Bava Batra — Daf 48b

בשדה סתם אבל בשדה זו לא

ובשדה זו נמי לא אמרן אלא דלא ארצי זוזי אבל ארצי זוזי לא

ולא אמרן אלא דלא הוה לאישתמוטי אבל הוה ליה לאישתמוטי לא

והלכתא בכולהו דהוו זביניה זביני ואפילו בשדה זו דהא אשה כשדה זו דמיא ואמר אמימר תליוה וקדיש קדושיו קדושין

מר בר רב אשי אמר באשה ודאי קדושין לא הוו הוא עשה שלא כהוגן לפיכך עשו עמו שלא כהוגן ואפקעינהו רבנן לקידושיה מיניה

אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי תינח דקדיש בכספא קדיש בביאה מאי איכא למימר אמר ליה שויוה רבנן לבעילתו בעילת זנות

טאבי תלא לפאפי אכינרא וזבין חתם רבה בר בר חנה אמודעא ואאשקלתא אמר רב הונא מאן דחתים אמודעא שפיר חתים ומאן דחתים אאשקלתא שפיר חתים

מה נפשך אי מודעא לא אשקלתא ואי אשקלתא לא מודעא הכי קאמר אי לאו מודעא מאן דחתים אאשקלתא שפיר חתים רב הונא לטעמיה דאמר רב הונא תליוהו וזבין זביניה זביני

איני והא"ר נחמן העדים שאמרו אמנה היו דברינו

if he is forced to sell 'a' field,  but if he is forced to sell 'this'  field, it is not valid. And again even if he is forced to sell 'this' field, the sale is not valid only if he has not counted out the money [received in payment], but if he does count out the money, the sale is valid.  And again, [even in the case of 'this' field and even if he did not count out the money] the sale is not valid only if it was not possible for him to wriggle out of it,  but if he did have a chance to wriggle out of it [and did not do so], then it is valid. [In spite, however, of this statement of Raba,] the accepted ruling is that in all these cases the sale is valid, even in the case of 'this' field, for the betrothal of a woman is analogous to the buying of 'this' field,  and yet Amemar  has laid down that if a woman consents to betroth herself under pressure of physical violence, the betrothal is valid. Mar son of R. Ashi, however, said: In the case of the woman the betrothal is certainly not valid; he treated the woman cavalierly  and therefore the Rabbis treat him cavalierly and nullify his betrothal. Rabina said to R. Ashi: We can understand the Rabbis doing this if he betrothed her with money,  but if he betrothed her by means of intercourse, how can they nullify the act?  — He replied: The Rabbis declared his intercourse to be fornication. One Taba  tied a certain Papi to a tree  [and kept him there] till he sold [his field to him]. Subsequently Rabbah b. Bar Hanah signed as a witness both to a moda'ah  [issued by Papi] and to a deed of sale [of the field]. R. Huna [on hearing of it] said: He who signed the moda'ah acted quite properly and he who signed the deed of sale acted quite properly. How can both be right?  If [it was right to sign] the moda'ah it was not [right to sign] the deed of sale, and if [it was right to sign] the deed of sale it was not [right to sign] the moda'ah? — What he [R. Huna] meant was this: Had it not been for the moda'ah, the one who signed the deed of sale would have acted rightly.  R. Huna is thus consistent with the opinion expressed by him [elsewhere]. For R. Huna said that a sale extorted by physical violence is valid. But this is not so,  seeing that R. Nahman has said: If the witnesses [to a bond] say [subsequently], We only wrote [the bond under cover of] an amanah,  their word is not