There are three different regions for creating a chazaka on land, meaning that if the land is in one region and the owner is in a different region, one cannot prove ownership through eating the produce for three years. Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and explains the reason for three years is exactly for this type of scenario – to allow enough time for someone living far away to hear and return to protest. Does tana kamma hold that one does needs/does not need to protest in the presence of the possessor? Rav explained that one does not need to protest in the presence of the possessor and explains the Mishna during a time of emergency when people were forbidden from traveling between regions. A question is raised from a different statement of Rav and is resolved. There are two different versions of the discussion regarding Rav’s additional statement. What is the wording necessary for a protest to be considered a legitimate protest?
Bava Batra 38
Share this shiur:
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.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
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.
Bava Batra 38
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבָא, וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ: כּוּרְכְּמָא דְרִישְׁקָא זַבֵּינִי לָךְ, עֲקוֹר כּוּרְכְּמָא דְרִישְׁקָא, וְזִיל! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: בְּבָא מֵחֲמַת טַעֲנָה.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָר קַשִּׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וְאִי כּוּרְכְּמָא דְרִישְׁקָא זַבֵּין לֵיהּ, מַאי הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֶעְבַּד? אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמַחוֹיֵי.
Mar Kashisha, the son of Rav Ḥisda, 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.
דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, הָנֵי מַשְׁכְּנָתָא דְסוּרָא – דִּכְתִב בְּהִי הָכִי: ״בְּמִישְׁלַם שְׁנַיָּא אִלֵּין, תִּיפּוֹק אַרְעָא דָּא בְּלָא כְּסַף״; אִי כָּבֵישׁ לֵיהּ לִשְׁטַר מַשְׁכַּנְתָּא, וְאָמַר: ״לְקוּחָה הִיא בְּיָדִי״ – הָכִי נָמֵי דִּמְהֵימַן?! מְיתַקְּנִי רַבָּנַן מִילְּתָא דְּאָתֵי בַּהּ לִידֵי פְסֵידָא? אֶלָּא אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמַחוֹיֵי; הָכָא נָמֵי, אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמַחוֹיֵי,
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.
מַתְנִי׳ שָׁלֹשׁ אֲרָצוֹת לַחֲזָקָה – יְהוּדָה, וְעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן, וְהַגָּלִיל. הָיָה בִּיהוּדָה וְהֶחֱזִיק בַּגָּלִיל, בַּגָּלִיל וְהֶחֱזִיק בִּיהוּדָה – אֵינָהּ חֲזָקָה, עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא עִמּוֹ בִּמְדִינָה אַחַת. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: לֹא אָמְרוּ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים, אֶלָּא כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא בְּאַסְפַּמְיָא – וְיַחְזִיק שָׁנָה, יֵלְכוּ וְיוֹדִיעוּהוּ שָׁנָה, וְיָבֹא לְשָׁנָה אַחֶרֶת.
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.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי קָסָבַר תַּנָּא קַמָּא? אִי קָסָבַר מֶחָאָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו הָוְיָא מֶחָאָה, אֲפִילּוּ יְהוּדָה וְגָלִיל נָמֵי! אִי קָסָבַר מֶחָאָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו לָא הָוְיָא מֶחָאָה, אֲפִילּוּ יְהוּדָה וִיהוּדָה נָמֵי לָא!
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר מֶמֶל אָמַר רַב, לְעוֹלָם קָסָבַר: מֶחָאָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו הָוְיָא מֶחָאָה, וּמִשְׁנָתֵינוּ – בִּשְׁעַת חֵירוּם שָׁנוּ. וּמַאי שְׁנָא יְהוּדָה וְגָלִיל דְּנָקֵיט?
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.
הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן –
The Gemara answers: The tanna, by citing specifically a case where each is located in a different land, teaches us this:
דִּסְתַם יְהוּדָה וּגְלִיל, כִּשְׁעַת חֵירוּם דָּמוּ.
That an ordinary situation with regard to travel between Judea and the Galilee is tantamount to a period of crisis.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: אֵין מַחֲזִיקִין בְּנִכְסֵי בוֹרֵחַ. כִּי אַמְרִיתַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, אָמַר לִי: וְכִי לִמְחוֹת בְּפָנָיו הוּא צָרִיךְ?!
§ 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.
וְרַב – מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? מֶחָאָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו לָא הָוְיָא מֶחָאָה?! וְהָאָמַר רַב: מֶחָאָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו הָוְיָא מֶחָאָה! רַב – טַעְמָא דְּתַנָּא דִידַן קָמְפָרֵשׁ, וְלֵיהּ לָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ.
