Commentary for Bava Batra 97:5
ולא לאיש חזקה בנכסי אשתו וכו': פשיטא כיון דאית ליה לפירא פירא הוא דקאכיל
The preceding text states that R. Nahman said: If the witnesses [to a bond] say, We only wrote it [under cover of] an amanah, their word is not accepted, and if the witnesses [to a deed] say, We wrote [it under the reservation of] a moda'ah, their word is not accepted. Mar son of R. Ashi, however, says that if they say, We only wrote [it] under cover of an amanah, their word is not accepted, but if they say, We wrote [under the reservation of] a moda'ah, their word is accepted. The reason is that it is proper to commit to writing a moda'ah, but it is not proper to commit to writing an amanah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An amanah was looked upon by the Rabbis as contrary to equity, and they therefore denounced anyone who kept a bond of this kind in his house for twenty-four hours. Hence if the witnesses say they wrote a bond of amanah, their word is not accepted, since a man is not allowed to condemn himself. To write a moda'ah, however, is perfectly legitimate, and therefore if they say they signed the deed of sale under reservation of a moda'ah, their word is accepted. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
Explore commentary for Bava Batra 97:5. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.