Bava Batra 94

במגורשת ואינה מגורשת וכדרבי זירא דאמר ר' זירא אמר ר' ירמיה בר אבא אמר שמואל כל מקום שאמרו חכמים מגורשת ואינה מגורשת בעלה חייב במזונותיה

to define the position of the woman who is both divorced and not divorced,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., one to whom the husband has thrown a get, and it is not certain whether it landed nearer to her or to him. v. Git. 74a. ');">¹</span> on account of the dictum of R. Zera, who said in the name of R. Jeremiah b. Abba, who had it from Samuel, that wherever a woman was described by the Sages as being divorced and yet not divorced, the husband is still responsible for her maintenance.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We might think, therefore, but for the ruling above, that she can have no hazakah in her husband's property, as any land she may occupy was assigned to her for her maintenance. ');">²</span>

אמר רב נחמן אמר לי הונא כולן שהביאו ראיה ראייתן ראיה ומעמידין שדה בידן גזלן שהביא ראיה אין ראייתו ראיה ואין מעמידין שדה בידו

R. Nahman said: Huna has informed me that if any one of the classes [mentioned above]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., a craftsman, a metayer, and all the others who are specified as having no hazakah. ');">³</span> brings a proof [that his title to the field is valid].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A deed of sale or witnesses to the sale. ');">⁴</span>

מאי קמ"ל תנינא לקח מסיקריקון וחזר ולקח מבעל הבית מקחו בטל

we accept the proof and confirm their title to the land.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is an obvious statement, only made to lead up to what follows. ');">⁵</span> If, however, a robber adduces proof.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g.. witnesses who testify that he bought the land or that the original owner admitted as much, but not that he handed over the money. ');">⁶</span>

לאפוקי מדרב דאמר רב לא שנו אלא דאמר ליה לך חזק וקני אבל בשטר קנה

we do not accept it and we do not confirm his title to the land. What has he [R. Huna] told us [in this latter clause]? We already know as much from the following Mishnah: 'If a man buys a field from the sicaricon<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Commonly taken to be a corruption of sicarii, non-Jewish brigands who infested Palestine after the war of Bar Cochba; more probably. however (v. Jast., s.v. [H]) a corruption of [G], the Imperial fiscus established in Palestine at that time. The Rabbis ordained that purchases of land from that source were null and void. V. Git. 55. ');">⁷</span> and then buys it again<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., obtains from him a deed of transfer, without, however, paying him money. Git. 55b. ');">⁸</span>

קמ"ל כדשמואל דאמר אף בשטר נמי לא קנה עד שיכתוב אחריות נכסים

from the original owner, the purchase is void.' — R. Huna meant to dispute the opinion of Rab, who said [in reference to this statement:] 'This rule was only meant to apply in such a case where the original owner merely said to the purchaser. Go and occupy the field and become the owner; but if he gave him a written deed, then the purchaser acquires ownership.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because this shows apparently that the original owner acquiesces in the transfer and is not acting merely out of fear of the sicarius. R. Huna, however, declares the sale void even if the robber produces a deed. ');">⁹</span> He [R. Huna] therefore tells us that the right opinion is that of Samuel, who said that even [if the original owner gives the purchaser] a written deed, [the latter does not acquire ownership: he] only [does so] if the original owner gives him a lien on the rest of his property.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because only then can we be sure that he acquiesces in the transfer. ');">¹⁰</span>

ורב ביבי מסיים בה משמיה דרב נחמן קרקע אין לו אבל מעות יש לו במה דברים אמורים שאמרו עדים בפנינו מנה לו אבל אמרו עדים בפנינו הודה לו לא כדרב כהנא דאמר אי לאו דאודי ליה הוה ממטי ליה לדידיה ולחמריה לשחוור

R. Bibi quoted R. Nahman as adding to the statement [which he had made in the name of R. Huna]: Though the robber has no title to the land [which he has forcibly taken], he has a title to the money [which he may have given in consideration of it].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if the robber has given the owner money in payment of the field, when the latter recovers the field he must refund the money. ');">¹¹</span> And this is only the case if witnesses testify: We saw him counting out the money [to the original owner]. but if they merely testify: We heard the original owner admit to him [that he had received money], the robber cannot recover it, for the reason given by R. Kahana, that if he had not made this admission to him the other would have handed him and his ass over to the town prefect.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The admission therefore is presumably false. ');">¹²</span>

אמר רב הונא תליוהו וזבין זביניה זביני מאי טעמא כל דמזבין איניש אי לאו דאניס לא הוה מזבין ואפילו הכי זביניה זביני ודילמא שאני אונסא דנפשיה מאונסא דאחריני אלא כדתניא

R. Huna said: if a man consents to sell something through fear of physical violence<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'If they hang him and he sells.' ');">¹³</span> the sale is valid. Why so? Because whenever a man sells, it is under compulsion.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By shortage of money. ');">¹⁴</span> and even so his sale is valid. But should we not differentiate internal from external compulsion? — [We must] therefore [give another reason], as it has been taught: