## Bava Batra Daf 38b

###### Bava Batra 38b:1
[Bava Batra 38b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/38b:1)

דִּסְתַם יְהוּדָה וּגְלִיל, כִּשְׁעַת חֵירוּם דָּמוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**That an ordinary** situation with regard to travel between **Judea and** the **Galilee is tantamount to a period of crisis.**


###### Bava Batra 38b:2
[Bava Batra 38b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/38b:2)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: אֵין מַחֲזִיקִין בְּנִכְסֵי בוֹרֵחַ. כִּי אַמְרִיתַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, אָמַר לִי: וְכִי לִמְחוֹת בְּפָנָיו הוּא צָרִיךְ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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.


###### Bava Batra 38b:3
[Bava Batra 38b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/38b:3)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Batra 38b:4
[Bava Batra 38b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/38b:4)

וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: מַחֲזִיקִים בְּנִכְסֵי בוֹרֵחַ. כִּי אַמְרִיתַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, אֲמַר לִי: פְּשִׁיטָא! וְכִי לִמְחוֹת בְּפָנָיו הוּא צָרִיךְ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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?


###### Bava Batra 38b:5
[Bava Batra 38b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/38b:5)

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 –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bava Batra 38b:6
[Bava Batra 38b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/38b:6)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Batra 38b:7
[Bava Batra 38b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/38b:7)

אָמַר רָבָא, הִלְכְתָא: אֵין מַחְזִיקִין בְּנִכְסֵי בוֹרֵחַ, וּמֶחָאָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו הָוְיָא מֶחָאָה. תַּרְתֵּי?! לָא קַשְׁיָא; כָּאן בּוֹרֵחַ מֵחֲמַת מָמוֹן, כָּאן בּוֹרֵחַ מֵחֲמַת מְרָדִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bava Batra 38b:8
[Bava Batra 38b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/38b:8)

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי מֶחָאָה? אָמַר רַב זְבִיד: ״פְּלָנְיָא גַּזְלָנָא הוּא״ – לָא הָוְיָא מֶחָאָה. ״פְּלָנְיָא גַּזְלָנָא הוּא, דְּנָקֵיט לַהּ לְאַרְעַאי בְּגַזְלָנוּתָא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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,**