Bava Batra 39a — the Talmud in English

“And tomorrow I shall summon him to court”

so-and-so is a robber, for he is consuming the produce of my land by robbery, and tomorrow I shall summon him to judgment”—only then

is it a protest.

The Gemara further discusses several forms of a protest not in his presence, whether they are effective to nullify the possessor’s ḥazaka:

If

the challenger said these words, and added: “

оспаривающий права на имущество эти слова и добавил:

Do not tell him”

do not tell this to the possessor,

what—is a protest of this kind a protest?

является ли такое заявление заявлением протеста?

Rav Zevid said:

it is not a protest, for

he said “

Do not tell him,”

and presumably they will not tell him.

Rav Pappa said:

nevertheless, it is a protest, for only

to him he said

:

“Do not tell him,” but

но

“tell it to others”; and

after all,

your fellow—

a fellow

he has, and

и

your fellow’s fellow

also

has a fellow.

He warned them only not to tell the possessor himself, but “tell it to others”; and through this the protest will be heard by the possessor, for they will tell their fellow, and his fellow will tell his fellow.

And if he did not tell them not to say it to the possessor, but they themselves returned to the challenger and

said to him, “

We did not tell him,

the possessor that you protested against him,” and he did not trouble himself to return and protest before others, Rav Zevid and Rav Pappa disagreed whether the possessor’s ḥazaka was nullified by virtue of the first protest:

Rav Zevid said:

the possessor’s ḥazaka is a ḥazaka, for

they said to him

to the possessor: “

We did not tell him,” and he should have protested further before others; and if he did not do so, he lost!

ему», — и ему следовало вновь заявить протест перед другими; если же он этого не сделал, то проиграл!

Rav Pappa said:

his ḥazaka was nullified by virtue of the first protest, for this one did not have to protest again before others, because the meaning of their words is:

To him

to the possessor himself,

we did not tell him,

but

we told it to others; and if so,

Итак,

your fellow has a fellow,

and your fellow’s fellow has a fellow, and the protest will reach the possessor’s ears, and he need not protest again.

и заявление протеста дойдет до слуха держателя имущества; ему не нужно вновь заявлять протест.

If

the challenger said to them, those before whom he protested: “

оспаривающий права на имущество, тем, перед кем он заявил протест:

Let no utterance go out from you”

do not utter a word; that is, do not tell the protest to anyone:

Rav Zevid said:

this is not a protest, for

he said: Let no utterance go out from you, and such a protest will never reach the possessor; and Rav Pappa agrees with him in this.

и такое заявление протеста никогда не дойдет до держателя имущества; и Рав Папа согласен с ним в этом.

And if he did not tell them not to relate it, but they themselves returned to him and

said to him: We did not utter a word,

we did not utter a word and did not tell your protest to anyone; and he did not trouble himself to protest further before others:

Rav Pappa said:

the possessor’s ḥazaka was not nullified, for

they said to him: We did not utter a word, and he should have protested before others.

и ему следовало заявить протест перед другими.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua

disagreed with Rav Pappa and

said:

even so, he did not have to protest further, because

anything that is not imposed upon a person

not to say,

he says it without being mindful of it.

One who is not required to refrain from saying a certain matter sometimes says it and does not remember that he said it; and since, despite their words, it is possible that they related the matter, for he did not impose upon them not to relate it, the challenger again did not have to make another protest, and the possessor’s ḥazaka was nullified.

Rava said in the name of Rav Naḥman:

A protest

that the challenger made

not in his presence

of the possessor

is a protest to nullify the possessor’s ḥazaka, and the challenger need not send an agent to come before the possessor and inform him of the challenger’s protest!

для прекращения приобретательной давности держателя имущества, и оспаривающему права не нужно посылать посланника, который явится перед держателем имущества и сообщит ему о заявлении протеста оспаривающего права!

Rava raised an objection to Rav Naḥman, from what we learned in our Mishna:

на основании того, что мы учили в нашей Мишне:

Rabbi Yehuda said: They said three years only so that he might be in Aspamia and [the possessor] would hold it for a year, and they would go and inform him for a year, and he would come in another year—

And if it enters your mind that a protest not in his presence is a protest, why must he come

for what purpose does he need to come and protest!?

Let him sit there in his place and protest

let him sit in his place in Aspamia and protest there!?

And we answer:

There, in our Mishna, where Rabbi Yehuda said, “And he will come in another year,”

в нашей Мишне, где рабби Йеуда сказал: «И придет в следующем году»,

good counsel

оспаривающему права на имущество

he teaches us

Rabbi Yehuda

that the challenger should come

the challenger to the possessor

and take the land and the produce

so that he will take the land and the value of all the produce that the possessor consumed unlawfully.

And we raise a difficulty: it follows

from the fact that he raised an objection to him

since

Rava raised an objection to Rav Naḥman

concerning his position that “a protest not in his presence is a protest,”

by inference

Rava

does not agree

with Rav Naḥman

that a protest not in his presence is a protest, but rather he holds that it is not a protest. If so, this is difficult:

а считает, что оно не является заявлением протеста. Если так, возникает трудность:

But Rava said

above, on 38b:

A protest not in his presence is a protest!?

And we answer:

After he heard it from Rav Naḥman, he accepted it. After Rava heard from Rav Naḥman his position and his resolution of Rava’s proof that a protest not in his presence is not a protest, Rava accepted Rav Naḥman’s position, that a protest not in his presence is a protest; and this is what he said above: A protest not in his presence is a protest.

: после того как Рава услышал от Рава Нахмана его позицию и разрешение, данное им на доказательство Равы о том, что заявление протеста в его отсутствие не является заявлением протеста, Рава принял позицию Рава Нахмана, согласно которой заявление протеста в его отсутствие является заявлением протеста. Именно это он сказал выше: заявление протеста в его отсутствие является заявлением протеста.

He found

he found

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina the students of Rabbi Yoḥanan, and

и

said to them:

Did Rabbi Yoḥanan say to you “a protest”

“with how many”

did you hear from Rabbi Yoḥanan before how many people the challenger must protest?

His students disagreed concerning what Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said

in the name of

Rabbi Yoḥanan: A protest before two.

Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: A protest before three.

Shall we say,

shall we say that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and Rabbi Abbahu

disagree concerning the statement of Rabbah bar Rav Huna?

For Rabbah bar Rav Huna said: Every matter

of disgrace

that is said

by Reuben about Simeon

before three

that is said before three,