קנין¹ בפני ב' ואין צריך כולי—A קנין is done in the presence of two and does not require, etc.

OVERVIEW רבא אמר ר"נ stated that קנין is performed in the presence of two; (seemingly) indicating, that if there are not two עדים present to observe the קנין it is not effective. תוספות disabuses us of this notion.

אומר רבינו תם דלא אתא למעוטי שלא יהא חשוב קנין כשנעשה שלא בפני שנים² – The ר"ת says that the statement קנין בפני ב' does not come to exclude that it will not be considered a קנין if it is not performed in the presence of two עדים – דהא אמרינן בקדושין (דף סה,ב) דלא איברו סהדי אלא לשקרי³ – For רב אשי stated in מסכת קדושין, ‘that witnesses were created only for liars’ – תוספות offers an additional proof the קנין is valid without עדים. ואמרינן בפרק הזהב (בבא מציעא דף מו,א) גבי היה עומד בגורן כולי⁴ – And the גמרא states in פרק הזהב, regarding the case where he was standing on the threshing floor, etc. – ואי אמרינן מטבע נקנה בחליפין ניקנינהו ניהליה אגב סודר – ‘And if we maintain that coins can be acquired through קנין חליפין, let the owner of the מע"ש transfer to his friend the money in his house through קנין סודר, and his friend will redeem the מע"ש (without paying the חומש) – ומפרק דלית ליה סודר⁵ – And the גמרא replies that he has no kerchief; the גמרא asks – ולקנינהו אגב קרקע⁶ דלית ליה – And let him transfer the money to his friend through קנין אגב קרקע, and the גמרא responds he has no קרקע. The גמרא asks how can you say he has no קרקע – והא עומד בגורן קתני כשאינו שלו – But the ברייתא states he was standing on the threshing floor, the גמרא responds the גורן did not belong to him; the גמרא finally asks – איכפל תנא לאשמועינן⁷ בגברא ערטילאי דלית ליה כלום – Did the תנא trouble himself to let us know this rule in the most unusual case of a naked man who owns nothing – אלא שמע מינה דאין מטבע נקנה בחליפין⁸ – But rather we can derive from this ברייתא that coins cannot be acquired through קנין חליפין. This concludes the citation from the גמרא in ב"מ. Now תוספות concludes with his proof that no עדים are required for חליפין – ואי לא חשיב קנין בלא עדים לישנינן דליכא עדים⁹ – And if by קנין סודר it is not considered a קנין without עדים the גמרא should have answered that there was no עדים. This proves that קנין סודר is effective even without עדים. תוספות offers one final proof: ועוד דבפרק קמא דסנהדרין (דף ו,א.) אמרו רבנן פשרה¹⁰ ביחיד – And furthermore the רבנן maintain in the first פרק of מסכת סנהדרין that a compromise can be done with only one דיין, we do not require a בי"ד of three – אף על גב דפשרה בעיא קנין¹¹ כדמסיק התם:¹² Even though that a פשרה requires a קנין as the גמרא concludes there. If קנין requires two עדים, how can only one person rule on the פשרה? This proves (again) that קנין does not require עדים.

SUMMARY A קנין סודר is valid without anyone being present to witness it.

THINKING IT OVER If we were to maintain that קנין (סודר) requires two (not like the ר"ת), what would be the ruling regarding other קנינים, such as משיכה, חזקה, etc.¹³ would they also require שנים?¹⁴

