Bava Batra 48: Coercion as a Valid Form of Acquisition; Moda'a

The rabbis teach us about forcing someone to meet their obligations.  But one must do this willingly.   Can one be forced to bring an offering until he wants to do so?  

We are introduced to a concept that continues to be under debate today.  Can a man be forced to give his wife a get - 'forced' until he does so willingly?  Perhaps he really would give her the get willingly because he wishes to listen to the Sages.  Or perhaps, once forced, a person will succumb to reason and go along with what is right.

Does it matter who coerces a  man to divorce his wife?  If non-Jews beat this husband and tell him to do what the Beit Din tells him, is his get valid?  Though some decided that this was valid, the rabbis were concerned that women would ask non-Jews to coerce their husbands to give them their gittin.  

Bringing this conversation back to the question of selling one's land, the rabbis wonder whether one can be coerced to sell his land back to its rightful owner.  Does it matter whether or not there was a contract?  If one initially stole the land, would written proof of payment make a difference?  What if one person hung another person to coerce him?  The rabbis argue about whether or not a person could willingly agree to disputed terms while being coerced.  They also discuss whether or not the person wished to buy a specific field or just a field in general, and whether or not money had already changed hands.

One argument is that in all cases a sale is valid, for this follows the halachot of kiddushin where the woman has no say in whether or not she is married to a particular man.  A disturbing but important example is shared: if a man hung a wife until she agreed to marry him, the kiddushin is valid.  However, perhaps the man's improper behaviour will lead the rabbis to fine him and to cancel the kiddushin.  But only if the kiddushin involved money, for they could reinterpret the money as a gift.  If the kiddushin involved intercourse and then it was nullified, then the couple had prohibited sexual relations. 

We learn about the case of one who hung another until he agreed to sell him land.  Rabba Bar Bar Channa declared that the agreement was made under duress and thus it is not valid.  He signed a moda'a, an advance notice in front of witnesses which declares that a sale was made under duress. Is a witness permitted to sign a moda'a?  If a moda'a is valid, then the document of sale cannot be valid. We learn that a sale made under duress is valid unless a moda'a is signed.

Another example teaches us that if one hung another until he agreed to sell his property, the sale is valid.  Witnesses are not believed if they say that they signed anything other than a moda'a.  However, a signing a moda'a will invalidate anything else that they signed (whether in error or not).

This discussion is disturbing not only because of the graphic examples shared, but because of the harsh judgement of our rabbis regarding coercion.  This leads me to believe that some degree of violence was an expected part of ancient culture.  To think that torture or the threat of death is a valid method of acquiring anything is unthinkable in modern progressive thought.