Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 13, scan section 42

three years suffice for hazakah). GEMARA : Let us see ! What does the first Tana of the Mishna hold ? If a protest in the absence of the occupant is con- sidered, then, even when one was in Judea and the other in Gali- lee, he could protest ; and if it is not considered, then even if both were in one country, when they are not in one city, the hazakah should not apply, as he could not protest. Said R. Abba b. Mamal in the name of Rabh : He holds that a protest not in his presence is to be considered. But our Mishna treats of a case of war, during which this protest would be of no use (because there would be no one to notify him). And why does he mention Judea and Galilee ? To teach that these two coun- tries are always considered as if there might be a war between them, as caravans going from one country to the other are very rare. TRACT BABA BATHRA (LAST GATE). loi R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh said : If one runs away from a city because of crime, etc., and one occupies his estate, the law of hazakah applies. And R. Jehudah continued : After Rabh's death I said this Halakha in his name before Samuel, and he said to me : Is this not self-evident ? Must, then, a protest be in one's presence? (Says the Gemara 🙂 And, indeed, what news did Rabh teach with this statement, unless that a protest not in one's presence is considered ? He already said so elsewhere. With this statement he teaches us that, even when the protest was be- fore two witnesses who were not able to notify the occupant, it is nevertheless considered a protest. As R. Anan said ; Mar Samuel has explained to me his opinion that only when one pro- tested in the presence of two witnesses who are able to notify the occupant, it is considered ; but not otherwise. Rabh, how- ever, is of the opinion : " Thy colleague has another colleague," etc. ; and so, when protested before two, it will become known. Said Rabha : The Halakha prevails that the law of hazakah does not apply to the property of one who runs away, and also that a protest which is not in one's presence is considered. Are not the two Halakhas contradictory of each other? This presents no difficulty. If one runs away because of money matters, he is not afraid to protest, as he does not care whether his residence is made known ; but if one runs away on account of a crime, then he cannot protest, as this would make known his hiding-place. How should one protest? Said R. Zebid : If the protest was, so and so is a robber ; it does not suffice, but he must protest : " He is a robber who has robbed me of my estate, and as soon as it is possible I shall summon him." But how is the law if he added to this protest, " Do not notify him of my protest " ? Said R. Zebid : How can this be considered, when he plainly says: Do not notify him. R. Papa, however, is of the opinion that it means : Do not notify hitn, but tell it to other people, so that he will become aware of it afterwards. How is the law if the wit- nesses told him : We will not notify him? According to R. Zebid, such a protest is not to be considered, and according to R. Papa, it is, because although they should not notify him, they will never- theless tell it to other people. But how is it if the protestor said : Do not mention it to any one ? According to R. Zebid, it is certainly not to be considered. But how is it when they said : We will not mention this to any one ? According to R. Papa, it is not to be considered. R. Huna b. R. Jehoshua, however, main- tains that, even then, it is a protest, as a thing which does not 102 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. belong to a man, he will talk about it some time, and it will become known. Rabha said in the name of R. Na'hman : A protest not in one's presence is to be considered ; and he opposed him from the statement of R. Jehudah in our Mishna, who said that a year is allowed for notifying him and a year for returning. And if a protest not in one's presence should sufifice, why must he come back? And he answered: R. Jehudah's statement is only an advice for one that he had better come himself, so that he should be able to take possession of the estates and products. (Says the Gemara 🙂 From that which Rabha objected, it must be said that he himself does not hold with him concerning a protest in the absence of the occupant ; and above it was said that Rabha him- self had so decided ? After he had heard it from R. Na'hman, he accepted it. R. Jose b. Hanina happened to meet the disciples of R. Johanan and questioned them as to whether R. Johanan had said before how many people a protest must be made. R. Hyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan : In the presence of two. And R. Abuhu said in his name : Three are needed. Shall we assume that the point of their differing is the saying of Rabba b. R. Huna : " Everything which is said in the presence of three persons cannot be considered slander " ? Now he who holds that two persons are sufficient does not agree with Rabba, and he who holds that three are needed does so, because he holds with him ? Nay, all agree with Rabba, and the point of their differing is — a protest not in one's presence : he who says that two are sufficient, because such is not to be considered (and there- fore he needs two, so that they shall testify that the occupant was present at the protest).* And he who holds that three are needed does so because a protest not in one's presence is consid- ered, and therefore three are needed in order to make the protest public. If you wish, it may be said that all agree tliut such a protest is to be considered, and the point of their differing is that one holds that for this purpose witnesses are needed, and the other one holds that it is only necessary to make it public. Giddle b. Minjumi had to make a protest against some one, * This is according to Rashbam. R. Gershom, however, maintains that the two who witnessed the protest would notify the occupant, as only for this purpose were they appointed. From the text, however, it is impossible to decide which ot the commentators is right, as there are only a few words. The one who holds that " two" suffice ii of the opinion that " a protest in absence " is not considered. TRACT BABA BATHRA (LAST GATE). 103 and happened to meet R. Huna, Hyya b. Rabh, and R. Hilkiah b. Tubi, who were sitting together, and he made his protest be- fore them. The next year he came again to protest. Said Hyya b. Rabh to him : The protest from last year is sufificient. Said Resh Lakish in the name of B. Kapara : It is, however, necessary for one to repeat his protest after the lapse of every three years. R. Johanan, however, doubted concerning this decision, saying : Does the law of hazakah apply to a robber ? A robber ! Is it,