OUTLINES OF HALACHOS FROM THE DAF
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
1) A GAZLAN WHO BOUGHT PROPERTY
1. (Rav Nachman citing Rav Huna): If a Gazlan (robber)
brings a proof, we do not accept it, and we do not
establish him to be the owner.
2. Question: A Mishnah teaches this!
i. (Mishnah): If Levi bought a field from an
extortionist, then bought it from the real
owner (Shimon), his purchase is void.
3. Answer: Rav Nachman teaches that the Halachah is
unlike Rav. Rather, the Halachah follows Shmuel.
i. (Rav): The Mishnah discusses when Shimon told
Levi to acquire through Chazakah, but if Shimon
wrote a document, Levi acquires.
4. (Rav Bivi citing Rav Nachman): If a Gazlan brings a
proof, we do not establish him to own the land, but
he gets back the money he paid.
ii. (Shmuel): Even if he wrote a document, Levi
acquires only if Shimon wrote in the document
that he accepts Achrayus (to compensate him if
the land is legally taken from him).
5. This is if witnesses testify that the Gazlan paid.
If they only saw the owner admit that he was paid,
the Gazlan get his money, like Rav Kahana taught;
i. (Rav Kahana): The owner admitted to the Gazlan
out of fear lest the Gazlan be Moser him and
6. Question: Rav Bivi is unlike Rav Huna, who taught
that if Reuven hung Shimon until Shimon agreed to
sell his property, the sale is valid.
7. Answer: Rav Huna argues with Rav Bivi.
8. Rava: The Halachah is, if Levi hung Shimon until he
agreed to sell a field, the sale is valid. If he
asked for a specific field, it is invalid, i.e. if
Shimon did not count the money, and Shimon had no
way to evade Levi. If not, it is valid.
9. The Halachah is, in all cases the sale is valid,
even for a specific field, for it is like Ameimar's
law of Kidushin (in which the woman gets no choice):
i. (Ameimar): If Levi hung Leah until Leah agreed
to accept Kidushin from him, the Kidushin is
1. Rif and Rosh (3:50): Rav Bivi said that if a Gazlan
brings a proof, he does not keep the land, but he
gets back what he paid, i.e. if witnesses saw him
pay. If they only saw the owner admit that he was
paid, perhaps he admitted out of fear lest the
Gazlan be Moser him and his property. This is when
he made a Moda'ah beforehand. If not, even though he
was coerced, it is a sale. The Halachah follows Rav
Huna, who says that a sale through coercion is
i. Nimukei Yosef (DH Ein): Even if the Gazlan's
document says that the seller received the
money, it is invalid. One who comes due to the
Gazlan (he bought from him, or received a gift
or inheritance) does not keep the land. Shmuel
says that Achrayus is a proof, for a Gazlan is
particular only about a document, but not about
Achrayus. If the seller wrote it, this shows
that he sold willingly.
2. Rambam (Hilchos Gezeilah 9:14): If Ploni stole a
field, and after he was Muchzak he bought itr from
the owner, and the owner says 'I was forced. I did
not sell it willingly', Ploni did not acquire, even
if he bought in front of witnesses. We take the
field from him and return to him the money he paid.
3. Rambam (15): This is when the witnesses saw him
count out the money. If they testified that the
owner sold and admitted that he was paid, and the
owner says that he was not paid and admitted only
due to fear, Ploni gets nothing. The owner admitted
out of fear, since Ploni was established to be a
Gazlan on the field.
4. Rambam (16): The owner need not make a Moda'ah, for
the buyer was established to be a Gazlan on this
field, so his proof is invalid. A Gazlan is unlike
an Ones, i.e. one who coerces or hangs someone until
he sells. The Ones does not want to steal, and he
did not yet steal anything, therefore, if the seller
did not make a Moda'ah, the sale is valid.
i. Rebuttal (Ra'avad): This is unclear. The Rif
disagrees. The Rif's opinion is primary. If Rav
Huna distinguishes (an Ones from a Gazlan), why
did the Gemara need to say that he disagrees
with Rav Bivi? According to the Rambam, Rav
Huna agrees with Rav Bivi!
ii. Magid Mishneh: The Rif and Ra'avad hold that if
the witnesses did not see money given, the sale
is totally Batel. If they saw the money given,
the sale is valid. The Sugya equates a coerced
sale to a Gazlan who bought. How can the Rambam
iii. Defense (of Rambam - Drishah CM 205:13): Tosfos
(47b DH v'Rav) asked why the Gemara said 'Rav
Bivi concluded Rav Nachman's teaching to
say...' Rav Nachman cited Rav Huna, and we
conclude that Rav Huna argueswith Rav Bivi! The
Rif, Rosh and Tur hold that Rav Bivi explained
that sometimes a Gazlan's proof helps. i.e. to
get back his money. The 1
iv. Bach (205:13): The text of the Rif, Rambam and
Rosh did not say that Rav Bivi argues. (It is
an addition of a Ga'on - Gra 151:4.) The Rif
and Rosh hold that Rav Bivi discusses when he
made a Moda'ah. The Rambam explains that Rav
Bivi discusses a Chamsan (who forcibly pays)
with a Moda'ah, and a Gazlan (who does not pay)
even without a Moda'ah. It is better to say
that the Rif and Rosh agree. This is why they
said 'he made a Moda'ah on a sale', and this
is why the Tur cites the Rambam without saying
that the Rosh disagrees.
1. Shulchan Aruch (CM 151:3): A Gazlan cannot bring a
proof. If we know that Ploni stole a field, even if
a document says that the owner admitted in front of
witnesses that Ploni bought and paid for it, if the
owner says 'I did not sell it. I admitted only due
to fear', we take the field from Ploni without
i. SMA (8): The document says that he was paid,
but it does not say that the witnesses saw the
2. Rema: If the owner wrote Achrayus to the Gazlan,
some say that he acquired.
i. SMA (9): The Tur says that just like a Gazlan
on one field can make a Chazakah on another
field, for the owner fears to protest only
about the field for which the Gazlan risked his
life, one does not fear to protest about
Achrayus. It is like another field. Therefore,
if the owner wrote Achrayus, the Gazlan
acquired. If one kills for monetary reasons, he
is a Gazlan for everything, and Achrayus does
not help for him.
3. Shulchan Aruch (ibid): If the witnesses say that
they saw him count out (and pay) the money, we take
the field from him and the owner gives back the
ii. Gra (3): Be'er ha'Golah holds that the Rema
says 'some say so', for the Rambam holds that
Achrayus does not help for a Gazlan. Really,
the Rambam holds that Achrayus never helps. The
Nimukei Yosef holds that Achrayus helps for
Ones, but not for a Gazlan.
i. Taz: The Tur says that we take the field from
him only after the owner gives back the money.
This is when the owner did not sell it. If the
owner sold it, the buyer takes it immediately
from the Gazlan, and the Gazlan requests his
money from the owner.
4. Rema: Some say that if the witnesses saw him pay the
money and he did not make a Moda'ah beforehand, the
sake is valid. We hold that if Levi hung Shimon
until Shimon agreed to sell his property, the sale
is valid. This seems primary.
i. Gra (5): The Rif and Rosh say that Rav Bivi
discusses when there was a Moda'ah, and Rav
Huna agrees in such a case.
ii. Drishah (6): The Rosh and Tur argue only when
the Gazlan did not steal yet, just he made a
Chazakah and threatens to steal it if the owner
will not sell it. If he already stole it and
threatens not to return it if the owner will
not sell it, all agree that no Moda'ah is
WHEN IS A FORCED SALE VALID? (Bava Basra 48)
Index to Halachah Outlines for Maseches Bava Basra