Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

March 2, 2017 | 讚壮 讘讗讚专 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Bava Batra 39

In front of how many people does one need to lodge a protest? 聽2 or 3? 聽What is the at the root of the debate? 聽Is it sufficient to lodge a protest once in the first year or does one need to protest once every 3 years? 聽What other things require the presence of 2 people and which require 3?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讜诇诪讞专 转讘注谞讗 诇讬讛 讘讚讬谞讗 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讗讛

and tomorrow, i.e., in the future, I will bring a claim against him in court, it is a valid protest.

讗诪专 诇讗 转讬诪专讜 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讛讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 转讬诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诇讚讬讚讬讛 诇讗 转讬诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讗讞专讬谞讬 讗讬诪专讜 诇讛讜 讞讘专讱 讞讘专讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讞讘专讗 讚讞讘专讱 讞讘专讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛

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鈥檛 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鈥檚 friend has a friend whom he tells about the protest; therefore, it is a valid protest.

讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讛讗 拽讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诇讚讬讚讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇讗讞专讬谞讬 讗诪专讬 诇讛讜 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

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鈥檚 friend has a friend whom he tells about the protest; therefore, it is a valid protest.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗 转讬驻讜拽 诇讻讜 砖讜转讗 讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讛讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 转讬驻讜拽 诇讻讜 砖讜转讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 砖讜转讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讗 拽讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 砖讜转讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 讻诇 诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讗 专诪讬讗 注诇讬讛 讚讗讬谞讬砖 讗诪专 诇讛 讜诇讗讜 讗讚注转讬讛

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鈥檛 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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讞讗讛 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讗讛 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 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 讜讬诇讻讜 讜讬讜讚讬注讜讛讜 砖谞讛 讜讬讘讗 诇砖谞讛 讗讞专转 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪讞讗讛 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讗讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬转讬 诇讬转讬讘 讛转诐 讗讚讜讻转讬讛 讜诇讬诪讞讬 讛转诐 注爪讛 讟讜讘讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚谞讬转讬 讜谞砖拽讜诇 讗专注讗 讜驻讬专讬

Rava says that Rav Na岣an says: A protest that is lodged not in the presence of the possessor is a valid protest. Rava raised an objection to what Rav Na岣an 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.

诪讚拽讗 诪讜转讬讘 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讻诇诇 讚诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚诪讞讗讛 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讗讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讞讗讛 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讗讛 讘转专 讚砖诪注讛 诪专讘 谞讞诪谉 住讘专讛

The Gemara asks: From the fact that Rava raised an objection to Rav Na岣an, 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鈥檛 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 Na岣an.

讗砖讻讞讬谞讛讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诇转诇诪讬讚讬讜 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讞讗讛 讘讻诪讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讞讗讛 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讞讗讛 讘驻谞讬 砖诇砖讛

搂 The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, encountered the students of Rabbi Yo岣nan and said to them: Did Rabbi Yo岣nan say in the presence of how many people a protest must be lodged? Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: A protest must be lodged in the presence of two people. Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: A protest must be lodged in the presence of three people.

诇讬诪讗 讘讚专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻诇 诪讬诇转讗 讚诪转讗诪专讗 讘讗驻讬 转诇转讗

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

诇讬转 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 诇讬砖谞讗 讘讬砖讗 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 砖诇砖讛 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗

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.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 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 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 砖诇砖讛 拽住讘专 诪讞讗讛 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讗讛

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鈥檚 presence, three people are needed to ensure that word of the protest will reach him.

讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪讞讗讛 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讗讛 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 住讘专 住讛讚讜转讗 讘注讬谞谉 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 砖诇砖讛 拽住讘专 讙诇讜讬讬 诪讬诇转讗 讘注讬谞谉

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.

讙讬讚诇 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪讞讜讬讗转讛 诇诪讞讜讬讬 讗砖讻讞讬谞讛讜 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜诇讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 讜诇专讘 讞诇拽讬讛 讘专 讟讜讘讬 讚讛讜讜 讬转讘讬 讜诪讞讛 拽诪讬讬讛讜 诇砖谞讛 讛讚专 讗转讗 诇诪讞讜讬讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻转 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讻讬讜谉 砖诪讬讞讛 砖谞讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 砖讜讘 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇诪讞讜转 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 讻讬讜谉 砖诪讬讞讛 砖谞讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 砖讜讘 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇诪讞讜转

搂 The Gemara relates: Giddel bar Minyumi had a protest to lodge with regard to his property. He found Rav Huna and 岣yya bar Rav and Rav 岣lkiya 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 岣yya 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.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 讘专 拽驻专讗 讜爪专讬讱 诇诪讞讜转 讘住讜祝 讻诇 砖诇砖 讜砖诇砖 转讛讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讻讬 讙讝诇谉 讬砖 诇讜 讞讝拽讛 讙讝诇谉 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讻讙讝诇谉 讬砖 诇讜 讞讝拽讛

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 Yo岣nan 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?

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 爪专讬讱 诇诪讞讜转 讘住讜祝 讻诇 砖诇砖 讜砖诇砖 转谞讬 讘专 拽驻专讗 注专注专 讞讝专 讜注专注专 讞讝专 讜注专注专 讗诐 诪讞诪转 讟注谞讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 注专注专 讗讬谉 诇讜 讞讝拽讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讬砖 诇讜 讞讝拽讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讞讗讛 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐

Rava says that Rav Na岣an says: A protest can be lodged in the presence of two witnesses,

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 39

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 39

讜诇诪讞专 转讘注谞讗 诇讬讛 讘讚讬谞讗 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讗讛

and tomorrow, i.e., in the future, I will bring a claim against him in court, it is a valid protest.

