Bava Batra 39a:8בבא בתרא ל״ט א:ח
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Bava Batra 39a:8'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
39aל״ט א

ולמחר תבענא ליה בדינא הויא מחאה

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

אמר לא תימרו ליה מאי אמר רב זביד הא קאמר לא תימרו ליה רב פפא אמר לדידיה לא תימרו ליה לאחריני אימרו להו חברך חברא אית ליה חברא דחברך חברא אית ליה

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.

אמרו ליה לא אמרינן ליה אמר רב זביד הא קא אמרו ליה לא אמרינן ליה רב פפא אמר לדידיה לא אמרינן ליה לאחריני אמרי להו חברך חברא אית ליה וחברא דחברך חברא אית ליה

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.

אמר להו לא תיפוק לכו שותא אמר רב זביד הא קאמר לא תיפוק לכו שותא אמרו ליה לא מפקינן שותא אמר רב פפא הא קאמרי ליה לא מפקינן שותא רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אמר כל מילתא דלא רמיא עליה דאיניש אמר לה ולאו אדעתיה:

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.

אמר רבא אמר רב נחמן מחאה שלא בפניו הויא מחאה איתיביה רבא לרב נחמן אמר ר' יהודה לא אמרו שלש שנים אלא כדי שיהא באספמיא ויחזיק שנה וילכו ויודיעוהו שנה ויבא לשנה אחרת ואי ס"ד מחאה שלא בפניו הויא מחאה למה לי למיתי ליתיב התם אדוכתיה ולימחי התם עצה טובה קמ"ל דניתי ונשקול ארעא ופירי

§ 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.

מדקא מותיב ליה רבא לרב נחמן מכלל דלא סבירא ליה דמחאה שלא בפניו הויא מחאה והאמר רבא מחאה שלא בפניו הויא מחאה בתר דשמעה מרב נחמן סברה

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.

אשכחינהו ר' יוסי בר' חנינא לתלמידיו דר' יוחנן אמר להו מי אמר ר' יוחנן מחאה בכמה ר' חייא בר אבא אמר ר' יוחנן מחאה בפני שנים ר' אבהו אמר ר' יוחנן מחאה בפני שלשה

§ 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.

לימא בדרבה בר רב הונא קא מיפלגי דאמר רבה בר רב הונא כל מילתא דמתאמרא באפי תלתא

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