footnotes: ¹ A קנין (which usually refers to קנין סודר) is an act which finalizes an agreement between two parties; for instance the transfer of assets. The קונה (or the עדים that act on his behalf) give a כלי to the מקנה, and by the מקנה accepting the כלי, the transaction is complete and final and neither can retract. ² The reason ר"נ says קנין בפני ב' is only to teach us that even if it was done בפני ב' (and not בפני ג'), nevertheless אצ"ל כתובו (see תוס' סנהדרין ו,א ד"ה צריכא on the top of the עמוד ב'). ³ The גמרא there relates that מר זוטרא and רב אדא סבא (the sons of רב מרי בר איסר) divided the estate of their father (without witnesses). They asked רב אשי whether the division is valid since they were no עדים to effectuate the division. רב אשי responded that witnesses are made for the sole purpose that no one should deny that a transaction was made. However the transaction (in this case the division) is effective even without witnesses. Similarly here the קנין is valid regardless if there are witnesses or not. [One of the exceptions to this rule is by גיטין וקדושין that if there were no witnesses that the גט or קידושין were given, it will not be considered גיטין וקדושין, even if both parties agreed that the גיטין וקדושין took place. The reason is because by the act of גיטין וקדושין we are חב לאחריני (others cannot marry these people). Therefore the עדי גיטין וקדושין are sometimes referred to as עדי קיום as opposed to other עדים who are (merely) עדי בירור.] ⁴ The גמרא there (on מה,ב) cites a ברייתא, ‘a man (who wanted to exempt himself from paying the חומש when redeeming his מעשר שני) who had no money with him says to his friend, ‘these פירות of מע"ש are given to you as a present’ and then he says to him, ‘those פירות מע"ש that you now own, I am redeeming them with the monies which I have in my house’. The advantage for him is that since he was not פודה his מע"ש but his friend’s he is not required to add the חומש. The גמרא inferred that if he would have money it would be better to transfer the money to his friend (than the מע"ש) and have his friend redeem the מע"ש. In this way it would be less of a הערמה (for we all know that he is not [really] granting the מע"ש to his friend). The גמרא then asked why should he transfer the פירות to his friend and then he should redeem the מע"ש of his friend, when it would be more appropriate that he transfer the money (which he has in his house) to his friend through קנין חליפין and his friend will redeem his מע"ש (also without paying the חומש). ⁵ This means he had no article (or כלי) with which to perform קנין חליפין. However he was able to transfer the פירות, which were there in the גורן, through קנין משיכה. See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁶ The owner of the פירות מע"ש should grant his friend a small piece of the גורן through קנין חזקה and be מקנה to him the money in his house through קנין אגב (by which one acquires the מטלטלין אגב קרקע). ⁷ The תנא stated the case that he transfers the פירות instead of the מעות (which would be more appropriate) because we are discussing a case of a גברא ערטילאי דלית ליה כלום! The תנא should teach us by a regular case where he has a סודר or קרקע etc. ⁸ Therefore his only option is to be מקנה him the פירות מע"ש, since the monies (which are not here) cannot be transferred through חליפין. ⁹ The גמרא should have responded that perhaps מטבע נקנית בחליפין, however here there were no עדים to validate the קנין. ¹⁰ A פשרה is where the two litigants agree to compromise as the דיין will see fit (even if it is not in complete accordance with the strict interpretation of the law). ¹¹ The litigants must make a קנין סודר in which they commit their assets to pay the other litigant whatever the result of the compromise demands. ¹² תוספות in סנהדרין ד"ה צריכה rejects this proof, writing: ואין ראיה מכאן כלל דיכול להקנות בפני שנים לקיים הפשרה שעשה ביחיד. ¹³ See footnote # 5. ¹⁴ See נח"מ.

ואין צריך לומר כתובו—And it is not necessary to say, ‘write it’

OVERVIEW רבא אמר ר"נ taught that if a קנין is made in the presence of two עדים, those עדים may write up a שטר stating that this קנין took place and give it to the beneficiary even though the מקנה (seller, benefactor) did not tell them to write it up as a שטר. Our תוספות clarifies the details of this ruling.

