If the original owner protests if a possessor is profiting from the land, but tells the witnesses not to let the possessor know, is the protest effective? The Gemara brings several variations of this type of situation and the rulings of different rabbis in each one, depending on the language used. In front of how many people does one need to protest – two or three? Is it similar to the laws of lashon hara? What is at the root of the debate? Is it sufficient to protest once in the first year or does one need to protest once every three years? What other actions need to be performed in the presence of two people and which require three?
Bava Batra
Masechet Bava Batra is sponsored by Lori Stark in loving memory of her mother in law, Sara Shapiro z”l and her father Nehemiah Sosewitz z”l.
This month’s learning is dedicated to the refuah shleima of our dear friend, Phyllis Hecht, גיטל פעשא בת מאשה רחל by all her many friends who love and admire her. Phyllis’ emuna, strength, and positivity are an inspiration.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
Bava Batra
Masechet Bava Batra is sponsored by Lori Stark in loving memory of her mother in law, Sara Shapiro z”l and her father Nehemiah Sosewitz z”l.
This month’s learning is dedicated to the refuah shleima of our dear friend, Phyllis Hecht, גיטל פעשא בת מאשה רחל by all her many friends who love and admire her. Phyllis’ emuna, strength, and positivity are an inspiration.
Bava Batra 39
וְלִמְחַר תָּבַעְנָא לֵיהּ בְּדִינָא״ – הָוְיָא מֶחָאָה.
and tomorrow, i.e., in the future, I will bring a claim against him in court, it is a valid protest.
אָמַר ״לָא תֵּימְרוּ לֵיהּ״, מַאי? אָמַר רַב זְבִיד: הָא קָאָמַר ״לָא תֵּימְרוּ לֵיהּ״! רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: לְדִידֵיהּ לָא תֵּימְרוּ לֵיהּ, לְאַחֲרִינֵי אֵימַרוּ לְהוּ – חַבְרָךְ חַבְרָא אִית לֵיהּ, חַבְרָא דְחַבְרָךְ חַבְרָא אִית לֵיהּ.
If the one lodging a protest also said: Do not tell the possessor of the protest, what is the halakha? Rav Zevid said: It is not a valid protest, because isn’t he saying: Do not tell him? Therefore, word of the protest will not reach the possessor and it is meaningless. Rav Pappa disagreed and said that the owner merely meant: Do not tell him personally, but they, i.e. the witnesses, should tell others. In that case, word of the protest will reach the possessor, since your friend has a friend whom he tells about the protest, and your friend’s friend has a friend whom he tells about the protest; therefore, it is a valid protest.
אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: ״לָא אָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ״ – אָמַר רַב זְבִיד: הָא קָא אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ ״לָא אָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ״! רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: לְדִידֵיהּ לָא אָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ, לְאַחֲרִינֵי אָמְרִי לְהוּ – חַבְרָךְ חַבְרָא אִית לֵיהּ, וְחַבְרָא דְחַבְרָךְ חַבְרָא אִית לֵיהּ.
If the witnesses before whom the owner lodged the protest said to him: We are not going to tell the possessor about your protest, what is the halakha? Rav Zevid said: It is not a valid protest, and he has to lodge a protest before other witnesses, as are they not saying to him: We are not going to tell him about your protest? Rav Pappa disagreed and said that they merely meant: We are not going to tell him personally, but we are going to tell others. In that case, word of the protest will reach the possessor, since your friend has a friend whom he tells about the protest, and your friend’s friend has a friend whom he tells about the protest; therefore, it is a valid protest.
אֲמַר לְהוּ: ״לָא תִּיפּוֹק לְכוּ שׁוּתָא״ – אָמַר רַב זְבִיד: הָא קָאָמַר ״לָא תִּיפּוֹק לְכוּ שׁוּתָא״! אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: ״לָא מַפְּקִינַן שׁוּתָא״ – אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הָא קָאָמְרִי לֵיהּ ״לָא מַפְּקִינַן שׁוּתָא״! רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אָמַר: כֹּל מִילְּתָא דְלָא רַמְיָא עֲלֵיהּ דְּאִינִישׁ, אָמַר לַהּ וְלָאו אַדַּעְתֵּיהּ.
