Today's Daf Yomi
March 1, 2017 | 讙壮 讘讗讚专 转砖注状讝
Bava Batra 38
Does one need to protest in front of the possessor or not? 聽What is the wording necessary for a protest to be considered a legitimate protest?
Study Guide Bava Batra 38.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"
诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讗 讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讻讜专讻诪讗 讚专讬砖拽讗 讝讘讬谞讬 诇讱 注拽讜专 讻讜专讻诪讗 讚专讬砖拽讗 讜讝讬诇 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讘讗 诪讞诪转 讟注谞讛
Rava objects to this ruling that the buyer of the tree acquires the land beneath it: And let the seller say to him: I sold you only the saffron crocus, a small plant normally uprooted by the buyer and taken with him. Therefore, uproot the saffron crocus and go. Rather, Rava said: This ruling is stated with regard to one who comes to court with a specific claim that the seller had stipulated that he would acquire the land. Without this specific claim he does not acquire the land beneath the tree.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 拽砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讗讬 讻讜专讻诪讗 讚专讬砖拽讗 讝讘讬谉 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪注讘讚 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讞讜讬讬
Mar Kashisha, the son of Rav 岣sda, said to Rav Ashi: And if, in fact, the seller sold him the saffron crocus, what was there for the seller to do to prevent the buyer from claiming the land beneath the tree, as the buyer could claim that there had been an explicit stipulation that he receive it? Rav Ashi answered: He should have protested during the first three years and publicized that the land was not included in the sale.
讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讛谞讬 诪砖讻谞转讗 讚住讜专讗 讚讻转讘 讘讛 讛讻讬 讘诪讬砖诇诐 砖谞讬讗 讗诇讬谉 转讬驻讜拽 讗专注讗 讚讗 讘诇讗 讻住祝 讗讬 讻讘讬砖 诇讬讛 诇砖讟专 诪砖讻谞转讗 讜讗诪专 诇拽讜讞讛 讛讬讗 讘讬讚讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诪讛讬诪谉 诪讬转拽谞讬 专讘谞谉 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗转讬 讘讛 诇讬讚讬 驻住讬讚讗 讗诇讗 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讞讜讬讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讞讜讬讬:
The assumption that lodging a protest would be effective must be correct, since if you do not say so, then in the case of these mortgages according to the custom in Sura, a city in Babylonia, the debtor will not have a way to prevent the creditor from keeping his land. As in mortgages of that type it is written like this: At the completion of these years this land will be released to its prior owner without any need for the prior owner to give money. If the creditor were to hide the mortgage document in his possession and say: This land is purchased and that is why it is in my possession, here is it also the case that he would be deemed credible? That cannot be, as is it reasonable that the Sages would institute a matter, such as this type of arrangement, that people can be led by it to suffer a loss? Rather, in the case of the mortgage the debtor should have protested, and by not protesting, he causes his own loss. Here too, in the case of the tree, the owner should have protested.
诪转谞讬壮 砖诇砖 讗专爪讜转 诇讞讝拽讛 讬讛讜讚讛 讜注讘专 讛讬专讚谉 讜讛讙诇讬诇 讛讬讛 讘讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讞讝讬拽 讘讙诇讬诇 讘讙诇讬诇 讜讛讞讝讬拽 讘讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬谞讛 讞讝拽讛 注讚 砖讬讛讗 注诪讜 讘诪讚讬谞讛 讗讞转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讗诪专讜 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讗诇讗 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讗 讘讗住驻诪讬讗 讜讬讞讝讬拽 砖谞讛 讬诇讻讜 讜讬讜讚讬注讜讛讜 砖谞讛 讜讬讘讗 诇砖谞讛 讗讞专转:
MISHNA: There are three independent lands in Eretz Yisrael with regard to establishing presumptive ownership: Judea, and Transjordan, and the Galilee. If the prior owner of the field was in Judea and another took possession of his field in the Galilee, or if he was in the Galilee and another took possession of his field in Judea, the possessor does not establish presumptive ownership until the one possessing the field will be with the prior owner in one province. Rabbi Yehuda says: The Sages said that establishing presumptive ownership requires three years only in order that if the owner will be in Spain [Aspamya], and another possesses his field for a year, people will go and inform the owner by the end of the next year, and the owner will come back in the following year and take the possessor to court.
