Question: If he learns from here, even if they hung him and he gave [a gift], it should be a valid gift! The case of Sikrikon proves that it is not a gift!

Answer #1 (Ri): Here, this is like a sale, for he gets Kaparah in place of the Korban, and he acquires the Kaparah;

Also Gitin, from which we wanted to learn, is like a sale, for through this he is exempted from food, clothing and regular marital relations.

Rejection: We cannot say so. If so, an improperly coerced Get should be Kosher. In Gitin (88b), Shmuel said that it is Pasul!

Answer #2 (Ri): Everything he is obligated to do is like a sale. Here, he is obligated to bring a Korban;

Also below, he is obligated to divorce his wife. We discuss those whom we force them to divorce;

However, [forcing] improperly is like if they hung him and he gave. It is not a gift.

Observation: This is unlike what it says in Bava Kama (40a) that we do not take a security from people obligated to bring a Chatas or Asham. Since it comes for Kaparah, [the person himself is zealous to bring it], and we need not take a security from him;

Only for Chatas and Asham, which come due to Aveiros, we need not take a security from him. He wants to have Kaparah from that Aveirah. However, here, a Neder or Nedavah does not atone!

This that we say "he wants to have Kaparah" means from what he vowed. If he does not fulfill his vow, he bears his sin.

Implied question: It says in Toras Kohanim, Zevachim (6a) and Yoma (36a) that Olah atones for Chayavei Aseh!

Answer: It says in Zevachim (7b) that Olah is a gift, and does not atone. I.e. atones after Teshuvah (Maharshal; Maharam - for small Aveiros), but not a major Kaparah (before Teshuvah, or for severe Aveiros).

Question: Since we know from reasoning that amidst Ones, he resolves to be Makneh, why do we need a verse regarding a Korban to teach that we force him?

Answer: If not for the verse, one might have thought that even though he resolves and is Makneh, since he consents only through coercion, it is Pasul to the Mizbe'ach, for it is "Zevach Resha'im";

[The verse] teaches that the Korban is accepted.

Explanation #1: The Seifa concludes "when Nochrim beat him and tell him 'do what Yisrael tell you.'"

Explanation #2: This is the explanation of the Reisha. What is the case in which through Nochrim it is Pasul? They beat him and tell him...

Rejection: If so, rather than challenge him from the Seifa, we should support him from the Reisha, which says "through Yisrael, it is Kosher", for amidst the Ones, he resolves and is Makneh!

Suggestion: Perhaps through Yisrael, it is Kosher because it is a Mitzvah to obey Divrei Chachamim.

Rejection: If so, why is it Pasul through Nochrim? They beat him and tell him to fulfill Divrei Chachamim!

Answer (Ri): It means that also through Nochrim it is Kosher, e.g. he tells him "do what Yisrael tell you.'" Also Bahag explains like this.

Support #1: The Tosefta proves like this. It teaches that through Nochrim, they beat him and tell him "do what Ploni tells you";

Inference: They beat him according to R. Ploni, who is a Chacham, and it is Kosher, for he tells them to hit him.

Support #2 (Yerushalmi Gitin - Rav): If a Yisrael [Beis Din] coerced through Nochrim, it is Kosher. The case is, he said "I will not feed her or supply her [with clothing]."

Note: Our text of the Yerushalmi says "Pasul". Meforshim explain that Yisre'elim hit him to obey Nochri judges. R. Chiya's Beraisa (below) says "Kosher" when Nochrim hit him to obey Yisrael judges. The Halachah is like Tosfos explains, just the text and Perush are reversed.

Citation (cont. - R. Chiya's Beraisa): If a Nochri coerced through Yisrael, it is Pasul, even if he said "I will not feed her or supply her."

Citation (cont.) Support: Our Mishnah says so! When Nochrim beat him, and say 'do what Yisrael tell you, and not what I tell you' [it is Kosher].

Implied question: It says in Gitin (88b) "in front of them [Yisrael judges]", and not in front of Nochrim!

Answer: Since the coercion is through Yisrael judges, this is not called "in front of Nochrim." "In front of Nochrim" is when the coercion is through Nochri judges.

Explanation: [It is Kosher because] they coerced according to Halachah, e.g. those whom we force to divorce. Also through Yisrael, coercion unlike the Halachah is Pasul, like Shmuel said in Gitin (88b).

Question: What difference does it make if she relies on Nochrim [to coerce and] removes herself from her husband, since she does so according to Halachah? Also Chachamim would force him to divorce!