If the one lodging the protest also said to them: A word [shuta] should not emerge from you about this, what is the halakha? Rav Zevid said: It is not a valid protest, as isn’t he saying to them: A word should not emerge from you? Similarly, if the people before whom he protested said to him: We will not have a word emerge from us, Rav Pappa said: It is not a valid protest, as aren’t they saying to him: We will not have a word emerge from us? Rav Huna, the son of Rav Yehoshua, disagreed and said: It is a valid protest, because with regard to any matter that is not actually incumbent on a person to keep secret, it is likely that he will say it to others unawares, and therefore the presumption is that word will reach the possessor.
אָמַר רָבָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מֶחָאָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו הָוְיָא מֶחָאָה. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן – אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: לֹא אָמְרוּ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים, אֶלָּא כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא בְּאַסְפַּמְיָא וְיַחְזִיק שָׁנָה, וְיֵלְכוּ וְיוֹדִיעוּהוּ שָׁנָה, וְיָבֹא לְשָׁנָה אַחֶרֶת. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ מֶחָאָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו הָוְיָא מֶחָאָה, לְמָה לִי לְמֵיתֵי? לִיתֵּיב הָתָם אַדּוּכְתֵּיהּ, וְלִימַחֵי! הָתָם עֵצָה טוֹבָה קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּנֵיתֵי וְנִשְׁקוֹל אַרְעָא וּפֵירֵי.
§ Rava says that Rav Naḥman says: A protest that is lodged not in the presence of the possessor is a valid protest. Rava raised an objection to what Rav Naḥman said from the mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says: The Sages said that establishing the presumption of ownership requires three years only in order that if the owner will be in Spain 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. And if it enters your mind that a protest that is lodged not in his presence is a valid protest, why do I need the owner to come? Let him remain there in his place and protest. The Gemara answers: There, Rabbi Yehuda wishes to teach us good advice, that he should come and collect the land and its produce.
מִדְּקָא מוֹתֵיב לֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן – מִכְּלָל דְּלָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ דְּמֶחָאָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו הָוְיָא מֶחָאָה; וְהָאָמַר רָבָא: מֶחָאָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו הָוְיָא מֶחָאָה! בָּתַר דְּשַׁמְעַהּ מֵרַב נַחְמָן, סַבְרַהּ.
The Gemara asks: From the fact that Rava raised an objection to Rav Naḥman, it may be inferred that he does not hold that a protest that is lodged not in his presence is a valid protest. But doesn’t Rava say: A protest that is lodged not in his presence is a valid protest? The Gemara answers: He held that conclusion only after he heard this halakha from Rav Naḥman.
אַשְׁכְּחִינְהוּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא לְתַלְמִידָיו דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, אֲמַר לְהוּ: מִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מֶחָאָה – בְּכַמָּה? רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מֶחָאָה בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם. רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מֶחָאָה בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה.
§ The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, encountered the students of Rabbi Yoḥanan and said to them: Did Rabbi Yoḥanan say in the presence of how many people a protest must be lodged? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A protest must be lodged in the presence of two people. Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A protest must be lodged in the presence of three people.
לֵימָא בִּדְרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא קָא מִיפַּלְגִי – דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: כֹּל מִילְּתָא דְּמִתְאַמְרָא בְּאַפֵּי תְּלָתָא,
The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that they disagree with regard to the halakha of Rabba bar Rav Huna? As Rabba bar Rav Huna says: Any matter that is said in the presence of three people
לֵית בָּהּ מִשּׁוּם לִישָּׁנָא בִּישָׁא; מַאן דְּאָמַר בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם – לֵית לֵיהּ דְּרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא, וּמַאן דְּאָמַר בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה – אִית לֵיהּ דְּרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא?
is not subject to the prohibition of malicious speech, as it is already public knowledge. The Gemara elaborates on the suggestion that the dispute hinges upon this point: The one who says that a protest can be lodged in the presence of two people is not of the opinion that the ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba bar Rav Huna and holds that even if only two people hear of a matter it will become a matter of public knowledge. Therefore, it is sufficient to protest in the presence of two witnesses. And the one who says that a protest must be lodged in the presence of three people is of the opinion that the ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba bar Rav Huna.
לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אִית לְהוּ דְּרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא; וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָא מִיפַּלְגִי – מַאן דְּאָמַר בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם, קָסָבַר: מֶחָאָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו לָא הָוְיָא מֶחָאָה. וּמַאן דְּאָמַר בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה, קָסָבַר: מֶחָאָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו הָוְיָא מֶחָאָה.
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, everyone is of the opinion that the ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba bar Rav Huna, and here they disagree with regard to this: The one who says that a protest can be lodged in the presence of two people holds that a protest that is lodged not in his presence is not a valid protest. Therefore, two witnesses suffice, as they are needed to attest only to the fact that the owner protested. And the one who says that a protest must be lodged in the presence of three people holds that a protest that is lodged not in his presence is a valid protest. Since the protest can be lodged not in the possessor’s presence, three people are needed to ensure that word of the protest will reach him.
אִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא – מֶחָאָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו הָוְיָא מֶחָאָה; וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי – מַאן דְּאָמַר בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם, סָבַר: סָהֲדוּתָא בָּעֵינַן. וּמַאן דְּאָמַר בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה, קָסָבַר: גַּלּוֹיֵי מִילְּתָא בָּעֵינַן.
If you wish, say instead that everyone holds that a protest that is lodged not in his presence is a valid protest, and here they disagree with regard to this: The one who says that a protest can be lodged in the presence of only two people holds that we require testimony, and two are sufficient for testimony. And the one who says that a protest must be lodged in the presence of three people holds that we require that the matter of the protest be revealed, and for that purpose three people are needed.
גִּידֵּל בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי הֲוָה לֵיהּ מַחוּיָאתָה לְמַחוֹיֵי. אַשְׁכְּחִינְהוּ לְרַב הוּנָא וּלְחִיָּיא בַּר רַב וּלְרַב חִלְקִיָּה בַּר טוֹבִי דַּהֲווֹ יָתְבִי, וּמַחָה קַמַּיְיהוּ. לְשָׁנָה – הֲדַר אֲתָא לְמַחוֹיֵי, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: לָא צְרִיכַתְּ, הָכִי אָמַר רַב: כֵּיוָן שֶׁמִּיחָה שָׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה, שׁוּב אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְמַחוֹת. וְאִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ חִיָּיא בַּר רַב: כֵּיוָן שֶׁמִּיחָה שָׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה, שׁוּב אֵין צָרִיךְ לְמַחוֹת.
§ The Gemara relates: Giddel bar Minyumi had a protest to lodge with regard to his property. He found Rav Huna and Ḥiyya bar Rav and Rav Ḥilkiya bar Tuvi, who were sitting, and he protested before them. After a year, he came to them again to protest. They said to him: You do not need to do so; this is what Rav says: Once the owner protested in the first year, he no longer needs to protest. And there are those who say that Ḥiyya bar Rav said to him, not in the name of Rav: Once the owner protested in the first year, he no longer needs to protest.
אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מִשּׁוּם בַּר קַפָּרָא: וְצָרִיךְ לְמַחוֹת בְּסוֹף כׇּל שָׁלֹשׁ וְשָׁלֹשׁ. תָּהֵי בַּהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וְכִי גַּזְלָן יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה?! ״גַּזְלָן״ סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ?! אֶלָּא ״כְּגַזְלָן״ יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה.
