Commentary for Bava Batra 94:5

קמ"ל כדשמואל דאמר אף בשטר נמי לא קנה עד שיכתוב אחריות נכסים

from the original owner, the purchase is void.' — R. Huna meant to dispute the opinion of Rab, who said [in reference to this statement:] 'This rule was only meant to apply in such a case where the original owner merely said to the purchaser. Go and occupy the field and become the owner; but if he gave him a written deed, then the purchaser acquires ownership.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because this shows apparently that the original owner acquiesces in the transfer and is not acting merely out of fear of the sicarius. R. Huna, however, declares the sale void even if the robber produces a deed. ');">⁹</span> He [R. Huna] therefore tells us that the right opinion is that of Samuel, who said that even [if the original owner gives the purchaser] a written deed, [the latter does not acquire ownership: he] only [does so] if the original owner gives him a lien on the rest of his property.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because only then can we be sure that he acquiesces in the transfer. ');">¹⁰</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Batra 94:5. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.