Bava Batra 39: Protesting Chazaka from Near, Far, Sooner, Later, with Two or Three Witnesses

Is it necessary to lodge a protest to someone who is possessing one's land in person?  Or is it reasonable to assume that the possessor of the land will hear the protest as it travels from one friend to another to another?  Should we assume that a person will share that protest?  Do we speak freely about these things unless we are asked to keep them secret?

The rabbis continue to argue about whether or not a protest lodged away from the possessor is a valid protest.  And if so, how many witnesses are required to hear the protest?  Are two enough, or are three more appropriate?  The Gemara asserts that everyone agrees that a protest lodged from away is valid.  They disagree about witnesses: if two witnesses are deemed necessary, one is concerned about having people able to testify.  If three witnesses are required, one wishes to ensure that the the protest will be communicated widely.

We learn that something revealed to three or more people is not subject to a claim of "malicious speech", for three people's knowledge is assumed to be the same as public knowledge.  For all that we learn about lashon hara, bad speech, it is interesting to learn about its limits as well.

The Gemara shares the example of a rabbi who lodges a protest regarding possession of his property with a number of rabbis.  The question arises: if he already protested this possession in the past, why must he protest again?  If his protest was valid, shouldn't the 'robber' have left the land?  Should he have to protest one every three years?  Why return to his land, then?  Because, it is suggested, his earlier protest applied to one claim of chazaka.  This new protest must be in response to a new claim of chazaka.  Anyway, one who possesses another person's land cannot truly be called a 'robber' if he is told that he cannot possess the land and he leaves.