讙诪壮 诪讗讬 拽住讘专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗讬 拽住讘专 诪讞讗讛 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讗讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讙诇讬诇 谞诪讬 讗讬 拽住讘专 诪讞讗讛 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 诇讗 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讗讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讬讛讜讚讛 谞诪讬 诇讗
GEMARA: What does the first tanna hold in ruling that the prior owner and the field need be in the same province in order for the possessor to establish presumptive ownership? If he holds that a protest that is lodged not in the presence of the one possessing the field is a valid protest, even in the case where one is in Judea and one is in the Galilee, the protest should be valid as well. If he holds that a protest lodged not in his presence is not a valid protest, even in the case where one is in Judea and the other one is in Judea, the protest should not be valid as well.
讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 讗诪专 专讘 诇注讜诇诐 拽住讘专 诪讞讗讛 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讗讛 讜诪砖谞转讬谞讜 讘砖注转 讞讬专讜诐 砖谞讜 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讙诇讬诇 讚谞拽讬讟
Rabbi Abba bar Memel says that Rav says: Actually, the tanna holds that a protest lodged not in his presence is a valid protest, and the Sages taught our mishna with regard to a period of crisis, when travel is perilous and information cannot be transmitted between Judea and the Galilee. Therefore, although no word of a protest was received, the possessor does not establish presumptive ownership of the field. The Gemara asks: But if it is due only to the exigent circumstances that word of the protest does not reach the one possessing the field, what is different about Judea and the Galilee that the tanna cited? Ostensibly, even within one of the three lands, if travel and communications are restricted the same halakha would apply.
讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉
The Gemara answers: The tanna, by citing specifically a case where each is located in a different land, teaches us this:
讚住转诐 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讙诇讬诇 讻砖注转 讞讬专讜诐 讚诪讜:
That an ordinary situation with regard to travel between Judea and the Galilee is tantamount to a period of crisis.
讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讬谉 诪讞讝讬拽讬谉 讘谞讻住讬 讘讜专讞 讻讬 讗诪专讬转讛 拽诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬 讜讻讬 诇诪讞讜转 讘驻谞讬讜 讛讜讗 爪专讬讱
搂 Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: One cannot establish the presumption of ownership with regard to the property of one who is fleeing, as he is unable to lodge a protest. Rav Yehuda reports: When I said this ruling before Shmuel, he disagreed and said to me: But does the owner actually have to protest in the presence of the possessor? Since that is not the case, and he can lodge a protest wherever he is, one can establish the presumption of ownership with regard to the property of one who is fleeing.
讜专讘 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诪讞讗讛 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 诇讗 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讗讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 诪讞讗讛 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讗讛 专讘 讟注诪讗 讚转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 拽诪驻专砖 讜诇讬讛 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛
The Gemara asks: And Rav, who ruled that one cannot establish the presumption of ownership with regard to the property of one who is fleeing, what is he teaching us, that a protest that is lodged not in his presence is not a valid protest? But doesn鈥檛 Rav say: A protest that is lodged not in his presence is a valid protest? The Gemara answers: Rav was explaining the reason of the tanna of our mishna, but he himself does not hold accordingly. Rav holds, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, that the protest is valid.
讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪讞讝讬拽讬诐 讘谞讻住讬 讘讜专讞 讻讬 讗诪专讬转讛 拽诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬 驻砖讬讟讗 讜讻讬 诇诪讞讜转 讘驻谞讬讜 讛讜讗 爪专讬讱
And there are those who say a different version of the previous discussion: Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: One can establish the presumption of ownership with regard to the property of one who is fleeing. Rav Yehuda reports: When I said this ruling before Shmuel, he said to me: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? But does the owner actually have to protest in the presence of the possessor?
讜专讘 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诪讞讗讛 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讗讛 讜讛讗 讗诪专讛 专讘 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讗诇讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬讞讛 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讜诪专 诇讜 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讗讛
The Gemara asks: And Rav, who ruled that one can establish the presumption of ownership with regard to the property of one who is fleeing, what is he teaching us, that a protest that is lodged not in his presence is a valid protest? But Rav already said this halakha one time, and he would not need to repeat it. Rather, Rav teaches us this: That even if the owner protested in the presence of two witnesses who are personally unable to tell the possessor about the protest, it is nevertheless a valid protest.
