Commentary for Bava Batra 98:5

הא איתמר עלה אמר רבה בר רב הונא לא נצרכה אלא באותן שלש שדות אחת שכתב לה בכתובתה

and then buys it again from the wife, the purchase [from the wife] Is void?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Git. 55b. ');">⁹</span> This shows that she can say: I merely consented in order to oblige my husband, and cannot she say here also that she merely wished to oblige her husband? — The truth is that this [Mishnah] has been qualified by the gloss of Rabbah son of R. Huna: The rule really required to be stated in reference to those three fields [that are specially allotted to her]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If she refuses to sell these, the husband cannot reasonably take offence, and therefore but for the rule just stated we might think that if she does give her consent the sale is valid. — The argument runs on, and the reply to the question comes at the end. ');">¹⁰</span> — one that the husband inserted In the <i>kethubah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a special security for her kethubah, apart from the general security effected on the whole of his property. ');">¹¹</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Batra 98:5. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.