Reish Lakish says in the name of bar Kappara: And he needs to protest at the end of each and every period of three years, so that the possessor will not hold his property for three consecutive years uncontested. Rabbi Yoḥanan expressed surprise at this ruling of Reish Lakish and said: But does a robber have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership? Once the owner lodged one protest, he demonstrated that the possessor occupied his land unlawfully. Therefore, the possessor should never be able to establish the presumption of ownership. The Gemara clarifies: Does it enter your mind that the possessor is actually a robber? There is no evidence that he robbed, there is only a protest by the prior owner. Rather, emend his question as follows: Does one who is akin to a robber have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership?
אָמַר רָבָא: הִלְכְתָא – צָרִיךְ לְמַחוֹת בְּסוֹף כׇּל שָׁלֹשׁ וְשָׁלֹשׁ. תָּנֵי בַּר קַפָּרָא: עִרְעֵר, חָזַר וְעִרְעֵר, חָזַר וְעִרְעֵר – אִם מֵחֲמַת טַעֲנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה עִרְעֵר, אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה. וְאִם לָאו – יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה.
Rava says that the halakha is: The owner needs to protest at the end of each and every period of three years. Bar Kappara teaches: If the owner protested, returned and protested, and then returned and protested, if, when he protested the later times, his protest was based on the same claim as the initial claim, the possessor has no presumptive ownership. But if the later protests were not based on the same claim as the initial protest, the possessor has presumptive ownership since each time the owner advanced a new claim, he thereby nullified his earlier claims.
אָמַר רָבָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מֶחָאָה – בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם,
§ Rava says that Rav Naḥman says: A protest can be lodged in the presence of two witnesses,
Follow 
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Reena Slovin
Worcester, United States
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
Lisa Berkelhammer
San Francisco, CA , United States
Jill Shames
Jerusalem, Israel
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
linda kalish-marcus
Efrat, Israel
I saw an elderly man at the shul kiddush in early March 2020, celebrating the siyyum of masechet brachot which he had been learning with a young yeshiva student. I thought, if he can do it, I can do it! I began to learn masechet Shabbat the next day, Making up masechet brachot myself, which I had missed. I haven’t missed a day since, thanks to the ease of listening to Hadran’s podcast!
Judith Shapiro
Minnesota, United States
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Terri Krivosha
Minneapolis, United States
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Judith Weil
Raanana, Israel
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Batsheva Pava
Hashmonaim, Israel
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Caroline Ben-Ari
Karmiel, Israel
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ruth Leah Kahan
Ra’anana, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
Medinah Korn
בית שמש, Israel
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
linda kalish-marcus
Efrat, Israel
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Hannah Lee
Pennsylvania, United States
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Jill Felder
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Laura Shechter
Lexington, MA, United States
At almost 70 I am just beginning my journey with Talmud and Hadran. I began not late, but right when I was called to learn. It is never too late to begin! The understanding patience of staff and participants with more experience and knowledge has been fabulous. The joy of learning never stops and for me. It is a new life, a new light, a new depth of love of The Holy One, Blessed be He.
Deborah Hoffman-Wade
Richmond, CA, United States
“I got my job through the NY Times” was an ad campaign when I was growing up. I can headline “I got my daily Daf shiur and Hadran through the NY Times”. I read the January 4, 2020 feature on Reb. Michelle Farber and Hadran and I have been participating ever since. Thanks NY Times & Hadran!
Deborah Aschheim
New York, United States
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Julie Mendelsohn
Zichron Yakov, Israel
A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.
Sheila Hauser
Jerusalem, Israel
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Janine Rubens
Virginia, United States
Bava Batra 39
וְלִמְחַר תָּבַעְנָא לֵיהּ בְּדִינָא״ – הָוְיָא מֶחָאָה.
and tomorrow, i.e., in the future, I will bring a claim against him in court, it is a valid protest.