讚讗诪专 专讘 注谞谉 诇讚讬讚讬 诪驻专砖讗 诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讬讞讛 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 砖讬讻讜诇讬诐 诇讜诪专 诇讜 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讗讛 诪讬讞讛 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 砖讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讜诪专 诇讜 诇讗 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讗讛 讜专讘 讞讘专讱 讞讘专讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讜讞讘专讗 讚讞讘专讱 讞讘专讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛
The Gemara explains: As Rav Anan said: This was explained to me personally by Shmuel himself: If the owner protested in the presence of two people who are able to personally tell the possessor, it is a valid protest, but if the owner protested in the presence of two people who are unable to personally tell the possessor, it is not a valid protest. And why does Rav hold that it is a valid protest? Because your friend who heard the protest has a friend to whom he tells about the protest, and your friend鈥檚 friend has a friend to whom he tells about the protest, and so forth. Therefore, word of the protest will reach the possessor.
讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 讗讬谉 诪讞讝讬拽讬谉 讘谞讻住讬 讘讜专讞 讜诪讞讗讛 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讗讛 转专转讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讜专讞 诪讞诪转 诪诪讜谉 讻讗谉 讘讜专讞 诪讞诪转 诪专讚讬谉:
Rava says: The halakha is that one cannot establish the presumption of ownership with regard to the property of one who is fleeing, and a protest that is lodged not in a possessor鈥檚 presence is a valid protest. The Gemara asks: How can he say these two statements that contradict each other? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, the second statement, is referring to a case where he is fleeing due to monetary difficulties. In such a case, he is able to ensure that the protest reaches the possessor, while there, the first statement, is referring to a case where he is fleeing due to a charge of killing [meradin]. In such a case, he is unable to publicize his protest out of fear of revealing his whereabouts.
讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 诪讞讗讛 讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 驻诇谞讬讗 讙讝诇谞讗 讛讜讗 诇讗 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讗讛 驻诇谞讬讗 讙讝诇谞讗 讛讜讗 讚谞拽讬讟 诇讛 诇讗专注讗讬 讘讙讝诇谞讜转讗
搂 The Gemara presents a series of disputes with regard to what is considered a valid protest. What manner of statement constitutes a protest? Rav Zevid said: If the owner says in general terms: So-and-so is a robber, it is not a valid protest, but if he says: So-and-so is a robber as he is holding my land through robbery,
Subscribe to Hadran's Daf Yomi
Want to explore more about the Daf?
See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners
Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!
Bava Batra 38
The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria
诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讗 讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讻讜专讻诪讗 讚专讬砖拽讗 讝讘讬谞讬 诇讱 注拽讜专 讻讜专讻诪讗 讚专讬砖拽讗 讜讝讬诇 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讘讗 诪讞诪转 讟注谞讛
Rava objects to this ruling that the buyer of the tree acquires the land beneath it: And let the seller say to him: I sold you only the saffron crocus, a small plant normally uprooted by the buyer and taken with him. Therefore, uproot the saffron crocus and go. Rather, Rava said: This ruling is stated with regard to one who comes to court with a specific claim that the seller had stipulated that he would acquire the land. Without this specific claim he does not acquire the land beneath the tree.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 拽砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讗讬 讻讜专讻诪讗 讚专讬砖拽讗 讝讘讬谉 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪注讘讚 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讞讜讬讬
Mar Kashisha, the son of Rav 岣sda, said to Rav Ashi: And if, in fact, the seller sold him the saffron crocus, what was there for the seller to do to prevent the buyer from claiming the land beneath the tree, as the buyer could claim that there had been an explicit stipulation that he receive it? Rav Ashi answered: He should have protested during the first three years and publicized that the land was not included in the sale.
讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讛谞讬 诪砖讻谞转讗 讚住讜专讗 讚讻转讘 讘讛 讛讻讬 讘诪讬砖诇诐 砖谞讬讗 讗诇讬谉 转讬驻讜拽 讗专注讗 讚讗 讘诇讗 讻住祝 讗讬 讻讘讬砖 诇讬讛 诇砖讟专 诪砖讻谞转讗 讜讗诪专 诇拽讜讞讛 讛讬讗 讘讬讚讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诪讛讬诪谉 诪讬转拽谞讬 专讘谞谉 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗转讬 讘讛 诇讬讚讬 驻住讬讚讗 讗诇讗 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讞讜讬讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讞讜讬讬:
The assumption that lodging a protest would be effective must be correct, since if you do not say so, then in the case of these mortgages according to the custom in Sura, a city in Babylonia, the debtor will not have a way to prevent the creditor from keeping his land. As in mortgages of that type it is written like this: At the completion of these years this land will be released to its prior owner without any need for the prior owner to give money. If the creditor were to hide the mortgage document in his possession and say: This land is purchased and that is why it is in my possession, here is it also the case that he would be deemed credible? That cannot be, as is it reasonable that the Sages would institute a matter, such as this type of arrangement, that people can be led by it to suffer a loss? Rather, in the case of the mortgage the debtor should have protested, and by not protesting, he causes his own loss. Here too, in the case of the tree, the owner should have protested.
