Bava Batra 97

Chapter 97

א אין נאמנים מודעא היו דברינו אין נאמנין
1 accepted. Also if the witnesses to a deed [of sale] say, We only wrote [under reservation of] a moda'ah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., before signing the deed, we ascertained that the seller was selling under duress and intended to annul the sale. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב הני מילי על פה דלא אתי על פה ומרעא לשטרא אבל בשטרא אתי שטרא ומרעא לשטרא
2 their word is not accepted!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the bond or deed of sale is still valid. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ג גופא אמר רב נחמן אמנה היו דברינו אין נאמנין מודעא היו דברינו אין נאמנין
3 — This is the case where they make a verbal statement to this effect, because a verbal statement cannot invalidate a written deed, but if they write a deed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As here, where the moda'ah was recorded in writing before the sale took place. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ד ומר בר רב אשי אמר אמנה היו דברינו אין נאמנין מודעא היו דברינו נאמנין מאי טעמא שזה ניתן ליכתב וזה לא ניתן ליכתב:
4 then one deed can invalidate another.
ה ולא לאיש חזקה בנכסי אשתו וכו': פשיטא כיון דאית ליה לפירא פירא הוא דקאכיל
5 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>
ו לא צריכא דכתב לה דין ודברים אין לי בנכסייך
6 THE HUSBAND HAS NO <i>HAZAKAH</i> IN THE PROPERTY OF HIS WIFE. Surely this is self-evident? Since he has a right to the produce [of the wife's field,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though the wife remains legal owner of the field itself. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ז וכי כתב לה מאי הוי והתניא האומר לחבירו דין ודברים אין לי על שדה זו ואין לי עסק בה וידי מסולקות ממנה לא אמר כלום
7 therefore, however long he occupies it we say that] he is merely taking the produce?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And he cannot plead that she sold it to him. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ח אמרי לה דבי רבי ינאי מתניתין בכותב לה ועודה ארוסה וכדרב כהנא דאמר רב כהנא
8 — The rule required to be stated for the case in which he has made a written declaration that he has no right or claim to her property.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore if we see him in occupation of a field that was hers, the presumption is that he bought it. ');"><sup>7</sup></span> But suppose he has done so, what difference does it make, seeing that it has been taught, If a man says to another, I have no right or claim to this field, I have no concern in it, I totally dissociate myself from it, his words are of no effect?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Supra 43a. ');"><sup>8</sup></span> — In the school of R. Jannai the answer was given that the Mishnah here [is referring to the case] where the husband made this declaration to the wife while she was still only betrothed to him; [and such a declaration would be valid] in virtue of the dictum of R. Kahana