וכותבין בלא רשותו כל זמן שלא חזר בו – And the עדים may write this שטר without his explicit permission as long as he did not retract (and tell the עדים specifically that he does not want this קנין to be written up in a שטר) – ומיהו יכול לחזור בו¹ כדאמרינן לקמן בפרק המוכר את הספינה (דף עז,א) – However he can retract (and prevent the עדים from writing the שטר) as רב states later in פרק המוכר את הספינה; if someone says to עדים – זכו בשדה זו לפלוני² וכתבו לו את השטר³ חוזר בשטר ואינו חוזר בשדה⁴ – ‘Acquire this field on behalf of that person and write a שטר for him that he owns the field’; the grantor may retract regarding the שטר (that the עדים who were זוכה the field on behalf of the recipient cannot write a שטר מתנה that the grantor gave this field to the recipient) however the grantor cannot retract the giving of the field (the field will belong to the קונה albeit without a שטר to prove that it is his). תוספות anticipates a difficulty: והא דאמרינן בריש אף על פי⁵ (כתובות דף נה,א ושם דיבור המתחיל כתובו) – And regarding that which the גמרא states in the beginning of פרק אע"פ, if someone said to עדים – כתובו וחתומו והבו ליה קנו מיניה לא צריך לאימלוכי ביה – ‘Write a שטר מתנה and sign it and give it to the recipient’, if the עדים preformed a קנין חליפין to acquire the property on behalf of the recipient, it is not necessary for the עדים to consult with the grantor.**** It would superficially seem from that גמרא that the reason the עדים need not consult with the grantor regarding writing the שטר is (only) because he told them 'כתובו', otherwise (it seems) the עדים would need to consult with the grantor, not as it seems from our גמרא⁶ – תוספות responds; the reason they do not need to consult with the grantor – לאו דוקא משום דאמר להו כתובו דאפילו לא אמר להו נמי כדאמרינן הכא – Is not specifically because he told the עדים, ‘write it’, for even if he did not tell the עדים ‘write it’, the rule would also be that they do not need to consult him, as the גמרא states here – אלא משום דבעי למימר⁷ לא קנו מיניה צריך לאימלוכי ביה אף על גב דאמר להו כתובו: But rather the reason the גמרא mentions 'כתובו' is because the גמרא wanted to teach us (the concluding rule) that if the עדים did not make a קנין with the grantor, they do need to consult with him again immediately prior to writing the שטר even though he already told them 'כתובו'!

SUMMARY The מקנה may change his mind and prevent the עדים from writing the שטר before it was written.⁸

THINKING IT OVER

1. Is תוספות question from פרק אע"פ⁹ connected to what תוספות stated initially that he may retract as long as the שטר was not written, or is it merely a contradiction between the two גמרות?
2. Can the מקנה prevent the delivery of the שטר to the קונה after it was written,¹⁰ but before it was delivered?¹¹

footnotes: ¹ The מקנה may have his reason why he does not want this transaction to be documented (he does not want it publicized, etc. [see תוספות לקמן עז,א ד"ה חוזר]). ² The עדים give the מקנה a סודר (on behalf of the recipient) and when the מקנה accepts the סודר the ownership of the field is transferred from the מקנה to the קונה through קנין חליפין. The recipient need not even be aware of this transactions, since it is for his benefit and זכין לאדם שלא בפניו, ³ The שטר (in this instance), which will be given to the קונה, will serve (merely) as proof that the קונה owns this field from this date onwards. The acquisition of the field was already accomplished through the קנין חליפין. ⁴ It is evident from this גמרא that even when the קנין חליפין is effective (אינו חוזר בשדה), nevertheless the מקנה can prevent the עדים from writing a שטר should he so desire (חוזר בשטר). ⁵ The גמרא there states: אמר לעדים כתבו וחתמו והבו ליה קנו מיניה לא צריך אימלוכי ביה לא קנו מיני (פומבדיתא אמרי לא צריך אימלוכי ביה) בני מתא מחסיא אמרי צריך אימלוכי ביה והלכתא צריך אימלוכי ביה: ⁶ See ‘Thinking it over # 1’ ⁷ See footnote # 5. ⁸ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ⁹ See footnote # 6. ¹⁰ See footnote # 8. ¹¹ See רשב"ם לקמן עז,א ד"ה חוזר.

