Ketubot 83B

בעורר. אבל בעומד, מגופה של קרקע קנו מידו.

in the case of one who immediately objects when the other comes to claim the portion he was promised, saying that he wrote what he did only in order to avoid a quarrel. However, in the case of one who waits while the other takes possession of the land before regretting his decision and requesting its return, the halakha is that one acquired from him the land itself, as he cannot retract his statement at this late stage.

אמר אמימר: הלכתא, מגופה של קרקע קנו מידו. אמר ליה רב אשי לאמימר: בעורר או בעומד? למאי נפקא מינה, לכדרב יוסף. אמר ליה: לא שמיע לי. כלומר: לא סבירא לי.

Ameimar said: The halakha is that one acquired from him the land itself. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: Do you mean to teach this halakha with regard to one who immediately objects or with regard to one who waits? The Talmud comments: With regard to what opinion is there a practical difference? There is a difference according to Abaye’s explanation of the opinion of Rav Yosef. However, according to Rav Naḥman, in either case the other retains possession of the land. Ameimar said to him: I did not hear about Abaye’s explanation of the opinion of Rav Yosef. That is to say, I do not hold in accordance with it. I do not distinguish between these two cases.

אם כן למה כתב לה וכו׳. ותימא ליה: מכל מילי סליקת נפשך! אמר אביי: יד בעל השטר על התחתונה.

§ The Mishnah taught that if a husband says: I have no claim to your property, then he has not relinquished his right to benefit from the produce of the property or to inherit from his wife. The Mishnah asks: If this is so, and he still retains his rights, why would he write for her: I have no legal dealings or involvement with your property, and explains that his statement grants her permission to sell the property if she so wishes? The Talmud asks: And why does the wife not say to him: You removed yourself from everything? He wrote a general statement, which could be understood as a renouncement of all of his rights. Abaye said: There is a principle that the owner of the document is at a disadvantage. A document is always interpreted as narrowly as possible, to impose only the most limited obligations. Therefore, in this case, the husband is assumed to have relinquished only some of his rights.