## Bava Batra Daf 49a

###### Bava Batra 49a:1
[Bava Batra 49a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/49a:1)

אֵין נֶאֱמָנִים; ״מוֹדָעָא הָיוּ דְּבָרֵינוּ״ – אֵין נֶאֱמָנִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
they **are not deemed credible.** And similarly, witnesses who said: **Our statement** that we signed **was** accompanied by a preemptive **declaration, are not deemed credible.** They cannot negate the testimony of the document that they themselves signed by claiming that there had been a preemptive declaration. Similarly, how could Rabba bar bar Ḥana’s signing of the preemptive declaration override his signing the bill of sale?


###### Bava Batra 49a:2
[Bava Batra 49a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/49a:2)

הָנֵי מִילֵּי עַל פֶּה – דְּלָא אָתֵי עַל פֶּה וּמַרַע לִשְׁטָרָא, אֲבָל בִּשְׁטָרָא – אָתֵי שְׁטָרָא וּמַרַע לִשְׁטָרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **That matter** of witnesses not being deemed credible to nullify a document applies only when the witnesses attempt to nullify the document by means of **an oral** declaration, **as an oral** declaration **cannot come and weaken** a written **document. But** if the witnesses attempt to nullify the bill of sale by means of testimony **in** another **document,** e.g., by signing the preemptive declaration, then this preemptive **document** can **come and weaken** a written **document,** in this case, the bill of sale.


###### Bava Batra 49a:3
[Bava Batra 49a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/49a:3)

גּוּפָא – אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: ״אֲמָנָה הָיוּ דְּבָרֵינוּ״ – אֵין נֶאֱמָנִין, ״מוֹדָעָא הָיוּ דְּבָרֵינוּ״ – אֵין נֶאֱמָנִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara returns to discuss **the** matter **itself: Rav Naḥman says** that witnesses who said: **Our statement** that we signed **was** a document of **trust, are not deemed credible.** And similarly, witnesses who said: **Our statement** that we signed **was** accompanied by a preemptive **declaration, are not deemed credible.**


###### Bava Batra 49a:4
[Bava Batra 49a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/49a:4)

וּמָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: ״אֲמָנָה הָיוּ דְּבָרֵינוּ״ – אֵין נֶאֱמָנִין, ״מוֹדָעָא הָיוּ דְּבָרֵינוּ״ – נֶאֱמָנִין. מַאי טַעְמָא? שֶׁזֶּה נִיתַּן לִיכָּתֵב, וְזֶה לֹא נִיתַּן לִיכָּתֵב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Mar bar Rav Ashi says** that witnesses who said: **Our statement** that we signed **was** a statement of **trust, are not deemed credible;** but witnesses who said: **Our statement** that we signed **was** accompanied by a preemptive **declaration, are deemed credible. What is the reason** for the difference between the cases? The reason is **that this** document that was accompanied by a preemptive declaration **may be written,** as it is merely written under duress, **but that** document of trust **may not be written,** as it is a false document. Testifying that they wrote it is self-incriminating, and the witnesses are not deemed credible to incriminate themselves.


###### Bava Batra 49a:5
[Bava Batra 49a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/49a:5)

וְלֹא לָאִישׁ חֲזָקָה בְּנִכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ וְכוּ׳. פְּשִׁיטָא – כֵּיוָן דְּאִית לֵיהּ לְפֵירָא, פֵּירָא הוּא דְּקָאָכֵיל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that **a man does not have** the ability to establish the **presumption** of ownership **with regard to his wife’s property** and a wife does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership with regard to her husband’s property. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this **obvious? Since he has** the right **to** enjoy **the profits** of her property while they are married, **it is** known **that** he is only **enjoying the profits** and that he has no claim to the field itself. On what grounds, then, would he establish the presumption of ownership?


###### Bava Batra 49a:6
[Bava Batra 49a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/49a:6)

לָא צְרִיכָא, דִּכְתַב לַהּ: ״דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בִּנְכָסַיִיךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **No,** it is **necessary** to teach this *halakha* in a case **where** the husband **wrote to** his wife: **I do not have any legal** dealings **or involvement with your property,** i.e., he forfeits his right to enjoy the profits of her property, and therefore if he subsequently did enjoy the profits of her field, one might assume that it is because he acquired the land from her. It was therefore necessary for the mishna to teach that this does not indicate that he owns the land, since it is possible that she does not prevent him from enjoying the profits, due to their relationship.


###### Bava Batra 49a:7
[Bava Batra 49a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/49a:7)

וְכִי כְּתַב לַהּ – מַאי הָוֵי? וְהָתַנְיָא, הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ: ״דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי עַל שָׂדֶה זוֹ״, וְ״אֵין לִי עֵסֶק בָּהּ״, וְ״יָדַי מְסוּלָּקוֹת מִמֶּנָּה״ – לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And if** he **wrote** this **to her, what of it? And isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **One who says to another: I do not have** any **legal** dealings **or involvement concerning this field, or: I have no dealings with it, or: My hands are removed from it, has not said anything.** That is to say, these statements have no legal standing.


###### Bava Batra 49a:8
[Bava Batra 49a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/49a:8)

אָמְרִי לַהּ דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי: מַתְנִיתִין בְּכוֹתֵב לָהּ וְעוֹדָהּ אֲרוּסָה – וְכִדְרַב כָּהֲנָא, דְּאָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The scholars **of the school of Rabbi Yannai said** with regard to **this: The mishna** states its ruling **with regard to** one who **writes** this formulation **to her while she is still** only **betrothed,** before he had any rights to her property. Therefore, he is able to prevent his rights from taking effect after the marriage. **And** this is **in accordance with** the statement **of Rav Kahana, as Rav Kahana says:**