诪转谞讬壮 砖诇砖 讗专爪讜转 诇讞讝拽讛 讬讛讜讚讛 讜注讘专 讛讬专讚谉 讜讛讙诇讬诇 讛讬讛 讘讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讞讝讬拽 讘讙诇讬诇 讘讙诇讬诇 讜讛讞讝讬拽 讘讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬谞讛 讞讝拽讛 注讚 砖讬讛讗 注诪讜 讘诪讚讬谞讛 讗讞转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讗诪专讜 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讗诇讗 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讗 讘讗住驻诪讬讗 讜讬讞讝讬拽 砖谞讛 讬诇讻讜 讜讬讜讚讬注讜讛讜 砖谞讛 讜讬讘讗 诇砖谞讛 讗讞专转:
MISHNA: There are three independent lands in Eretz Yisrael with regard to establishing presumptive ownership: Judea, and Transjordan, and the Galilee. If the prior owner of the field was in Judea and another took possession of his field in the Galilee, or if he was in the Galilee and another took possession of his field in Judea, the possessor does not establish presumptive ownership until the one possessing the field will be with the prior owner in one province. Rabbi Yehuda says: The Sages said that establishing presumptive ownership requires three years only in order that if the owner will be in Spain [Aspamya], and another possesses his field for a year, people will go and inform the owner by the end of the next year, and the owner will come back in the following year and take the possessor to court.
讙诪壮 诪讗讬 拽住讘专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗讬 拽住讘专 诪讞讗讛 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讗讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讙诇讬诇 谞诪讬 讗讬 拽住讘专 诪讞讗讛 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 诇讗 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讗讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讬讛讜讚讛 谞诪讬 诇讗
GEMARA: What does the first tanna hold in ruling that the prior owner and the field need be in the same province in order for the possessor to establish presumptive ownership? If he holds that a protest that is lodged not in the presence of the one possessing the field is a valid protest, even in the case where one is in Judea and one is in the Galilee, the protest should be valid as well. If he holds that a protest lodged not in his presence is not a valid protest, even in the case where one is in Judea and the other one is in Judea, the protest should not be valid as well.
讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 讗诪专 专讘 诇注讜诇诐 拽住讘专 诪讞讗讛 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讗讛 讜诪砖谞转讬谞讜 讘砖注转 讞讬专讜诐 砖谞讜 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讙诇讬诇 讚谞拽讬讟
Rabbi Abba bar Memel says that Rav says: Actually, the tanna holds that a protest lodged not in his presence is a valid protest, and the Sages taught our mishna with regard to a period of crisis, when travel is perilous and information cannot be transmitted between Judea and the Galilee. Therefore, although no word of a protest was received, the possessor does not establish presumptive ownership of the field. The Gemara asks: But if it is due only to the exigent circumstances that word of the protest does not reach the one possessing the field, what is different about Judea and the Galilee that the tanna cited? Ostensibly, even within one of the three lands, if travel and communications are restricted the same halakha would apply.
讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉
The Gemara answers: The tanna, by citing specifically a case where each is located in a different land, teaches us this:
讚住转诐 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讙诇讬诇 讻砖注转 讞讬专讜诐 讚诪讜:
That an ordinary situation with regard to travel between Judea and the Galilee is tantamount to a period of crisis.
讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讬谉 诪讞讝讬拽讬谉 讘谞讻住讬 讘讜专讞 讻讬 讗诪专讬转讛 拽诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬 讜讻讬 诇诪讞讜转 讘驻谞讬讜 讛讜讗 爪专讬讱
搂 Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: One cannot establish the presumption of ownership with regard to the property of one who is fleeing, as he is unable to lodge a protest. Rav Yehuda reports: When I said this ruling before Shmuel, he disagreed and said to me: But does the owner actually have to protest in the presence of the possessor? Since that is not the case, and he can lodge a protest wherever he is, one can establish the presumption of ownership with regard to the property of one who is fleeing.