קיום שטרות בשלשה—Ratification of notes is with three

OVERVIEW רבא אמר רב נחמן teaches that three people are required to authenticate the signatures of witnesses on a שטר, but two are not sufficient (as opposed to מחאה, מודעה, הודאה, קנין, where two are sufficient). תוספות discusses this ruling.

תוספות anticipates a difficulty: אף על גב דרב נחמן גופיה סבירא ליה בסנהדרין (דף ה,ב) ב' שדנו דיניהם דין – Even though ר"נ himself maintains in מסכת סנהדרין that if two people passed judgment, their ruling is valid, so why do we say here that three are required for קיום שטרות and two will not be acceptable even בדיעבד?!**** תוספות responds: קיום שטרות שאני כדפירש הקונטרס¹ – קיום שטרות is different as the רשב"ם explained why two are unacceptable even בדיעבד – דאי ליכא אלא ב' מה יש בין קיום שטר לשטר שלמעלה הימנו² – For if there are only two who are מקיים the שטר, what difference is there between the קיום השטר (where only two authenticate it) to the actual שטר which is above the קיום which also has two people signed on it, for – הכא תרי חתימי והכא תרי חתימי – For here (by the קיום) two sign and here (by the שטר) also two sign – ודומה לב' עדים ששמעו מפי עדים שלמעלה שהשטר כשר ועד מפי עד פסול – So the קיום appears similar to two witnesses who heard from the two witnesses signed above that the שטר is כשר, but the ruling is that one עד who testifies what he heard from another עד, that testimony is invalid. That is the problem with קיום of two – אבל כשהם ג' ניכר שהם בית דין שהעידו עדים לפניהם על כתב ידם והכשירו השטר – However when the מקיימי השטר are three, it is apparent that they are a בי"ד, in front of whom עדים testified regarding their handwriting, and the three approved the שטר ודומה לפסק דין – So then it is similar to a פס"ד and not merely to an עדות. תוספות anticipates a difficulty: והא דאמרינן בפרק ב' דכתובות (דף כב,א ושם דיבור המתחיל ודלמא) – And that which רב זירא said in the name of ר' אבא in the second פרק of מסכת כתובות – ג' שישבו לקיים את השטר ומת אחד מהן צריכי למיכתב במותב תלתא הוינא וחד ליתוהי – Three דיינים who sat down to be מקיים a שטר and one of them died before he had the chance to sign (so that only the signatures of two דיינים appear on the קיום), it is necessary for them to write, ‘we three were sitting and one (of the three) is no longer here’³ – ואמר רב נחמן⁴ ואי כתב ביה בי דינא תו לא צריך – And ר"נ commented, ‘and if the words 'בי דינא' is written in the קיום it is not necessary anymore to write that initially there were three דיינים, since the term 'בי דינא' indicates that there were three דיינים. The גמרא there asks – ודלמא בית דין חצוף הוא⁵ דאמר שמואל ב' שדנו דיניהן דין – But perhaps it was an ‘audacious’ בי"ד, for שמואל maintains that two דיינים who ruled on a case their ruling stands, however they are considered a בי"ד חצוף. So here too even though the קיום stated בי דינא, it is still possible that it was a בי"ד חצוף of two,⁶ how can we be certain that there were three דיינים initially to be מקיים the שטר. The גמרא answers – דכתב