בבא בתרא דף מ

ואין צריך לומר ״כתובו״; מודעא – בפני שנים, ואין צריך לומר ״כתובו״;

and the prior owner does not need to say to the witnesses: Write a document detailing the protest; they can write one even absent a directive. Similarly, one who desires to state a declaration, preemptively invalidating a bill of sale by notifying the court that it was executed under duress, needs to state the declaration in the presence of two witnesses, and he does not need to say to them: Write a document detailing the declaration; they can write one even absent a directive.

הודאה – בפני שנים, וצריך לומר ״כתובו״; קנין – בפני שנים, ואינו צריך לומר ״כתובו״; וקיום שטרות בשלשה;

The Gemara continues with the statement of Rava: An admission of a monetary obligation needs to be stated in the presence of two witnesses, and in this case, the one stating the admission needs to say to the witnesses: Write a document detailing the admission, as this document is to his detriment; they may not write one absent a directive. Acquisition by means of a symbolic act utilizing a cloth needs to be done in the presence of two witnesses, and the parties do not need to say to the witnesses: Write a document detailing the acquisition; they can write one even absent a directive. And ratification of legal documents needs to be done by means of three people.

סימן – ממה״ק.

The Gemara presents a mnemonic for the cases discussed above: Mem, protest [meḥa’a]; mem, declaration [moda’a]; heh, admission [hoda’a]; kuf, acquisition [kinyan].

אמר רבא: אי קשיא לי, הא קשיא לי – האי קנין, היכי דמי? אי כמעשה בית דין דמי, ליבעי תלתא! אי לא כמעשה בית דין דמי,

Rava now discusses the statement of Rav Naḥman that he quoted. Rava said: If any part of this statement is difficult to me, this is what is difficult to me. This acquisition, what is it like? If it is like an act of the court, it should require three witnesses for it to take effect, as a court must consist of at least three men. If it is not like an act of the court, why does he not have to say to the witnesses that they should write the document detailing the acquisition? Isn’t transferring an item to another tantamount to admitting a monetary obligation?

אמאי אינו צריך לומר ״כתובו״?

בתר דבעי, הדר פשטא: לעולם לאו כמעשה בית דין דמי; והכא, טעמא מאי דאינו צריך לומר ״כתובו״ – משום דסתם קנין לכתיבה עומד.

After Rava raised the dilemma, he then resolves it. Actually, it is not considered like an act of the court. And here, what is the reason that he does not have to say to the witnesses that they should write? It is due to the fact that a record of an unspecified acquisition is ready to be written. A symbolic act of acquisition indicates one’s intention to do everything possible to finalize the transaction as soon as possible without waiting for the actual transfer of the item. Therefore, it is assumed that the parties would desire that a document be written, and no explicit authorization is necessary.

רבה ורב יוסף דאמרי תרוייהו: לא כתבינן מודעא, אלא אמאן דלא ציית דינא. אביי ורבא דאמרי תרוייהו: אפילו עלי ועליך. אמרי נהרדעי: כל מודעא

§ The Gemara discusses the halakhot of a preemptive declaration. Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: We write a preemptive declaration only concerning one who does not generally listen to and implement the judgment of the court. In such a case, there is no recourse other than to write a preemptive declaration on behalf of the seller nullifying the transaction. If the buyer would be willing to listen to the court, the seller is expected to deal with the matter in court, rather than participating in the sale and writing a preemptive declaration. Abaye and Rava both say: A preemptive declaration may be written even concerning someone who is law abiding, such as for me and for you, as not every issue can be settled through the courts. The Sages of Neharde’a say: Any preemptive declaration

דלא כתיב בה: ״אנן ידעינן ביה באונסא דפלניא״ – לאו מודעא היא.

that does not have written in it the formulation: We are aware of so-and-so’s duress, i.e., we are aware of the nature of the coercion that forced him to enter this arrangement against his will, is not a valid preemptive declaration.

מודעא דמאי? אי דגיטא ודמתנתא – גלויי מילתא בעלמא היא! ואי דזביני, והאמר רבא: לא כתבינן מודעא אזביני!

For what type of transaction is the preemptive declaration being stated? If one were to say that it is a preemptive declaration for a bill of divorce or for a gift, the preemptive declaration is merely revealing the matter. Since these actions can’t take place unless he desires it, it is sufficient that he stated that he does not desire them, and he need not specify a particular reason for nullifying them. And if it is for a sale, but doesn’t Rava say: We do not write a preemptive declaration for a sale?

