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 sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
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 sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
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 July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Beth Kissileff
Pittsburgh, United States
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Shoshana Shinnar
Jerusalem, Israel
I’ve been studying Talmud since the ’90s, and decided to take on Daf Yomi two years ago. I wanted to attempt the challenge of a day-to-day, very Jewish activity. Some days are so interesting and some days are so boring. But I’m still here.
Wendy Rozov
Phoenix, AZ, United States
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Beth Elster
Irvine, United States
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Gitta Jaroslawicz-Neufeld
Far Rockaway, United States
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Catriella Freedman
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Barbara Goldschlag
Silver Spring, MD, United States
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Silke Goldberg
Guildford, United Kingdom
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Carolyn Hochstadter and Margo Kossoff Shizgal
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Miriam Eckstein-Koas
Huntington, United States
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Miriam Eckstein-Koas
Huntington, United States
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Shira Jacobowitz
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
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Anne Mirsky
Maale Adumim, Israel
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
Dena Lehrman
אפרת, Israel
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
Madeline Cohen
London, United Kingdom
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Janice Block
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Debbie Engelen-Eigles
Minnesota, United States
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’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Gila Loike
Ashdod, Israel
Bava Batra 39
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧΦ·Χ’Φ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧΧ΄ β ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ.
and tomorrow, i.e., in the future, I will bring a claim against him in court, it is a valid protest.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ΄ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌΧ΄, ΧΦ·ΧΧ? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ: ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ΄ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌΧ΄! Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ€ΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ·Χ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ β ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ.
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 isnβt 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 friendβs friend has a friend whom he tells about the protest; therefore, it is a valid protest.
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: Χ΄ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌΧ΄ β ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ: ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ΄ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌΧ΄! Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ€ΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ β ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ.
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 friendβs friend has a friend whom he tells about the protest; therefore, it is a valid protest.
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ: Χ΄ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧ§ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧͺΦΈΧΧ΄ β ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ: ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ΄ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧ§ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧͺΦΈΧΧ΄! ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: Χ΄ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧͺΦΈΧΧ΄ β ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ€ΦΌΦΈΧ: ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ΄ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧͺΦΈΧΧ΄! Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©ΧΦ»Χ’Φ· ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ΄ΧΧ©Χ, ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ.
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 isnβt 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 arenβt 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.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ€ΦΈΧ ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦΉΧ©Χ Χ©ΧΦΈΧ Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ‘Φ°Χ€ΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ§ Χ©ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΧΦΌΧΧΦΌ Χ©ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ€ΦΈΧ ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺΦ΅Χ? ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΧΦ΅Χ! ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Χ’Φ΅Χ¦ΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ·Χ, ΧΦΌΦ°Χ Φ΅ΧΧͺΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ§ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°Χ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧ€Φ΅ΧΧ¨Φ΅Χ.
Β§ Rava says that Rav NaαΈ₯man says: A protest that is lodged not in the presence of the possessor is a valid protest. Rava raised an objection to what Rav NaαΈ₯man 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.
ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ‘Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ€ΦΈΧ ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ; ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ€ΦΈΧ ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ! ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, Χ‘Φ·ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌ.
The Gemara asks: From the fact that Rava raised an objection to Rav NaαΈ₯man, it may be inferred that he does not hold that a protest that is lodged not in his presence is a valid protest. But doesnβt 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 NaαΈ₯man.
ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ°ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ²Χ Φ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ? Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦ°Χ Φ·ΧΦ΄Χ. Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ©ΧΦΈΧ.
Β§ The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi αΈ€anina, encountered the students of Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan and said to them: Did Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan say in the presence of how many people a protest must be lodged? Rabbi αΈ€iyya bar Abba says that Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan says: A protest must be lodged in the presence of two people. Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan said: A protest must be lodged in the presence of three people.
ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€ΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ β ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ,
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
ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ©ΧΦΈΧ; ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦ°Χ Φ·ΧΦ΄Χ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ©ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ?
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.
ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ’ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ; ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€ΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ β ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦ°Χ Φ·ΧΦ΄Χ, Χ§ΦΈΧ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ€ΦΈΧ ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ©ΧΦΈΧ, Χ§ΦΈΧ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ€ΦΈΧ ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ.
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 possessorβs presence, three people are needed to ensure that word of the protest will reach him.
ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧ’Φ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ’ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ€ΦΈΧ ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ; ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ€ΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ β ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦ°Χ Φ·ΧΦ΄Χ, Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ²ΧΧΦΌΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧ’Φ΅ΧΧ Φ·Χ. ΧΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ©ΧΦΈΧ, Χ§ΦΈΧ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧ’Φ΅ΧΧ Φ·Χ.
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.
ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ. ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΈΧͺΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΈΧ Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΧΦΌ. ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ β ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ²ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦΈΧ Χ¦Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΦ°, ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ: ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ©ΧΧΦΉΧ ΦΈΧ, Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ Χ¦ΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦ° ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΉΧͺ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ, ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ: ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ©ΧΧΦΉΧ ΦΈΧ, Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ¦ΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦ° ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΉΧͺ.
Β§ The Gemara relates: Giddel bar Minyumi had a protest to lodge with regard to his property. He found Rav Huna and αΈ€iyya bar Rav and Rav αΈ€ilkiya 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 αΈ€iyya 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.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦΈΧ§Φ΄ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨ Χ§Φ·Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ: ΧΦ°Χ¦ΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦ° ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ‘ΧΦΉΧ£ ΧΦΌΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦΉΧ©Χ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦΉΧ©Χ. ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ§ΦΈΧ?! Χ΄ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧ΄ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧΦ°?! ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ Χ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧ΄ ΧΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ§ΦΈΧ.
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 YoαΈ₯anan 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?
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ β Χ¦ΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦ° ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ‘ΧΦΉΧ£ ΧΦΌΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦΉΧ©Χ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦΉΧ©Χ. ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨ Χ§Φ·Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ: Χ’Φ΄Χ¨Φ°Χ’Φ΅Χ¨, ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄Χ¨Φ°Χ’Φ΅Χ¨, ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄Χ¨Φ°Χ’Φ΅Χ¨ β ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ ΦΈΧ Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ©ΧΧΦΉΧ ΦΈΧ Χ’Φ΄Χ¨Φ°Χ’Φ΅Χ¨, ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ§ΦΈΧ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΧ β ΧΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ§ΦΈΧ.
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.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦ°Χ Φ·ΧΦ΄Χ,
Β§ Rava says that Rav NaαΈ₯man says: A protest can be lodged in the presence of two witnesses,
Follow
