Study Bava Batra folio 48A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
With regard to one who pledges to bring a burnt-offering, the verse states: “If his offering be a burnt-offering of the herd, he shall offer it a male without blemish; he shall bring it to the door of the Tent of Meeting, according to his will, before YHWH” (Leviticus 1:3). The seemingly superfluous
The Talmud rejects this proof: But perhaps there it is different, since he is in fact amenable to achieving atonement, despite his earlier statement to the contrary. But rather, prove Rav Huna’s ruling from the latter clause of a Mishnah (Arakhin 21a): And similarly you find this halakha with bill
The Talmud rejects this proof as well: But perhaps there it is different, because it is a mitzva to listen to the statement of the rabbis. The assumption is that when he is required by the court to divorce his wife, his real desire is to perform the mitzva of listening to the rabbis, and therefore
Rav Yehuda raises an objection to Rav Huna’s ruling from a Mishnah (Gittin 88b): With regard to a bill of divorce that the husband was compelled by the court to write and give his wife, if he was compelled by a Jewish court it is valid, but if he was compelled by non-Jews it is not valid. And with r
The Talmud answers: In fact that reasoning is correct, as for this reason wasn’t it stated with regard to that Mishnah that Rav Mesharshiyya says: By Torah law a bill of divorce that the husband was compelled to give, even if he was compelled by non-Jews, is valid. And what is the reason the rabbis