Study Bava Batra folio 40A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
ואין צריך לומר ״כתובו״; מודעא – בפני שנים, ואין צריך לומר ״כתובו״;
and the prior owner does not need to say to the witnesses: Write a document detailing the protest; they can write one even absent a directive. Similarly, one who desires to state a declaration, preemptively invalidating a bill of sale by notifying the court that it was executed under duress, needs to state the declaration in the presence of two witnesses, and he does not need to say to them: Write a document detailing the declaration; they can write one even absent a directive.
הודאה – בפני שנים, וצריך לומר ״כתובו״; קנין – בפני שנים, ואינו צריך לומר ״כתובו״; וקיום שטרות בשלשה;
The Talmud continues with the statement of Rava: An admission of a monetary obligation needs to be stated in the presence of two witnesses, and in this case, the one stating the admission needs to say to the witnesses: Write a document detailing the admission, as this document is to his detriment; they may not write one absent a directive. Acquisition by means of a symbolic act utilizing a cloth needs to be done in the presence of two witnesses, and the parties do not need to say to the witnesses: Write a document detailing the acquisition; they can write one even absent a directive. And ratification of legal documents needs to be done by means of 3 people.
סימן – ממה״ק.
The Talmud presents a mnemonic for the cases discussed above: Mem, protest [meḥa’a]; mem, declaration [moda’a]; heh, admission [hoda’a]; kuf, acquisition [kinyan].
אמר רבא: אי קשיא לי, הא קשיא לי – האי קנין, היכי דמי? אי כמעשה בית דין דמי, ליבעי תלתא! אי לא כמעשה בית דין דמי, אמאי אינו צריך לומר ״כתובו״?
Rava now discusses the statement of Rav Naḥman that he quoted. Rava said: If any part of this statement is difficult to me, this is what is difficult to me. This acquisition, what is it like? If it is like an act of the court, it should require 3 witnesses for it to take effect, as a court must consist of at least 3 men. If it is not like an act of the court, why does he not have to say to the witnesses that they should write the document detailing the acquisition? Isn’t transferring an item to another tantamount to admitting a monetary obligation?