ביה בי דינא דרבנן⁷ דבי רב אשי – That it was written in the קיום that it was performed in the בי"ד of the students in the academy of רב אשי where presumably it was not a בי"ד חצוף. The גמרא continues to ask – ודלמא רבנן דבי רב אשי כשמואל סבירא להו⁸ – **But perhaps the רבנן of דבי רב אשי agree with שמואל (**presumably) that ב' שדנו דיניהם דין (even regarding קיום שטרות)? So how can we be sure that there were three דיינים initially at the קיום process before the signing?! This concludes the citation from the גמרא in כתובות. תוספות responds: The גמרא there – לא ששמואל סובר דקיום שטרות בשנים – Did not mean that שמואל maintains that קיום שטרות can be accomplished with only two דיינים (for presumably שמואל rules like the הלכה which תוספות stated earlier that קיום שטרות requires three דיינים) – אלא הכי פירושא ודלמא רבנן דבי רב אשי סבירא להו בקיום שטרות כדשמואל בעלמא⁹ – But rather this is the explanation of that question mentioned previously, ‘but perhaps the רבנן דבי רב אשי maintain by קיום שטרות that it is the same ruling as שמואל rules elsewhere’; namely that just as שמואל rules elsewhere (but not by קיום שטרות) that ב' שדנו דיניהם דין, similarly the רבנן דבי ר"א maintain that even by קיום שטרות two are sufficient – אבל שמואל מצי סבר שפיר דקיום שטרות בג' – However שמאול may properly maintain the קיום שטרות must be with three – אף על גב דבעלמא ב' שדנו דיניהן דין כמו רב נחמן – Even though that generally (by other cases; not קיום שטרות) the rule is that ב' שדנו דיניהם דין, just like ר"נ who maintains elsewhere ב' שדנו דיניהם דין, but requires three by קיום שטרות. תוספות asks: ואם תאמר דרב נחמן¹⁰ גופיה קאמר בבבא מציעא (דף לא,ב) – And if you will say; but ר"נ himself states in מסכת ב"מ – גבי עובדא דאיסור גיורא ורב ספרא עבוד עסקא וכולי¹¹ – Regarding the episode where איסור גיורא and רב ספרא entered into a business contract, etc.; from sר"נ' statements there – משמע התם דתרי לאו בית דין¹² – It seems that two is not considered a בי"ד and their ruling is invalid – מדקאמר ליה זיל אייתי לי תלתא דפלגת קמייהו אי נמי תרי מגו תלתא¹³ – Since ר"נ told איסור, ‘bring to me the three people in whose presence you divided the assets, or at least two of these three people, so that the two can testify that it was divided under the auspices of a בי"ד of three. תוספות answers: ויש לומר דהתם מיירי דלא עשאן בית דין בפירוש אלא פלג קמייהו בסתם – And one can say; that there it is a case where איסור did not explicitly appoint the two people as a בי"ד, but rather he simply made the division in their presence, without telling them what their designation is – הלכך אי קמי תרי פלג נראה דלעשותן עדים נתכוין – Therefore if he divided the merchandise in the presence of two, it appears that his intention was that they (merely) become witness to this division – ואי קמי תלת פלג נראה דלעשותן בית דין נתכוין¹⁴ – However if he divided in the presence of three, it is apparent that his intention was to make them into a בי"ד; this distinction (between two and three) applies where he was not specific –

