The LB Sit edition presents an audio series on the Talmud Bavli, specifically focusing on the tractate Masechet Bava Batra. This tractate, the longest in the Shas by page count, is dedicated by our esteemed friend and pioneering Daf Yomi Shiur student, Aaron Ezra, may Hashem protect and sustain him, Amen. This dedication is for the success of his dear children, that they may grow to bring him much Nachat, and be blessed with Chochma, Binah, and Vadaat. With the help of Hashem, they should merit, at the right time, the proper Zivugim and Parnassa, along with wealth and honor, from now and forever, Amen. Today’s study of Daf Mem Chet is in memory of Avraham ben Ester and Sara bat Regina Malka, may their souls be at rest in the Garden of Eden, Amen.
We begin today's Daf on Mem Zayin Amud Bet, starting five lines from the bottom. Rav Huna stated, “Talyuhu u-zavin zabineh zabineh.” This refers to a situation where a person literally hangs his friend up to force him to sell something against his will. In this case, the seller has paid, and according to Rav Huna's opinion, once payment is made, the sale is valid. However, one might ask, what is the logic behind this? If the person is under duress, how can we consider the sale legitimate? What is the reasoning here?
Rav Huna explains: “Kol de-mizaben inish, if he wasn’t under some pressure, he wouldn’t sell.” This means that every sale involves some level of pressure; people do not generally want to sell their properties unless compelled by necessity. Even if the seller is under duress, the sale remains valid. The Gemara challenges this notion, asking whether there is a difference between self-imposed pressure and external pressure. When a person sells due to their own need, they may still be making a conscious decision, whereas external coercion might invalidate the sale.
The Gemara provides a proof from a verse regarding offerings to the Beit Hamikdash. The verse states “Yakriv oto,” which implies that a person can be compelled to bring offerings. The Rashbam notes that this phrase is superfluous since the term “Yakrivenu” was already used. This teaches that a person can be forced to fulfill their vow, yet it must be done willingly. The Gemara asserts that when someone is under duress but ultimately complies, it is still considered a voluntary act.
Nonetheless, the Gemara argues that this proof may not apply to sales, as the motivation for bringing offerings is the promise of atonement. In contrast, a sale does not provide such a benefit, raising the question of whether coercion alone is enough to validate the transaction. The Gemara then cites the case of a get, where a husband can be forced to grant a divorce. The Gemara states that he must say, “I want,” to validate the get. This demonstrates that even under duress, if the person ultimately complies, it can still be considered a valid act.
However, the Gemara notes a distinction: the impetus for a get may be considered a mitzvah to follow the sages' instructions. If a sale lacks this element of obligation, the coerced sale might not be valid. The Gemara concludes that the reasoning is ultimately a matter of logic: under duress, a person may still willingly sell if it alleviates their suffering, thus validating the transaction.
Rav Yehuda poses a question regarding a coerced get, stating that if a get me'useh is issued in Israel, it is valid, while if it is issued by a non-Jew, it is invalid. This indicates that even if the husband states he wants to grant the get, the coercion by a non-Jew renders it invalid. The Gemara discusses whether the coercion itself can be equated to a voluntary act in the context of a sale.
The Gemara continues by examining a case involving a thief who sold a field. If the buyer later approaches the original owner and offers to pay, the sale is invalid. The question arises: if the buyer was under pressure from the thief, should the sale not still be recognized as valid? The Gemara clarifies that this only applies when the seller was instructed to sell a specific field. However, if the seller had a choice and willingly chose which field to sell, the sale is valid.
Further distinctions are made regarding whether the seller counted the money or if they had the opportunity to delay the sale. If the seller could have stalled the transaction but chose not to, this indicates a willingness to proceed with the sale. The Gemara concludes that in cases of coercion, the sale remains valid if the seller had control over the choice of the item sold, even if they were under pressure.
Ultimately, the Gemara states that in all cases of coercion, if payment is made, the sale is valid. Rav Huna emphasizes that this principle applies specifically to the sale of a field, provided the seller had the autonomy to choose which field to sell. The Gemara concludes with the assertion that even a specific field, under duress, can still result in a valid sale, drawing parallels to the case of a woman under coercion during marriage.
The discussion leads to a debate about the validity of marriages conducted under duress. Mar bar Rav Ashi contends that forced marriages are not valid, as they contradict the principles of proper conduct. The Gemara affirms that the sages have the authority to annul such marriages retroactively, as they are not conducted in accordance with the law.
As the Gemara wraps up, it reiterates the established principles regarding sales and coercion, confirming that a sale remains valid even under pressure, provided certain conditions are met. The conversation highlights the intricate balance between coercion, autonomy, and the validity of transactions in Jewish law.