Bava Batra

[From the superfluous words], he shall offer it,  we learn that a man can be forced to bring an [offering which he has vowed]. Does this mean, even in his own despite? — [This cannot be] because it says. Of his own free will.  How then [are we to say]? Force is applied to him until he says, 'I consent.'  But perhaps there is a special reason in this case, viz. that he may be well satisfied [to do so retrospectively], so as to have atonement made for his sins?  — We must therefore [look for the reason in] the next passage [of the Baraitha quoted]: 'Similarly in the case of divorces, [where the Rabbis have said that the husband can be forced to give a divorce]  we say [that what is meant is that] force is applied to him till he says, I consent.' But there too perhaps there is a special reason, viz. that it is a religious duty to listen to the word of the Sages?  — What we must say therefore is that it is reasonable to suppose that under the pressure he really made up his mind to sell. Rab Judah questioned this [on the ground of the following Mishnah]: 'A get [bill of divorce] extorted by pressure applied by an Israelite  is valid, but if the pressure is applied by a non-Jew  It is invalid. A non-Jew also, however, may be commissioned [by the Beth din] to flog the husband and say to him, Do what the Israelite  bids you.'  Now why [should the get be invalid if extorted by the non-Jew]? Cannot we say that in that case also the man makes up his mind under pressure to grant the divorce?  — This rule must be understood in the light of the statement made by R. Mesharsheya regarding it: According to the Torah itself, the get is valid even if extorted by a non-Jew, and the reason why the Rabbis [on their own authority] declared it invalid was so as not to give an opportunity to any Jewish woman to keep company with a non-Jew and so release herself from her husband. R. Hamnuna questioned [the rule on the ground of the following Mishnah]: 'If a man buys a field from a sicarius  and then buys it again from the original owner, the purchase is void.'  Why so? Cannot we say here too that under pressure the owner makes up his mind to sell [the field]? — We must understand this statement in the light of the gloss added by Rab: This rule was meant to apply only if the owner [merely] said to the purchaser, Go and take possession and acquire ownership, but if he gives him a written deed, he becomes the legal owner.  But if we take the view of Samuel, that even if he gives him a deed he does not become the owner, what are we to reply [to R. Hamnuna]? — Samuel admits [that the sale is valid] if the purchaser actually pays the owner. But if we take the view of R. Nahman as completed by the statement of R. Bibi, that though the robber has no title to the land he has a title to the payment he made,  what reply can be made [by R. Huna]? — R. Bibi adduced a mere statement,  and such an opinion R. Huna did not feel bound to accept. Raba said: The law is that if a man sells a thing under pressure of physical violence, the sale is valid. This is only the case, however,