However, where he specifically designated them as a בי"ד, (even) two are sufficient, since ר"נ maintains ב' שדנו דיניהם דין.

SUMMARY Even those who maintain ב' שדנו דיניהם דין, nevertheless all agree that קיום שטרות requires three.

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות found it necessary to explain that when the גמרא stated ודלמא רבנן דבי רב אשי כשמואל סבירא להו, it did not mean that שמואל maintains קיום שטרות בב'. Why did not תוספות clarify in the same manner that which the גמרא said previously¹⁵ ודלמא בית דין חצוף הוא דאמר שמואל ב' שדנו דיניהן דין; that it does not mean that שמואל maintains קיום שטרות בב'?!¹⁶
2. The last question¹⁷ of תוספות seems to be a contradiction between ר"נ in ב"מ and ר"נ in סנהדרין; why is תוספות asking this question here?!

footnotes: ¹ See רשב"ם ד"ה קיום. ² The קיום השטר is (generally) written on the bottom under the witnesses’ signatures. ³ This will assure everyone that initially there was a בי"ד of three who were מקיים the שטר, however one of them died before he was able to sign it. ⁴ In our texts in כתובות it reads ר"נ בר יצחק. ⁵ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ⁶ That בי"ד חצוף assumed that קיום שטרות can also be done בשנים; however ‘we’ require three דיינים. ⁷ In our texts there the גירסא is ב"ד דרבנא אשי (not רבנן דבי ר"א). ⁸ It seems from this question that the גמרא understands that ‘we’ maintain קיום שטרות requires three. However even if the קיום states that it was performed in the בי"ד דרבנא אשי, nevertheless since it is possible that those רבנן agree with שמואל (that ב' שדנו דיניהם דין) so therefore they are being מקיים with only two דיינים. The implication of this question is that (the רבנן דבי ר"א and) שמואל maintain that קיום is valid (בדיעבד at least) with only two דיינים. This contradicts what תוספות said previously that even if we maintain ב' שדנו דיניהם דין nevertheless by קיום there must be ג' (even בדיעבד). ⁹ תוספות is willing to accept that (perhaps) the רבנן דבי רב אשי (who were [merely] students in the academy of ר"א) would maintain קיום שטרות בב'. However תוספות reasons that שמואל will certainly agree with the הלכה that קיום שטרות בג' (even though he maintains [as does ר"נ] that ב' שדנו דיניהם דין). ¹⁰ See מסורת הש"ס that in our גמרות in ב"מ the text reads רבה בר רב הונא, and not ר"נ. [See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2.] ¹¹ The case there was that איסור and ר"ס entered into a business partnership. At a certain point איסור divided half the merchandise (under the auspices of two people who assessed its value) and took half for himself (as a partner). ¹² It is an accepted ruling that the division of assets between partners must be assessed by a בי"ד. ¹³ This contradicts what תוספות stated at the very beginning that ר"נ maintains ב' שדנו דיניהם דין. Here ר"נ required three even בדיעבד. ¹⁴ Therefore ר"נ insisted that he bring the (two out of the) three to testify since they were not designated. ¹⁵ See footnote # 5. ¹⁶ See נח"מ. ¹⁷ See footnote # 10.

אמאן דלא ציית דינא כולי—For one who does not comply with a ruling, etc.

OVERVIEW רבה and רב יוסף both ruled that the עדים do not write a מודעא unless the person (who is allegedly accused of forcing the transaction) is one who does not adhere to the ruling of a בי"ד; however if he does adhere to the ruling of בי"ד then the person who is being forced can go directly to בי"ד and tell them what is happening (that he is being coerced) and there is no need for the עדים to write a מודעא.

תוספות asks: תימה מודעא דמאי – It is astounding! What type of מודעא are we discussing – אי דגיטין ודמתנה גלוי מילתא הוא¹ דודאי הוא אנוס בשום ענין שאין יכול לבא לבית דין – If it is a מודעא regarding granting a גט or a gift (which the person is being coerced to grant), there is no reason why we should not write a מודעה since this מודעא is merely revealing something which will become evident, for he is certainly coerced in some fashion which prevents him from coming to בי"ד – ואי דזביני והא אמר רבא² לא כתבינן מודעא אזביני – And if the מודעא is regarding a sale, this cannot be, for רבא ruled that we do not write a מודעא for sales – תוספות anticipates and reject a possible explanation: וכי תימא רבה ורב יוסף לית להו דרבא – And if you will say that רבה ורב יוסף disagree with רבא and maintain that we do write מודעא אזביני – מכל מקום הוה ליה למיפרך ולשנויי כדפריך בסמוך אנהרדעי³ – Nevertheless the גמרא should have asked and answered (regarding what type of מודעא we are discussing⁴) as the גמרא shortly asks on the ruling of נהרדעי! תוספות has an additional difficulty**** (with the proposed resolution of the 'וכי תימא'): ועוד והא אביי ורבא גופייהו דאמרי תרוייהו אפילו עלי ועליך⁵ – And there is an additional difficulty for אביי ורבא themselves both maintain that a מודעא can be written even on me and you (who are ציית לדינא) – אם כן לא איירי במודעא דזביני – Therefore since it is (אביי and) רבא who is responding, it is understood that we are not discussing a מודעא דזביני. The question remains to which מודעא were רבה ור"י referring to. תוספות rejects a possible explanation: וכי ההוא מעשה דפרדיסא⁶ לא שייך הכא דאפילו ציית דינא פשיטא דכתבינן:⁷ And it is not feasible to assume that here we are discussing an incident similar to the story of the orchard, for in such a case it is obvious that even if (the coercer) is ציית דינא, we will write a מודעא. תוספות does not answer his question.⁸