讗诪专 诇讗 转讬诪专讜 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讛讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 转讬诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诇讚讬讚讬讛 诇讗 转讬诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讗讞专讬谞讬 讗讬诪专讜 诇讛讜 讞讘专讱 讞讘专讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讞讘专讗 讚讞讘专讱 讞讘专讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛

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鈥檛 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鈥檚 friend has a friend whom he tells about the protest; therefore, it is a valid protest.

讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讛讗 拽讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诇讚讬讚讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇讗讞专讬谞讬 讗诪专讬 诇讛讜 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

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鈥檚 friend has a friend whom he tells about the protest; therefore, it is a valid protest.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗 转讬驻讜拽 诇讻讜 砖讜转讗 讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讛讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 转讬驻讜拽 诇讻讜 砖讜转讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 砖讜转讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讗 拽讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 砖讜转讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 讻诇 诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讗 专诪讬讗 注诇讬讛 讚讗讬谞讬砖 讗诪专 诇讛 讜诇讗讜 讗讚注转讬讛

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鈥檛 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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讞讗讛 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讗讛 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 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 讜讬诇讻讜 讜讬讜讚讬注讜讛讜 砖谞讛 讜讬讘讗 诇砖谞讛 讗讞专转 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪讞讗讛 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讗讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬转讬 诇讬转讬讘 讛转诐 讗讚讜讻转讬讛 讜诇讬诪讞讬 讛转诐 注爪讛 讟讜讘讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚谞讬转讬 讜谞砖拽讜诇 讗专注讗 讜驻讬专讬

Rava says that Rav Na岣an says: A protest that is lodged not in the presence of the possessor is a valid protest. Rava raised an objection to what Rav Na岣an 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.

诪讚拽讗 诪讜转讬讘 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讻诇诇 讚诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚诪讞讗讛 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讗讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讞讗讛 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讗讛 讘转专 讚砖诪注讛 诪专讘 谞讞诪谉 住讘专讛

The Gemara asks: From the fact that Rava raised an objection to Rav Na岣an, 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鈥檛 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 Na岣an.

讗砖讻讞讬谞讛讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诇转诇诪讬讚讬讜 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讞讗讛 讘讻诪讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讞讗讛 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讞讗讛 讘驻谞讬 砖诇砖讛

搂 The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, encountered the students of Rabbi Yo岣nan and said to them: Did Rabbi Yo岣nan say in the presence of how many people a protest must be lodged? Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: A protest must be lodged in the presence of two people. Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: A protest must be lodged in the presence of three people.

诇讬诪讗 讘讚专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻诇 诪讬诇转讗 讚诪转讗诪专讗 讘讗驻讬 转诇转讗

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

诇讬转 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 诇讬砖谞讗 讘讬砖讗 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 砖诇砖讛 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗

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.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 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 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 砖诇砖讛 拽住讘专 诪讞讗讛 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讗讛

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鈥檚 presence, three people are needed to ensure that word of the protest will reach him.

讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪讞讗讛 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讗讛 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 住讘专 住讛讚讜转讗 讘注讬谞谉 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 砖诇砖讛 拽住讘专 讙诇讜讬讬 诪讬诇转讗 讘注讬谞谉

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.

讙讬讚诇 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪讞讜讬讗转讛 诇诪讞讜讬讬 讗砖讻讞讬谞讛讜 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜诇讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 讜诇专讘 讞诇拽讬讛 讘专 讟讜讘讬 讚讛讜讜 讬转讘讬 讜诪讞讛 拽诪讬讬讛讜 诇砖谞讛 讛讚专 讗转讗 诇诪讞讜讬讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻转 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讻讬讜谉 砖诪讬讞讛 砖谞讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 砖讜讘 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇诪讞讜转 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 讻讬讜谉 砖诪讬讞讛 砖谞讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 砖讜讘 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇诪讞讜转

搂 The Gemara relates: Giddel bar Minyumi had a protest to lodge with regard to his property. He found Rav Huna and 岣yya bar Rav and Rav 岣lkiya 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 岣yya 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.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 讘专 拽驻专讗 讜爪专讬讱 诇诪讞讜转 讘住讜祝 讻诇 砖诇砖 讜砖诇砖 转讛讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讻讬 讙讝诇谉 讬砖 诇讜 讞讝拽讛 讙讝诇谉 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讻讙讝诇谉 讬砖 诇讜 讞讝拽讛

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 Yo岣nan 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?

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 爪专讬讱 诇诪讞讜转 讘住讜祝 讻诇 砖诇砖 讜砖诇砖 转谞讬 讘专 拽驻专讗 注专注专 讞讝专 讜注专注专 讞讝专 讜注专注专 讗诐 诪讞诪转 讟注谞讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 注专注专 讗讬谉 诇讜 讞讝拽讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讬砖 诇讜 讞讝拽讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讞讗讛 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐

Rava says that Rav Na岣an says: A protest can be lodged in the presence of two witnesses,

Scroll To Top