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’t 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.
וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: מַחֲזִיקִים בְּנִכְסֵי בוֹרֵחַ. כִּי אַמְרִיתַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, אֲמַר לִי: פְּשִׁיטָא! וְכִי לִמְחוֹת בְּפָנָיו הוּא צָרִיךְ?!
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’t that obvious? But does the owner actually have to protest in the presence of the possessor?
וְרַב – מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? מֶחָאָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו הָוְיָא מֶחָאָה?! וְהָא אַמְרַהּ רַב חֲדָא זִימְנָא! אֶלָּא הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – דַּאֲפִילּוּ מִיחָה בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם שֶׁאֵין יְכוֹלִין לוֹמַר לוֹ, הָוְיָא מֶחָאָה –
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.
דְּאָמַר רַב עָנָן: לְדִידִי מִפָּרְשָׁא לִי מִינֵּיהּ דְּמָר שְׁמוּאֵל: מִיחָה בִּפְנֵי שְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם שֶׁיְּכוֹלִים לוֹמַר לוֹ – הָוְיָא מֶחָאָה, מִיחָה בִּפְנֵי שְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם שֶׁאֵין יְכוֹלִין לוֹמַר לוֹ – לָא הָוְיָא מֶחָאָה. וְרַב – חַבְרָךְ חַבְרָא אִית לֵיהּ, וְחַבְרָא דְחַבְרָךְ חַבְרָא אִית לֵיהּ.
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’s friend has a friend to whom he tells about the protest, and so forth. Therefore, word of the protest will reach the possessor.
אָמַר רָבָא, הִלְכְתָא: אֵין מַחְזִיקִין בְּנִכְסֵי בוֹרֵחַ, וּמֶחָאָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו הָוְיָא מֶחָאָה. תַּרְתֵּי?! לָא קַשְׁיָא; כָּאן בּוֹרֵחַ מֵחֲמַת מָמוֹן, כָּאן בּוֹרֵחַ מֵחֲמַת מְרָדִין.
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’s 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.
הֵיכִי דָּמֵי מֶחָאָה? אָמַר רַב זְבִיד: ״פְּלָנְיָא גַּזְלָנָא הוּא״ – לָא הָוְיָא מֶחָאָה. ״פְּלָנְיָא גַּזְלָנָא הוּא, דְּנָקֵיט לַהּ לְאַרְעַאי בְּגַזְלָנוּתָא,
§ 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,
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.
Jerusalem, Israel
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, 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 .
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Minnesota, United States
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Mitspe, Israel
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Silver Spring, Maryland, 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.
Zichron Yakov, Israel
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Riverdale, NY, 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.
Minneapolis, United States
Tel Aviv, Israel
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, United States
Philadelphia, United States
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.
בית שמש, Israel
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.
Irvine, United States
Minnesota, United States
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Jerusalem, Israel
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
Bava Batra 38
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבָא, וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ: כּוּרְכְּמָא דְרִישְׁקָא זַבֵּינִי לָךְ, עֲקוֹר כּוּרְכְּמָא דְרִישְׁקָא, וְזִיל! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: בְּבָא מֵחֲמַת טַעֲנָה.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָר קַשִּׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וְאִי כּוּרְכְּמָא דְרִישְׁקָא זַבֵּין לֵיהּ, מַאי הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֶעְבַּד? אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמַחוֹיֵי.
Mar Kashisha, the son of Rav Ḥisda, 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.
דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, הָנֵי מַשְׁכְּנָתָא דְסוּרָא – דִּכְתִב בְּהִי הָכִי: ״בְּמִישְׁלַם שְׁנַיָּא אִלֵּין, תִּיפּוֹק אַרְעָא דָּא בְּלָא כְּסַף״; אִי כָּבֵישׁ לֵיהּ לִשְׁטַר מַשְׁכַּנְתָּא, וְאָמַר: ״לְקוּחָה הִיא בְּיָדִי״ – הָכִי נָמֵי דִּמְהֵימַן?! מְיתַקְּנִי רַבָּנַן מִילְּתָא דְּאָתֵי בַּהּ לִידֵי פְסֵידָא? אֶלָּא אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמַחוֹיֵי; הָכָא נָמֵי, אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמַחוֹיֵי,
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.