אָמַר ״לָא תֵּימְרוּ לֵיהּ״, מַאי? אָמַר רַב זְבִיד: הָא קָאָמַר ״לָא תֵּימְרוּ לֵיהּ״! רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: לְדִידֵיהּ לָא תֵּימְרוּ לֵיהּ, לְאַחֲרִינֵי אֵימַרוּ לְהוּ – חַבְרָךְ חַבְרָא אִית לֵיהּ, חַבְרָא דְחַבְרָךְ חַבְרָא אִית לֵיהּ.
If the one lodging a protest also said: Do not tell the possessor of the protest, what is the halakha? Rav Zevid said: It is not a valid protest, because isn’t he saying: Do not tell him? Therefore, word of the protest will not reach the possessor and it is meaningless. Rav Pappa disagreed and said that the owner merely meant: Do not tell him personally, but they, i.e. the witnesses, should tell others. In that case, word of the protest will reach the possessor, since your friend has a friend whom he tells about the protest, and your friend’s friend has a friend whom he tells about the protest; therefore, it is a valid protest.
אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: ״לָא אָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ״ – אָמַר רַב זְבִיד: הָא קָא אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ ״לָא אָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ״! רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: לְדִידֵיהּ לָא אָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ, לְאַחֲרִינֵי אָמְרִי לְהוּ – חַבְרָךְ חַבְרָא אִית לֵיהּ, וְחַבְרָא דְחַבְרָךְ חַבְרָא אִית לֵיהּ.
If the witnesses before whom the owner lodged the protest said to him: We are not going to tell the possessor about your protest, what is the halakha? Rav Zevid said: It is not a valid protest, and he has to lodge a protest before other witnesses, as are they not saying to him: We are not going to tell him about your protest? Rav Pappa disagreed and said that they merely meant: We are not going to tell him personally, but we are going to tell others. In that case, word of the protest will reach the possessor, since your friend has a friend whom he tells about the protest, and your friend’s friend has a friend whom he tells about the protest; therefore, it is a valid protest.
אֲמַר לְהוּ: ״לָא תִּיפּוֹק לְכוּ שׁוּתָא״ – אָמַר רַב זְבִיד: הָא קָאָמַר ״לָא תִּיפּוֹק לְכוּ שׁוּתָא״! אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: ״לָא מַפְּקִינַן שׁוּתָא״ – אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הָא קָאָמְרִי לֵיהּ ״לָא מַפְּקִינַן שׁוּתָא״! רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אָמַר: כֹּל מִילְּתָא דְלָא רַמְיָא עֲלֵיהּ דְּאִינִישׁ, אָמַר לַהּ וְלָאו אַדַּעְתֵּיהּ.
If the one lodging the protest also said to them: A word [shuta] should not emerge from you about this, what is the halakha? Rav Zevid said: It is not a valid protest, as isn’t he saying to them: A word should not emerge from you? Similarly, if the people before whom he protested said to him: We will not have a word emerge from us, Rav Pappa said: It is not a valid protest, as aren’t they saying to him: We will not have a word emerge from us? Rav Huna, the son of Rav Yehoshua, disagreed and said: It is a valid protest, because with regard to any matter that is not actually incumbent on a person to keep secret, it is likely that he will say it to others unawares, and therefore the presumption is that word will reach the possessor.
אָמַר רָבָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מֶחָאָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו הָוְיָא מֶחָאָה. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן – אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: לֹא אָמְרוּ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים, אֶלָּא כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא בְּאַסְפַּמְיָא וְיַחְזִיק שָׁנָה, וְיֵלְכוּ וְיוֹדִיעוּהוּ שָׁנָה, וְיָבֹא לְשָׁנָה אַחֶרֶת. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ מֶחָאָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו הָוְיָא מֶחָאָה, לְמָה לִי לְמֵיתֵי? לִיתֵּיב הָתָם אַדּוּכְתֵּיהּ, וְלִימַחֵי! הָתָם עֵצָה טוֹבָה קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּנֵיתֵי וְנִשְׁקוֹל אַרְעָא וּפֵירֵי.
