Bava Batra 96

בשדה סתם אבל בשדה זו לא

if he is forced to sell 'a' field,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if he is called upon merely to sell one of his fields, and is allowed to choose which, because in that case we can say that the sale is not unwelcome to him. ');">¹</span> but if he is forced to sell 'this'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., one which his torturers specify, and which perhaps he particularly wished to keep for himself. ');">²</span>

ובשדה זו נמי לא אמרן אלא דלא ארצי זוזי אבל ארצי זוזי לא

field, it is not valid. And again even if he is forced to sell 'this' field, the sale is not valid only if he has not counted out the money [received in payment], but if he does count out the money, the sale is valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because by the act of counting out the money he shows that he is satisfied with the transaction. ');">³</span> And again, [even in the case of 'this' field and even if he did not count out the money] the sale is not valid only if it was not possible for him to wriggle out of it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., by saying to the other 'wait till tomorrow' or 'wait till my wife comes' (Rashb.). ');">⁴</span>

ולא אמרן אלא דלא הוה לאישתמוטי אבל הוה ליה לאישתמוטי לא

but if he did have a chance to wriggle out of it [and did not do so], then it is valid. [In spite, however, of this statement of Raba,] the accepted ruling is that in all these cases the sale is valid, even in the case of 'this' field, for the betrothal of a woman is analogous to the buying of 'this' field,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the woman may be regarded as selling herself to the betrother, who is intent on her alone. ');">⁵</span> and yet Amemar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V.l. 'A master said'. ');">⁶</span>

והלכתא בכולהו דהוו זביניה זביני ואפילו בשדה זו דהא אשה כשדה זו דמיא ואמר אמימר תליוה וקדיש קדושיו קדושין

has laid down that if a woman consents to betroth herself under pressure of physical violence, the betrothal is valid. Mar son of R. Ashi, however, said: In the case of the woman the betrothal is certainly not valid; he treated the woman cavalierly<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'not as it beseems'. ');">⁷</span> and therefore the Rabbis treat him cavalierly and nullify his betrothal. Rabina said to R. Ashi: We can understand the Rabbis doing this if he betrothed her with money,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Betrothal could be effected in three ways — by a money gift, by written deed, and by actual intercourse (Kid. ad init.). ');">⁸</span>

מר בר רב אשי אמר באשה ודאי קדושין לא הוו הוא עשה שלא כהוגן לפיכך עשו עמו שלא כהוגן ואפקעינהו רבנן לקידושיה מיניה

but if he betrothed her by means of intercourse, how can they nullify the act?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he gave her money, they can declare the money common property, so that the gift was no gift, but they cannot say that the intercourse was no intercourse. ');">⁹</span> — He replied: The Rabbis declared his intercourse to be fornication.

אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי תינח דקדיש בכספא קדיש בביאה מאי איכא למימר אמר ליה שויוה רבנן לבעילתו בעילת זנות

One Taba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A notorious ruffian. ');">¹⁰</span> tied a certain Papi to a tree<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to another rendering, 'Tied Papi up on account of an artichoke (to make him sell it).' V. Levy, s.v. [H] ');">¹¹</span>

טאבי תלא לפאפי אכינרא וזבין חתם רבה בר בר חנה אמודעא ואאשקלתא אמר רב הונא מאן דחתים אמודעא שפיר חתים ומאן דחתים אאשקלתא שפיר חתים

[and kept him there] till he sold [his field to him]. Subsequently Rabbah b. Bar Hanah signed as a witness both to a moda'ah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'notification': a declaration by a person about to make a sale that the sale is made under duress and that he intends to claim the thing sold as soon as possible. V. supra 40a. ');">¹²</span> [issued by Papi] and to a deed of sale [of the field]. R. Huna [on hearing of it] said: He who signed the moda'ah acted quite properly and he who signed the deed of sale acted quite properly. How can both be right?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'What is your desire'? ');">¹³</span>

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>

איני והא"ר נחמן העדים שאמרו אמנה היו דברינו

seeing that R. Nahman has said: If the witnesses [to a bond<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Given by a borrower to a lender. ');">¹⁶</span> ] say [subsequently], We only wrote [the bond under cover of] an amanah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'our words were only an amanah' (lit., 'assurance'). An amanah was an assurance given to a debtor who signed a bond without receiving money that the creditor would not enforce it unless he actually lent him the money. ');">¹⁷</span> their word is not