Bava Batra 49a — the Talmud in English

And likewise, when witnesses say about a deed of sale that they signed:

“Our statement was a notice of annulment,”

meaning that the seller gave a notice of annulment in their presence before the deed was written or before it was delivered, in order to annul this sale, they

are not believed.

For both witnesses acknowledge that the deed is valid. Since it was signed properly, it is as though they themselves testified in court that this person lent that other person one hundred dinars. When they now seek to invalidate it through their testimony, saying that it was a deed of trust or that a notice of annulment had been given concerning it, this falls under what the Sages derived from the verse, “If he does not testify”: once the witness has testified in court, he may no longer return and testify differently.

If so, in this case as well, Rabba bar bar Ḥana cannot invalidate his testimony in the deed of sale by means of the testimony he gave in the deed recording the notice of annulment, that the seller had given such a notice!?

And we answer:

This applies only

when the witnesses cannot say, “Our statement was a notice of annulment,” except when they say so

orally.

For

once a person has testified, he may no longer return and testify differently,

the later oral statement does not come

afterward

and weaken the deed

that preceded it—

But

when the witnesses wrote this

in a document,

and the signing of the document recording the notice of annulment preceded the signing of the deed of sale, then

the document comes,

the earlier document recording the notice of annulment,

and weakens the deed,

the deed of sale that was written afterward!

As for the substance of the matter, Rav Naḥman said:

Witnesses who said,

“Our statement was that this was a deed of trust,”

are not believed.

And likewise, if they said,

“Our statement was a notice of annulment,” they

are not believed.

Mar bar Rav Ashi said:

Witnesses who said,

“Our statement was that this was a deed of trust,”

are not believed.

But witnesses who said,

“Our statement was a notice of annulment,”

they

are believed.

And we explain:

What is the reason

that testimony concerning a notice of annulment is treated differently from testimony concerning a deed of trust? It is because

this,

a deed concerning which a notice of annulment was given,

may be written

[it is permitted to write it], while

this,

a deed of trust,

may not be written.

It is forbidden to write it, because it is stated, “Do not allow injustice to dwell in your tents,” and the Sages said that the verse refers to a deed of trust held by the lender. Therefore, the witnesses are not believed to say that they signed such a deed, because a person does not declare himself to be wicked.

We learned in the Mishna:

And a man has no presumption of ownership concerning his wife’s property:

And we raise a difficulty: Is it not

obvious

that the husband’s consumption of the produce of his wife’s property does not establish a presumption of ownership!?

For

since he has a right to

the land

for its produce, the produce

belongs to

him, and he is consuming it.

Since, by rabbinic enactment, he has a right to the produce of his wife’s land—because the Sages enacted that a husband consumes the produce of his wife’s property, and this property is called property whose principal remains intact while its produce is used—he is consuming what is his, and the woman does not need to protest. Everyone knows that he entered this land for the purpose of consuming its produce!?

And we answer:

It is necessary

for our Mishna to teach that a man has no presumption of ownership concerning his wife’s property in a case where

he wrote to her

the following:

“I have no legal claim or rights”

[I shall have none]

“in your property,”

and he relinquished his right to consume the produce of her property. Our Mishna teaches us that nevertheless a man has no presumption of ownership concerning his wife’s property, because a woman does not object if he consumes it without legal right!

And we raise a difficulty:

But what difference does it make that he wrote this to her?

Does writing in this wording have legal effect!?

But it was taught in a beraita:

One who says to another person

[to his partner]:

“I have no legal claim or rights”

[I shall have none]

“to this field, I have no involvement with it, and my hands shall be”

“withdrawn from it,”

has said nothing;

because this is not the language of a gift. When he says, “I shall have no share in what belongs to me,” the field necessarily remains his, until he says, “My field is given to you,” or “My field is sold to you,” or “My field is declared ownerless for anyone who wishes to take it.”

The scholars of the academy of Rabbi Yannai said

[they answered in Rabbi Yannai’s academy]:

Our Mishna

[our Mishna]

is speaking of one who writes to her:

“I have no legal claim or rights in your property or in its produce”

while she is still betrothed,

when she is betrothed and he has not yet acquired the right to her property’s produce, which he acquires only at the time of marriage. In this case it is appropriate to say, “I shall have none,” because the matter is still in his hands; one cannot confer a benefit upon a person against his will—

And this is in accordance with the statement of Rav Kahana,

who said that a person can relinquish a right granted to him by the Sages as long as it has not yet come into his possession!

For Rav Kahana said: