We learned in a Beraisa 'Get ha'Me'useh be'Yisrael Kasher' - a Get that a man is forced to write by a Yisrael (e.g. by Beis-Din), provided he declares 'Rotzeh Ani'.

The Beraisa concludes 'be'Akum Pasul', which we initially think is - because, when he is forced by Nochrim (even by a Nochri court), he is not performing a Mitzvah, unlike the Reisha, where he is (as we explained a little earlier).

To reconcile the Beraisa with Rav Huna, who holds 'Talyuhu ve'Zavin, Zevineih Z'vini', we cite Rav Masharshaya, who explains 'be'Akum Pasul' to mean that - min ha'Torah, the Get is valid even if it is a Nochri who forced the man to write it, and the Tana invalidates it mi'de'Rabbanan, so that any woman who wants a Get should not hire a Nochri to coerce her husband into writing her a Get.

Rav Hamnuna queries this from the Beraisa (already discussed on the previous Amud) 'Lakach mi'Sikrikun, ve'Chazar ve'Lakach mi'Ba'al ha'Bayis, Mekcho Bateil', which we reconcile with Rav Huna by citing Rav - who restricts the Beraisa's ruling to where the seller said 'Lech Chazek u'Keni', but if he goes so far as to write a Sh'tar Mechirah, the sale is valid.

Even according to Shmuel, who says 'Af bi'Sh'tar Nami Lo Kanah', we will answer that - the Tana will validate the sale once the purchaser has paid.

When Rav Bibi, quoting Rav Nachman, in a case of 'Talyuhu ve'Zavin', rules 'Karka Ein lo, Ma'os Yesh lo', he means that - although the Nigzal may keep the money that the Gazlan gave him, the latter does not receive the field (because he holds 'Talyuhu ve'Zavin, La'av Zevineih Zevini'.

To which Rav Huna will answer that since Rav Bibi only quotes Rav Nachman, and not a Beraisa, he (Rav Bibi) is entitled to disagree.

Had Rav Bibi made this statement in his own name (and not in the name of Rav Nachman) we would have answered - 'Gavra a'Gavra Karamis' (How can you ask from one Amora on to another)?

Rava rules 'Talyuhu ve'Zavin Zevineih Z'vini', but he qualifies it restricting it to 'Sadeh S'tam' (where the seller chooses the field that he wants to sell), but in a case of 'Sadeh Zu' (where the purchaser chooses it), the sale will be invalid.

Even in the case of 'Sadeh Zu', Rava concedes that the sale will be valid on one of two conditions: 1. where the seller (in spite of his predicament) then counts the money that he receives as payment for the field; 2. where he could have got out of selling the field or of delaying the sale, but declined to do so.

The Halachah however, is not like Rava but that - the sale is valid, even in a case of 'Sadeh Zu'.

And we prove this from a statement by Ameimar, who ruled - 'Talyuhah ve'Kadish Kidushav Kidushin' ...

... even though the man wants specifically that woman and no other (making it a case of 'Ishah Zu').

Mar bar Rav Ashi (or Rav Ashi) agrees with the ruling 'Talyuhu ve'Zavin Zevineih Z'vini', but regarding Talyuhah ve'Kadish' he holds that - the Kidushin is not valid ...

... because 'since he (the man) behaved unconventionally', the Chachamim figured, they would deal with him unconventionally' and negate the Kidushin.

The problem this creates regarding Kidushei Bi'ah is that - if, due to the principle of 'Hefker Beis-Din Hefker', the Chachamim have the power to negate Kidushei Kesef, how can they negate Kidushei Bi'ah?

We answer the current Kashya - based on the fact that when a person betroths a woman, he does so according to the Rabbanan's specifications. Consequently, in certain cases, the Chachamim automatically invalidate the Kidushin (even Kidushei Bi'ah), rendering the Bi'ah a Bi'as Z'nus (an immoral act).

We cannot answer that Kidushei Kesef is easier to negate, since it is only mi'de'Rabbanan, whereas Kidushei Bi'ah is d'Oraysa - since the Kashya then remains, how can the Chachamim negate a Torah institution?

Tavi a tough guy, suspended Papi on a Kinra-tree - to coerce him into selling him his field.

'Tavi Tala Papi be'Kinra' might also mean - 'to force him to sell him his harp'.

Besides signing on the Moda'a, Rabah bar bar Chanah also signed on the Ashkalta - another name for a Sh'tar Mechirah.

When Rav Huna said that whoever signed on the Moda'a did well, and whoever signed on the Ashkalta did well, he meant that - if he had not signed on the Moda'a, he would have done well to sign on the Ashkalta.

And when we say 'Rav Huna le'Ta'ameih', we mean that - what Rav Huna is then coming to tell us is that 'Talyuhu ve'Zavin, Zevineih Z'vini' (like he said earlier).

Rava did indeed rule earlier that we do not write a Moda'a on a sale, unless the seller is under threat of losing his field without receiving payment - We do not rule like Rava howevef (as we saw earlier, when we disagreed with his distinction between Sadeh S'tam and Sadeh Zu regarding the Din of 'Talyuhu ve'Zavin').

'Amanah' is - when witnesses testify that the Sh'tar produced by the creditor was handed to him by the debtor (whom he trusted not to produce it unless the loan actually took place) in advance of the loan, so that when the debtor requires money, he will just have to ask the creditor for it.

According to Rav Nachman, witnesses who said ...

... 'Amanah hayu Devareinu' - are not believed

... 'Moda'a hayu Devareinu' - are not believed either.

A Sh'tar Amanah is not a Sh'tar Mukdam (pre-dated), and therefore Pasul anyway - because the debtor is Meshabed his property from the time he writes the Sh'tar retroactively, should the loan take place.

'Amanah Hayu Devareinu' is certainly not believed if the witnesses signatures were substantiated from another source. Neither are the witnesses believed with a 'Peh she'Asar hu ha'Peh she'Hitir', if they substantiate their own signatures - because they do not have the power to negate their own testimony ('Keyvan she'Higid, Shuv Eino Chozer u'Magid').

We know that 'Keyvan she'Higid ... ' applies even in the case of a Sh'tar (which we may otherwise have thought is not Kasher until it is substantiated), on the basis of a statement by Resh Lakish, who stated that once witnesses sign on a Sh'tar, it is as if their testimony has already been examined in Beis-Din.

Rav Ashi in Kesuvos gives another reason to explain why we cannot believe witnesses who say 'Amanah hayu Devareinu', in spite of the 'Peh she'Asar', based on a statement of Rav Kahana who rules that - it is forbidden to keep such a Sh'tar in one's possession ...

... witnesses who say 'Amanah hayu Devareinu' cannot be believed - due to the principle 'Ein Adam Meisim Atzmo Rasha' (a person is not believed when he issues a statement that renders himself a Rasha).

We reconcile Rav Nachman's latter statement ('Moda'a Hayu Devareinu', Ein Ne'emanim) with Rabah bar bar Chanah, who signed on a Sh'tar Moda'a - by differentiating between an oral Moda'a (Rav Nachman) and a written one (Rabah bar bar Chanah).

'Moda'a hayu Devareinu' in a Sh'tar is believed - because it was written before the Sh'tar Mechirah, in which case 'Keyvan she'Higid ... ' will not apply.