§ Rava says that Rav Naḥman says: A protest that is lodged not in the presence of the possessor is a valid protest. Rava raised an objection to what Rav Naḥman said from the mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says: The Sages said that establishing the presumption of ownership requires three years only in order that if the owner will be in Spain 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. And if it enters your mind that a protest that is lodged not in his presence is a valid protest, why do I need the owner to come? Let him remain there in his place and protest. The Gemara answers: There, Rabbi Yehuda wishes to teach us good advice, that he should come and collect the land and its produce.
מִדְּקָא מוֹתֵיב לֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן – מִכְּלָל דְּלָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ דְּמֶחָאָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו הָוְיָא מֶחָאָה; וְהָאָמַר רָבָא: מֶחָאָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו הָוְיָא מֶחָאָה! בָּתַר דְּשַׁמְעַהּ מֵרַב נַחְמָן, סַבְרַהּ.
The Gemara asks: From the fact that Rava raised an objection to Rav Naḥman, it may be inferred that he does not hold that a protest that is lodged not in his presence is a valid protest. But doesn’t Rava say: A protest that is lodged not in his presence is a valid protest? The Gemara answers: He held that conclusion only after he heard this halakha from Rav Naḥman.
אַשְׁכְּחִינְהוּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא לְתַלְמִידָיו דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, אֲמַר לְהוּ: מִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מֶחָאָה – בְּכַמָּה? רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מֶחָאָה בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם. רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מֶחָאָה בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה.
§ The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, encountered the students of Rabbi Yoḥanan and said to them: Did Rabbi Yoḥanan say in the presence of how many people a protest must be lodged? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A protest must be lodged in the presence of two people. Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A protest must be lodged in the presence of three people.
לֵימָא בִּדְרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא קָא מִיפַּלְגִי – דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: כֹּל מִילְּתָא דְּמִתְאַמְרָא בְּאַפֵּי תְּלָתָא,
The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that they disagree with regard to the halakha of Rabba bar Rav Huna? As Rabba bar Rav Huna says: Any matter that is said in the presence of three people
לֵית בָּהּ מִשּׁוּם לִישָּׁנָא בִּישָׁא; מַאן דְּאָמַר בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם – לֵית לֵיהּ דְּרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא, וּמַאן דְּאָמַר בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה – אִית לֵיהּ דְּרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא?
is not subject to the prohibition of malicious speech, as it is already public knowledge. The Gemara elaborates on the suggestion that the dispute hinges upon this point: The one who says that a protest can be lodged in the presence of two people is not of the opinion that the ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba bar Rav Huna and holds that even if only two people hear of a matter it will become a matter of public knowledge. Therefore, it is sufficient to protest in the presence of two witnesses. And the one who says that a protest must be lodged in the presence of three people is of the opinion that the ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba bar Rav Huna.
לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אִית לְהוּ דְּרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא; וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָא מִיפַּלְגִי – מַאן דְּאָמַר בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם, קָסָבַר: מֶחָאָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו לָא הָוְיָא מֶחָאָה. וּמַאן דְּאָמַר בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה, קָסָבַר: מֶחָאָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו הָוְיָא מֶחָאָה.
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, everyone is of the opinion that the ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba bar Rav Huna, and here they disagree with regard to this: The one who says that a protest can be lodged in the presence of two people holds that a protest that is lodged not in his presence is not a valid protest. Therefore, two witnesses suffice, as they are needed to attest only to the fact that the owner protested. And the one who says that a protest must be lodged in the presence of three people holds that a protest that is lodged not in his presence is a valid protest. Since the protest can be lodged not in the possessor’s presence, three people are needed to ensure that word of the protest will reach him.
אִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא – מֶחָאָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו הָוְיָא מֶחָאָה; וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי – מַאן דְּאָמַר בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם, סָבַר: סָהֲדוּתָא בָּעֵינַן. וּמַאן דְּאָמַר בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה, קָסָבַר: גַּלּוֹיֵי מִילְּתָא בָּעֵינַן.