Answer: They decreed about [coercion] according to Halachah due to [coercion] not according to Halachah.

Question: According to the reason given in Gitin (88b) that through Nochrim is Pasul mid'Oraisa due to "in front of them", and not in front of Nochrim, and Nochrim are not [Kosher] coercers, this is difficult for Rav Huna;

Why is it Pasul? We should say that amidst the Ones, he resolved to divorce!

Answer: Since he gives through Nochri coercion, this is like [coercion] unlike the Halachah. Unlike the Halachah is like a gift, like I explained above (a coerced gift is invalid).

Question: Why do we bring here Rav Mesharshiya's teaching? We should have brought the teaching from there ("in front of them", and not in front of Nochrim), for it says there that Rav Mesharshiya's teaching is totally wrong!

Answer: He answered the Makshan according to the Makshan's reasoning, that Nochrim are [Kosher] coercers. He asked, why is it Pasul through Nochrim?

If they are not Kosher coercers, he did not ask anything, for this is like a gift!

He answers him according to his reasoning, like Rav Mesharshiya.

Question #1 (Rashba): It connotes that Rav Huna said that if they hung him and sold, it is a sale, only regarding a document, but not if he said "go make a Chazakah and acquire";

Since amidst Ones, he resolves to be Makneh, what is the difference between them?

Question #2 (Rashba): It says that Shmuel agrees when he gave money. This implies that according to Rav, he acquires even if he did not give money;

What is the reason? If they hung him and he gave, it is not a gift!

Answer (Rashba): Rav and Shmuel argue about the following. Rav holds that had he not given money, [the owner] would not make a document;

Shmuel holds that he would make a document due to coercion, but he would not accept Acharayus, like he said in Gitin (58a) "until he writes for him Acharayus."

Observation: This is not precise that it mentioned hanging him. Even without [physical] affliction, just monetary coercion, like the case of the orchard (a lender who consumed it due to Mashkanta threatened "if you do not sell it to me, I will claim that I bought it, and I will keep it, due to my Chazakah" - 40b), it would be a sale;

If he made a Moda'a, it is not a sale, for we hold like Rav Huna, that we write a Moda'a on a sale, like the Rashbam explained;

This is only regarding a sale. If they hung him and he gave, it is not a gift, even if he did not make a Moda'a, if witnesses know about the coercion.

When he makes a Moda'a, even if [the witnesses] do not know the Ones, they write [the Moda'ah]. The same applies to Gitin. (This Dibur continues on Amud B.)

Pesak: When he was Mevatel a Moda'ah at the time of the sale, the Bitul helps. Amidst his Ones, he resolves and is Mevatel, like we say in Erchin (21b). The Rashbam brought this above (40b);

Even if he said at the time of the Moda'a "whatever I will be Mevatel should not be Batel", this has no effect, for in any case, when in the end he is Mevatel everything he said before, it is Batel, for amidst his Ones, he resolves and is Mevatel.

Distinction: However, regarding a gift, if we know his Ones, Bitul does not help. He does not resolve and nullify [his Moda'ah];

However, if we do not know his Ones, and he willingly is Mevatel his Moda'a, it seems that it is a valid Bitul. Therefore, we write in gift documents Bitul of Moda'os.

Observation: Above (40b), Neharde'ei said that any Moda'ah in which it is not written "we know Ploni's Ones" is not a Moda'ah;

According to Rava above, the only case we find [of a Moda'a on a sale] is like the case of the orchard;

Regarding a Stam field, Moda'a does not help. [When the extortionist specified] this field, no Moda'ah is needed. It suffices that [witnesses] know the Ones!

Observation: According to texts that say "he did not count for him", it connotes that he wants to say that when witnesses say "he (the buyer) counted [the coins] for him in front of us", it is a sale, even regarding "this field";

Rava said that it is not a sale when they say "he admitted in front of us"; they did not see the coins given, it is a sale;

Inference: Regarding a Stam field, even if they say "he admitted in front of us", i.e. they did not see the coins given, it is a sale!

Rebuttal: Regarding admission, one cannot distinguish a Stam field from "this field." Regarding both of them, it applies to say "had he not admitted to him, [the Gazlan] would have taken him and his donkey to the king's officer"!

Conclusion: It seems that the text says "he (the seller) did not count the coins." It does not say "Lei (for him)." Also the Rashbam explained so. (If the seller counted the coins, this shows that he wanted the sale.)