THINKING IT OVER What would be the ruling if there was a מסירת מודעה by גט ומתנה and then it became apparent that there was no אונס; is it a valid גט ומתנה?⁹

footnotes: ¹ On the עמוד ב' the נהרדעי state that a שטר מודעא must state that the undersigned עדים know the nature of the coercion. The גמרא asks that this cannot be applicable by an אונס regarding גיטין ומתנה, for there it is merely a גילוי מילתא that he was an אונס. Regarding a sale where the seller receives money it is necessary to be aware of the אונס, for generally sellers are coerced to sell because they need the money (however this is not considered a proper אונס), therefore the עדים have to verify beforehand that indeed there was a valid coercion which voids the sale. However by גיטין ומתנה (where he receives nothing in return) why is there a need for the עדים to know the coercion; if he was not coerced why is he making a מודעא and why is he granting the גט ומתנה, therefore when he makes the מודעא it means that he is certainly being coerced (and we will all become aware of it) and (similarly here in our discussion) for some reason he cannot go to בי"ד at this point. There is no reason not to write the מודעא even אמאן דציית לדינא. ² See עמוד ב'. (See רשב"ם there ד"ה לא for a detailed explanation.) ³ See footnote # 1. The גמרא asked what type of מודעא are the נהרדעי discussing; if it is regarding גיטין ומתנה it is merely a גילוי מילתא, and it cannot be regarding זביני, since רבא ruled that לא כתבינן מודעא אזביני. The same questions should be posed (and answered) regarding the ruling of רבה ור"י that לא כתבינן מודעא אלא אמאן דלא ציית דינא. ⁴ The גמרא could have answered that רבה ור"י are discussing a מודעא אזביני and they disagree with רבא and maintain כתבינן מודעא אזביני (see מהרש"א). ⁵ אביי ורבא responded to רבה ור"י (disagreeing with them) that a מודעא can be written even on us. This disagreement cannot be regarding גיטין ומתנה for then everyone agrees that we write a מודעא (even אמאן דציית לדינא) since it is merely a גילוי מילתא בעלמא. It cannot be in regards to זביני for then how can (אביי and) רבא say we can write it even on us, when רבא maintains אין כותבין מודעא אזביני! ⁶ See עמוד ב' (and footnote # 1). The גמרא there explained that the ruling of נהרדעי is pertaining to a case similar to מעשה דפרדיסא. The story there is where one mortgaged his פרדס (orchard) for a loan for a period of three years (during which time the lender can eat the fruits for full payment for the loan). After the three years passed the lender told the owner, ‘if you sell me this פרדס, fine and if not I will hide the mortgage note and claim that I bought it from you three years ago and since I have שני חזקה I will keep the field for free’. In such a case the owner had no choice but to sell the field for otherwise he would lose it entirely; in such a case we write a מודעא אזביני even according to רבא. ⁷ Even if the lender (see footnote # 5) is a ציית לדינא, nevertheless what will it help if the owner goes to בי"ד; the מלוה will claim I bought it and have שני חזקה. In such a case we will write a מודעא even אמאן דציית לדינא. ⁸ See בל"י אות שס for possible solutions. ⁹ See בל"י אות שס בד"ה והנה הא.