** the coercion. **But** if the seller **had** a way **to avoid** the coercion and did not avoid it, then we do **not** say that the sale is invalid.


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

וְהִלְכְתָא בְּכוּלְּהוּ דְּהָווּ זְבִינֵיהּ זְבִינֵי, וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּשָׂדֶה זוֹ – דְּהָא אִשָּׁה כְּ״שָׂדֶה זוֹ״ דָּמְיָא, וְאָמַר אַמֵּימָר: תַּלְיוּהָ וְקַדֵּישׁ – קִדּוּשָׁיו קִדּוּשִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara concludes: **And** the ***halakha* in all of** these cases is that **the sale is valid, and** this is so **even in** the case of **a specified field.** This can be inferred **because** the case of **a woman** forced to accept betrothal **is comparable to** the case of **a specified field,** as a specific man is performing the betrothal, **and Ameimar says:** If a man **suspended** a woman **and betrothed** her, **his betrothal is valid,** despite the fact that she was coerced.


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

מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: בְּאִשָּׁה וַדַּאי קִדּוּשִׁין לָא הָווּ; הוּא עָשָׂה שֶׁלֹּא כַּהוֹגֶן, לְפִיכָךְ עָשׂוּ עִמּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא כַּהוֹגֶן – וְאַפְקְעִינְהוּ רַבָּנַן לְקִידּוּשֵׁיהּ מִינֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar bar Rav Ashi said: In** the case of **a woman** who was forced to accept betrothal, the **betrothal is certainly not** valid. **This** man **acted improperly; consequently,** the Sages **acted improperly with him, and the Sages expropriated her betrothal from him.**


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: תִּינַח דְּקַדֵּישׁ בְּכַסְפָּא, קַדֵּישׁ בְּבִיאָה מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שַׁוְּיוּהּ רַבָּנַן לִבְעִילָתוֹ בְּעִילַת זְנוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said to Rav Ashi:** This **works out well** in a case **where he betrothed** his wife **with money,** as it is possible to say that the Sages expropriated from the possession of its owner the money used for the betrothal, resulting in a retroactive cancellation of the betrothal. But if **he betrothed** her **by means of sexual intercourse,** then **what is there to say?** Rav Ashi **said to him: The Sages deemed his sexual intercourse** as **licentious sexual intercourse,** which does not create a bond of betrothal.


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

טָאבִי תְּלָא לְפָאפִּי אַכִּינָּרָא, וְזַבֵּין. חֲתַם רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אַמּוֹדָעָא, וְאַאַשְׁקָלְתָּא. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: מַאן דְּחָתֵים אַמּוֹדָעָא – שַׁפִּיר חָתֵים, וּמַאן דְּחָתֵים אַאַשְׁקָלְתָּא – שַׁפִּיר חָתֵים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara relates: Someone named **Tavi suspended** another person named **Pafi on a *kinara* and** compelled him to **sell** his field. **Rabba bar bar Ḥana signed** both **on** Pafi’s preemptive **declaration** nullifying the sale (see 40b) **and on** the **bill of sale [*ashkalta*]. Rav Huna said:** The **one who signed on** the preemptive **declaration** acted **well** by **signing, and** the **one who signed on** the **bill of sale** acted **well** by **signing.**


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

מָה נַפְשָׁךְ? אִי מוֹדָעָא – לָא אַשְׁקָלְתָּא, וְאִי אַשְׁקָלְתָּא – לָא מוֹדָעָא! הָכִי קָאָמַר: אִי לָאו מוֹדָעָא, מַאן דְּחָתֵים אַאַשְׁקָלְתָּא – שַׁפִּיר חָתֵים. רַב הוּנָא לְטַעְמֵיהּ – דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: תַּלְיוּהוּ וְזַבֵּין – זְבִינֵיהּ זְבִינֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **Whichever way you** look at it, Rav Huna’s statement is problematic. **If** the preemptive **declaration** is valid, then there is **no** place for **a bill of sale. And if** the **bill of sale** is valid, then there is **no** place for a preemptive **declaration.** How can Rav Huna commend signing on both of these mutually exclusive documents? The Gemara explains: **This** is what Rav Huna **is saying: If** it were **not for** his also having signed the preemptive **declaration,** the **one who signed on** the **bill of sale** acted **well** by **signing.** In this statement, **Rav Huna** conforms **to his** line of **reasoning, as Rav Huna says:** If one was **suspended** and thereby coerced to sell a certain item **and he sold** it, **his sale is valid.**


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

אִינִי?! וְהָאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הָעֵדִים שֶׁאָמְרוּ ״אֲמָנָה הָיוּ דְּבָרֵינוּ״ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Is that so** that Rabba bar bar Ḥana can, by means of the preemptive declaration, invalidate the bill of sale that he himself signed? **But doesn’t Rav Naḥman say:** With regard to **witnesses who said: Our statement** that we signed **was** a document of **trust,** i.e., a false promissory note given by one person to another, trusting that he will not make use of it until there is an actual loan,