לעולם דזביני; מודי רבא היכא דאניס – וכמעשה דפרדיסא; דההוא גברא דמשכין פרדיסא לחבריה לתלת שנין. בתר דאכלה תלת שני חזקה, אמר: אי מזבנת לי – מוטב,

The Gemara answers: Actually, it is referring to a preemptive declaration for a sale, as Rava concedes in a case where one was compelled to act due to a threat of monetary loss, as with the incident of the orchard, as there was a certain man who mortgaged his orchard to another for three years. After he worked and profited from it for the three years necessary for establishing the presumption of ownership, he said: If you sell the orchard to me, it is well. And if not, then I will hide the mortgage document and I will say that this land is purchased and that is why it is in my possession, and you will receive no payment for the orchard. In a case like this, we write a preemptive declaration. The declaration states that he does not actually desire to sell his property but was forced to do so.

ואי לא – כבישנא לשטר משכנתא, ואמינא: ״לקוחה היא בידי״. כהאי גוונא כתבינן מודעא.

אמר רב יהודה: האי מתנתא טמירתא – לא מגבינן בה. היכי דמי מתנתא טמירתא? אמר רב יוסף, דאמר להו לסהדי: ״זילו אטמורו וכתבו ליה״. ואיכא דאמרי:

§ Rav Yehuda says: With regard to this document detailing a concealed gift, we do not collect with it. The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of a concealed gift? Rav Yosef said: It is referring to a case in which the giver said to witnesses: Go and hide and write a document for the recipient of this gift. And there are those who say that Rav Yosef said: It is referring to a case in which the giver did not say to witnesses: Sit outdoors in the marketplace and write it for him. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between the two versions of Rav Yosef’s statement? The Gemara answers: The difference between the two versions is in a case where his instructions were without specification, i.e., he did not tell them to write the document in private or in public.

אמר רב יוסף, דלא אמר להו: ״תיתבו בשוקא ובבריתא ותכתבו ליה״. מאי בינייהו? איכא בינייהו סתמא.

אמר רבא: והויא מודעא לחברתה. אמר רב פפא: הא דרבא – לאו בפירוש איתמר, אלא מכללא איתמר.

Rava said: But a concealed gift is effective as a preemptive declaration for another gift. In other words, if he first gave an item as a concealed gift to one person, and then he gave this item as a gift to someone else, the second gift is null and void. Rav Pappa said: This ruling of Rava was not stated explicitly; rather, it was stated by inference, and he did not, in fact, hold accordingly.

דההוא גברא דאזל לקדושי אתתא, אמרה ליה: ״אי כתבת לי כולהו נכסיך – הוינא לך, ואי לא – לא הוינא לך״. אזל כתביה לה לכולהו נכסי.

Rav Pappa explains the inference: As there was a certain man who went to betroth a woman. She said to him: If you write a document signing over all of your property to me, then I will be your wife, and if not, I will not be your wife. He went and wrote a document signing over all of his property to her. His eldest son came and said to him: And that man, i.e., me, what will become of him if you give all of your property to this woman? The father said to two witnesses: Go hide in Avar Yemina and write a document for the son, giving him the father’s property as a gift. Later, the witnesses came before Rava. He said to them: This Master, i.e., the son, did not acquire the property and that Master, i.e., the wife, did not acquire it either. The son did not acquire the property because it was a concealed gift.

אתא בריה קשישא, אמר ליה: ״וההוא גברא – מה תהוי עליה?״ אמר להו לסהדי: ״זילו אטמורו בעבר ימינא, וכתבו ליה״. אתו לקמיה דרבא, אמר להו: לא מר קנה,

ולא מר קנה.

מאן דחזא, סבר – משום דהויא מודעא לחברתה. ולא היא; התם – מוכחא מילתא דמחמת אונסא הוא דכתב לה; אבל הכא – מר ניחא ליה דליקני,

The Gemara explains why the wife does not acquire it as well. One who observed this incident assumed that Rava invalidated the wife’s acquisition because the concealed gift to his son was a preemptive declaration to the other gift, but that is not so. There, in the case of the woman and the son, the matter is self-evident that he wrote a document signing over his property to her because of duress, as she had told him that she would not marry him otherwise; but here, in a typical case of giving one person a concealed gift and then giving a public gift to another, that is not the case. It is possible that it is simply amenable to him that this Master, i.e., the one to whom he gave it publicly, should acquire the gift, and it is not amenable to him that this Master, i.e., the one to whom he gave it privately, should acquire the gift. Consequently, an incorrect inference was drawn concerning Rava’s opinion.

ומר לא ניחא ליה דליקני.

איבעיא להו:

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: