Commentary for Bava Batra 96:8

מה נפשך אי מודעא לא אשקלתא ואי אשקלתא לא מודעא הכי קאמר אי לאו מודעא מאן דחתים אאשקלתא שפיר חתים רב הונא לטעמיה דאמר רב הונא תליוהו וזבין זביניה זביני

If [it was right to sign] the moda'ah it was not [right to sign] the deed of sale, and if [it was right to sign] the deed of sale it was not [right to sign] the moda'ah? — What he [R. Huna] meant was this: Had it not been for the moda'ah, the one who signed the deed of sale would have acted rightly.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But Rabbah b. Bar Hana, having signed the moda'ah, had no right to sign the bill of sale, since he had already in advance declared it to be invalid. ');">¹⁴</span> R. Huna is thus consistent with the opinion expressed by him [elsewhere]. For R. Huna said that a sale extorted by physical violence is valid. But this is not so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the moda'ah could not really invalidate the bill of sale. ');">¹⁵</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Batra 96:8. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.