Implied question: Why doesn't it say here "whoever is Mekadesh, is Mekadesh based on Rabanan's will (their enactments about marriage)"?

Also in Yevamos (110a), regarding the episode in Narash, in which David was Mekadesh a minor, she matured, and Levi grabbed her [from the Chupah, and was Mekadesh her, it does not say so];

It does say so in Kesuvos (3a) and Gitin (33a)!

Answer: Here and in Yevamos, he was not Mekadesh like Rabanan want, like it says "he did improperly";

We must say that he holds here that Chachamim have power to uproot Torah law, since they uprooted his Kidushin, and even though he was not Mekadesh based on their will.

Explanation: It means as follows. Granted, if he was Mekadesh with money, Rabanan can make the money Hefker, and give it for a gift to the woman;

However, if he was Mekadesh through Bi'ah, even though Chachamim have power to uproot Torah law, this is when there is no Aveirah, e.g. "[if one separated Tamei Peros to be Terumah on Tahor Peros b'Mezid,] the Se'ah [that he called Terumah] reverts to be Tevel";

However, regarding [Kidushei] Bi'ah, would Chachamim make his Bi'ah Bi'as Aveirah (Zenus)?!

[Rav Ashi] answered that surely, they made his Bi'ah Bi'as Zenus.

Suggestion: It seems that the Sugyos in Kesuvos and Gitin argue with our Sugya, for there it needed to say that it is because he was Mekadesh based on Rabanan's will;

Inference: If not that he was Mekadesh based on Rabanan's will, they would not have power to uproot the Kidushin!

Rejection: They do not argue. We need the reason that he was Mekadesh based on Rabanan's will, for there, since the Kidushin was proper, Chachamim would not have power to uproot it, if not that he was Mekadesh based on Rabanan's will.

Question (Rashba): If he was Mekadesh through Bi'ah, even without uprooting, it should not be Kidushin, for this is like if they hung someone and he gave (which is not a gift), for corresponding to her body, which is acquired to him, he does not give to her anything!

Poor answer #1: Because she gets Hana'ah from Bi'ah (it is like a sale).

Objection: If so, Ameimar's teaching that if he hung her and he was Mekadesh her, the Kidushin is valid, this is only regarding Kidushin with Kesef or Bi'ah, but not with a document, for [Kidushei Shtar] is like if they hung someone and he gave [a gift]!

Answer #2: Corresponding to her body, which is acquired to him, he becomes obligated in She'er, Kesus v'Onah (food, clothing and regular marital relations).

Implied question: Above (48a DH Ileima), I explained regarding a Get, that it is not considered a sale due to his exemption from She'er, Kesus v'Onah!

Answer: That refers to a husband who wanted to give them, and not divorce her.

Observation: Rav Huna argues with Rava, who said above (40b) that we do not write a Moda'a about a sale.

Assertion: You are forced to say that this is when their signatures are not available elsewhere. If their signatures are available elsewhere, this is obvious [that they are not believed to say that they signed Amanah]!

Proof #1: The Gemara asks like this in Kesuvos (19a) regarding one who says "this is an Amanah document" is not believed;

Citation (19a): Who says so? If the witnesses say so - if their signatures are available elsewhere, this is obvious!

Proof #2: Mar bar Rav Ashi says that [if a witness says] our words (what we signed on) were Amanah, he is not believed, because it was not permitted to write it;

If their signatures are available elsewhere, even if it were permitted to write it, he would not be believed!

Question: Why aren't they believed through a Migo? If they wanted, they could say "these are not our signatures"!

Rav Nachman himself relies on Migo to disqualify a document in Kesuvos (19a)!

He said that when [litigants] come to Din, he tells them "validate your document, and come to Din";

[Without Kiyum, the borrower] is believed to say that it was paid, Migo that if he wanted, he could have said that the document is a forgery.

All the more so witnesses have the power to weaken [their] document. It says so explicitly below (154a)!

Answer #1 (Ri): The reason for Moda'a and Amanah according to Rav Nachman, is since he says that the document was written and given properly, verbal [testimony] cannot weaken a document, even through a Migo.

Answer #2: Also, this is like retracting one's testimony, since they say that they signed properly on the document, and mid'Oraisa, witnesses signed on a document, it is as if their testimony was investigated [and accepted] in Beis Din;

It is [only] mid'Rabanan that Kiyum is needed. This is only when [the borrower] claims that it is forged. (This Dibur continues on the coming Daf.)