讜专讘 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诪讞讗讛 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 诇讗 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讗讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 诪讞讗讛 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讗讛 专讘 讟注诪讗 讚转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 拽诪驻专砖 讜诇讬讛 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛
The Gemara asks: And Rav, who ruled that one cannot establish the presumption of ownership with regard to the property of one who is fleeing, what is he teaching us, that a protest that is lodged not in his presence is not a valid protest? But doesn鈥檛 Rav say: A protest that is lodged not in his presence is a valid protest? The Gemara answers: Rav was explaining the reason of the tanna of our mishna, but he himself does not hold accordingly. Rav holds, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, that the protest is valid.
讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪讞讝讬拽讬诐 讘谞讻住讬 讘讜专讞 讻讬 讗诪专讬转讛 拽诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬 驻砖讬讟讗 讜讻讬 诇诪讞讜转 讘驻谞讬讜 讛讜讗 爪专讬讱
And there are those who say a different version of the previous discussion: Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: One can establish the presumption of ownership with regard to the property of one who is fleeing. Rav Yehuda reports: When I said this ruling before Shmuel, he said to me: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? But does the owner actually have to protest in the presence of the possessor?
讜专讘 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诪讞讗讛 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讗讛 讜讛讗 讗诪专讛 专讘 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讗诇讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬讞讛 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讜诪专 诇讜 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讗讛
The Gemara asks: And Rav, who ruled that one can establish the presumption of ownership with regard to the property of one who is fleeing, what is he teaching us, that a protest that is lodged not in his presence is a valid protest? But Rav already said this halakha one time, and he would not need to repeat it. Rather, Rav teaches us this: That even if the owner protested in the presence of two witnesses who are personally unable to tell the possessor about the protest, it is nevertheless a valid protest.
讚讗诪专 专讘 注谞谉 诇讚讬讚讬 诪驻专砖讗 诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讬讞讛 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 砖讬讻讜诇讬诐 诇讜诪专 诇讜 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讗讛 诪讬讞讛 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 砖讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讜诪专 诇讜 诇讗 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讗讛 讜专讘 讞讘专讱 讞讘专讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讜讞讘专讗 讚讞讘专讱 讞讘专讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛
The Gemara explains: As Rav Anan said: This was explained to me personally by Shmuel himself: If the owner protested in the presence of two people who are able to personally tell the possessor, it is a valid protest, but if the owner protested in the presence of two people who are unable to personally tell the possessor, it is not a valid protest. And why does Rav hold that it is a valid protest? Because your friend who heard the protest has a friend to whom he tells about the protest, and your friend鈥檚 friend has a friend to whom he tells about the protest, and so forth. Therefore, word of the protest will reach the possessor.
讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 讗讬谉 诪讞讝讬拽讬谉 讘谞讻住讬 讘讜专讞 讜诪讞讗讛 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讗讛 转专转讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讜专讞 诪讞诪转 诪诪讜谉 讻讗谉 讘讜专讞 诪讞诪转 诪专讚讬谉:
Rava says: The halakha is that one cannot establish the presumption of ownership with regard to the property of one who is fleeing, and a protest that is lodged not in a possessor鈥檚 presence is a valid protest. The Gemara asks: How can he say these two statements that contradict each other? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, the second statement, is referring to a case where he is fleeing due to monetary difficulties. In such a case, he is able to ensure that the protest reaches the possessor, while there, the first statement, is referring to a case where he is fleeing due to a charge of killing [meradin]. In such a case, he is unable to publicize his protest out of fear of revealing his whereabouts.
讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 诪讞讗讛 讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 驻诇谞讬讗 讙讝诇谞讗 讛讜讗 诇讗 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讗讛 驻诇谞讬讗 讙讝诇谞讗 讛讜讗 讚谞拽讬讟 诇讛 诇讗专注讗讬 讘讙讝诇谞讜转讗
搂 The Gemara presents a series of disputes with regard to what is considered a valid protest. What manner of statement constitutes a protest? Rav Zevid said: If the owner says in general terms: So-and-so is a robber, it is not a valid protest, but if he says: So-and-so is a robber as he is holding my land through robbery,