מַתְנִי׳ שָׁלֹשׁ אֲרָצוֹת לַחֲזָקָה – יְהוּדָה, וְעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן, וְהַגָּלִיל. הָיָה בִּיהוּדָה וְהֶחֱזִיק בַּגָּלִיל, בַּגָּלִיל וְהֶחֱזִיק בִּיהוּדָה – אֵינָהּ חֲזָקָה, עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא עִמּוֹ בִּמְדִינָה אַחַת. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: לֹא אָמְרוּ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים, אֶלָּא כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא בְּאַסְפַּמְיָא – וְיַחְזִיק שָׁנָה, יֵלְכוּ וְיוֹדִיעוּהוּ שָׁנָה, וְיָבֹא לְשָׁנָה אַחֶרֶת.
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.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי קָסָבַר תַּנָּא קַמָּא? אִי קָסָבַר מֶחָאָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו הָוְיָא מֶחָאָה, אֲפִילּוּ יְהוּדָה וְגָלִיל נָמֵי! אִי קָסָבַר מֶחָאָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו לָא הָוְיָא מֶחָאָה, אֲפִילּוּ יְהוּדָה וִיהוּדָה נָמֵי לָא!
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר מֶמֶל אָמַר רַב, לְעוֹלָם קָסָבַר: מֶחָאָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו הָוְיָא מֶחָאָה, וּמִשְׁנָתֵינוּ – בִּשְׁעַת חֵירוּם שָׁנוּ. וּמַאי שְׁנָא יְהוּדָה וְגָלִיל דְּנָקֵיט?
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.
הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן –
The Gemara answers: The tanna, by citing specifically a case where each is located in a different land, teaches us this:
דִּסְתַם יְהוּדָה וּגְלִיל, כִּשְׁעַת חֵירוּם דָּמוּ.
That an ordinary situation with regard to travel between Judea and the Galilee is tantamount to a period of crisis.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: אֵין מַחֲזִיקִין בְּנִכְסֵי בוֹרֵחַ. כִּי אַמְרִיתַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, אָמַר לִי: וְכִי לִמְחוֹת בְּפָנָיו הוּא צָרִיךְ?!
§ 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.
וְרַב – מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? מֶחָאָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו לָא הָוְיָא מֶחָאָה?! וְהָאָמַר רַב: מֶחָאָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו הָוְיָא מֶחָאָה! רַב – טַעְמָא דְּתַנָּא דִידַן קָמְפָרֵשׁ, וְלֵיהּ לָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ.
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’t 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.
וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: מַחֲזִיקִים בְּנִכְסֵי בוֹרֵחַ. כִּי אַמְרִיתַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, אֲמַר לִי: פְּשִׁיטָא! וְכִי לִמְחוֹת בְּפָנָיו הוּא צָרִיךְ?!
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’t that obvious? But does the owner actually have to protest in the presence of the possessor?
וְרַב – מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? מֶחָאָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו הָוְיָא מֶחָאָה?! וְהָא אַמְרַהּ רַב חֲדָא זִימְנָא! אֶלָּא הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – דַּאֲפִילּוּ מִיחָה בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם שֶׁאֵין יְכוֹלִין לוֹמַר לוֹ, הָוְיָא מֶחָאָה –
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.
דְּאָמַר רַב עָנָן: לְדִידִי מִפָּרְשָׁא לִי מִינֵּיהּ דְּמָר שְׁמוּאֵל: מִיחָה בִּפְנֵי שְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם שֶׁיְּכוֹלִים לוֹמַר לוֹ – הָוְיָא מֶחָאָה, מִיחָה בִּפְנֵי שְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם שֶׁאֵין יְכוֹלִין לוֹמַר לוֹ – לָא הָוְיָא מֶחָאָה. וְרַב – חַבְרָךְ חַבְרָא אִית לֵיהּ, וְחַבְרָא דְחַבְרָךְ חַבְרָא אִית לֵיהּ.
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’s friend has a friend to whom he tells about the protest, and so forth. Therefore, word of the protest will reach the possessor.
אָמַר רָבָא, הִלְכְתָא: אֵין מַחְזִיקִין בְּנִכְסֵי בוֹרֵחַ, וּמֶחָאָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו הָוְיָא מֶחָאָה. תַּרְתֵּי?! לָא קַשְׁיָא; כָּאן בּוֹרֵחַ מֵחֲמַת מָמוֹן, כָּאן בּוֹרֵחַ מֵחֲמַת מְרָדִין.
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’s 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.
הֵיכִי דָּמֵי מֶחָאָה? אָמַר רַב זְבִיד: ״פְּלָנְיָא גַּזְלָנָא הוּא״ – לָא הָוְיָא מֶחָאָה. ״פְּלָנְיָא גַּזְלָנָא הוּא, דְּנָקֵיט לַהּ לְאַרְעַאי בְּגַזְלָנוּתָא,
§ 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,
