Bava Batra 48b (מח:) — the Talmud in English

And this statement was said only

that if they coerced him and he sold, his sale is a valid sale,

but

only

in

the circumstance in which they coerced him to sell

an unspecified field,

without designating which field he was required to sell, and he himself chose one field and sold it. Since they gave him the option of choosing the field, he chooses the worst field, thereby revealing that he is amenable to selling it because of its inferior quality.

But if they

coerced him regarding

this field

[a specific field]—

no,

according to Rava, his sale is not a valid sale.

And

even

with regard to “

this field,”

as well, this statement was said

that it is not a sale

only when he did not count

that is, the owner did not count

the money,

the money he received from the coercer, thereby revealing that he was not interested in the sale.

But

if he

counted

the owner counted

the money—

we do not

say that the sale does not take effect; rather, the sale does take effect!

And this statement was said

that when it was “this field” and he did not count the money, the sale does not take effect,

only

in a situation

in which he had no way to evade it,

meaning that the seller had no possibility of evading the sale.

But

if the seller

did have

the possibility

of evading it

from the coercer—for example, he could have said to the coercer: Wait for me until tomorrow or until my wife comes, but he did not do so—

we do not

say that the sale does not take effect; rather, the sale takes effect! But the Gemara’s conclusion is:

And the halakha is—

in all of these cases,

even when he did not count the money and even when he could not evade it,

that his sale is a valid sale, even with regard to “

this field”—

for

since

a woman,

when a man coerces her to become betrothed to him against her will, is like “

this field,”

as it resembles it,

since he coerces her to become betrothed specifically to him and does not leave her the choice of to whom she will become betrothed,

and

nevertheless

Ameimar said: If one coerces

a woman

and betroths

her—

the betrothal is valid.

Mar bar Rav Ashi said: In the case of a woman,

when he coerces her and betroths her,

the betrothal is certainly not valid—

and this is not a matter of law; rather, it is a rabbinic enactment, because

he acted improperly

by coercing her to become betrothed to him.

Therefore, the Sages treated him

the Sages

improperly,

not in accordance with Torah law,

and the Sages annulled the betrothal for him.

The Sages annulled the betrothal from him.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: This works out

where

he betrothed her with money

[when he coerced her and betrothed her with money], since it is entirely appropriate to say that the Sages rendered the betrothal money ownerless, as “the renunciation of the court is renunciation,” and consequently the betrothal does not take effect, since the money is no longer his. But if he coerced her and

betrothed her through intercourse, what can be said!?

He said to him,

Rav Ashi said to Ravina:

The Sages rendered his intercourse intercourse for licentious purposes!

There was an incident involving

Tavi,

who was a violent man,

who had Pappi hung on a carob tree and sold

[he hung a man named Pappi on a tree called a carob tree, and Pappi sold his field to Tavi]!

Pappi delivered a declaration of annulment, stating that he had sold only because of coercion, but that he had no desire to sell.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana signed

along with another person, for Pappi,

the declaration

[the declaration that Pappi had delivered before the deed of sale was written].

And

Rabba bar bar Ḥana also signed

the deed of sale

[the deed of sale].

Rav Huna said: One who signs the declaration has signed properly

[one who signed the declaration acted properly], meaning, the declaration that he delivered was effective in annulling the sale. And

one who signs the deed of sale has also signed properly.

That is, even the signature on the deed was effective in validating the sale!

And we raise an objection: But

what is your reasoning!?

If it is the declaration, there is no deed,

if the declaration is effective in annulling the sale, the deed cannot be effective in validating it

; and if it is the deed, there is no declaration,

and if the deed is effective in validating the sale, the declaration is not effective in annulling it!?

And we answer:

This is what he is saying: If not for

Pappi’s having delivered

the declaration, one who signed the deed of sale would have signed properly.

That is: Had the declaration concerning this sale not been signed, the deed of acquisition would have been valid, despite the fact that Pappi had been coerced—

because

Rav Huna

follows

his own reasoning

[his own position],

as Rav Huna said: If they coerce him and he sells, his sale is a valid sale.

And we raise an objection:

Is that so?

That is, how did the declaration signed by Rabba bar bar Ḥana annul the deed of sale that he himself had signed?

But did Rabbi Naḥman not say: The witnesses who

signed a loan document and

said

later:

“Our words were a document of trust

”—that when we signed the document, we signed it in the borrower’s possession, as he had them sign a document so that it would be ready in his possession whenever he wished to borrow, and he gave the document to the lender even before he borrowed, because he trusted the lender not to demand the debt from him until he lent him the money,

are not deemed credible.