If you wish, say instead that everyone holds that a protest that is lodged not in his presence is a valid protest, and here they disagree with regard to this: The one who says that a protest can be lodged in the presence of only two people holds that we require testimony, and two are sufficient for testimony. And the one who says that a protest must be lodged in the presence of three people holds that we require that the matter of the protest be revealed, and for that purpose three people are needed.
גִּידֵּל בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי הֲוָה לֵיהּ מַחוּיָאתָה לְמַחוֹיֵי. אַשְׁכְּחִינְהוּ לְרַב הוּנָא וּלְחִיָּיא בַּר רַב וּלְרַב חִלְקִיָּה בַּר טוֹבִי דַּהֲווֹ יָתְבִי, וּמַחָה קַמַּיְיהוּ. לְשָׁנָה – הֲדַר אֲתָא לְמַחוֹיֵי, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: לָא צְרִיכַתְּ, הָכִי אָמַר רַב: כֵּיוָן שֶׁמִּיחָה שָׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה, שׁוּב אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְמַחוֹת. וְאִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ חִיָּיא בַּר רַב: כֵּיוָן שֶׁמִּיחָה שָׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה, שׁוּב אֵין צָרִיךְ לְמַחוֹת.
§ The Gemara relates: Giddel bar Minyumi had a protest to lodge with regard to his property. He found Rav Huna and Ḥiyya bar Rav and Rav Ḥilkiya bar Tuvi, who were sitting, and he protested before them. After a year, he came to them again to protest. They said to him: You do not need to do so; this is what Rav says: Once the owner protested in the first year, he no longer needs to protest. And there are those who say that Ḥiyya bar Rav said to him, not in the name of Rav: Once the owner protested in the first year, he no longer needs to protest.
אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מִשּׁוּם בַּר קַפָּרָא: וְצָרִיךְ לְמַחוֹת בְּסוֹף כׇּל שָׁלֹשׁ וְשָׁלֹשׁ. תָּהֵי בַּהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וְכִי גַּזְלָן יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה?! ״גַּזְלָן״ סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ?! אֶלָּא ״כְּגַזְלָן״ יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה.
Reish Lakish says in the name of bar Kappara: And he needs to protest at the end of each and every period of three years, so that the possessor will not hold his property for three consecutive years uncontested. Rabbi Yoḥanan expressed surprise at this ruling of Reish Lakish and said: But does a robber have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership? Once the owner lodged one protest, he demonstrated that the possessor occupied his land unlawfully. Therefore, the possessor should never be able to establish the presumption of ownership. The Gemara clarifies: Does it enter your mind that the possessor is actually a robber? There is no evidence that he robbed, there is only a protest by the prior owner. Rather, emend his question as follows: Does one who is akin to a robber have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership?
אָמַר רָבָא: הִלְכְתָא – צָרִיךְ לְמַחוֹת בְּסוֹף כׇּל שָׁלֹשׁ וְשָׁלֹשׁ. תָּנֵי בַּר קַפָּרָא: עִרְעֵר, חָזַר וְעִרְעֵר, חָזַר וְעִרְעֵר – אִם מֵחֲמַת טַעֲנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה עִרְעֵר, אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה. וְאִם לָאו – יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה.
Rava says that the halakha is: The owner needs to protest at the end of each and every period of three years. Bar Kappara teaches: If the owner protested, returned and protested, and then returned and protested, if, when he protested the later times, his protest was based on the same claim as the initial claim, the possessor has no presumptive ownership. But if the later protests were not based on the same claim as the initial protest, the possessor has presumptive ownership since each time the owner advanced a new claim, he thereby nullified his earlier claims.
אָמַר רָבָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מֶחָאָה – בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם,
§ Rava says that Rav Naḥman says: A protest can be lodged in the presence of two witnesses,
Follow
