ח היכי דמי מחאה אמר רב זביד פלניא גזלנא הוא לא הויא מחאה פלניא גזלנא הוא דנקיט לה לארעאי בגזלנותא
8 There is another version [of this passage, as follows:] Rab Judah said: Rab laid down that occupation of the property of a fugitive does confer <i>hazakah</i>. When I related this to Samuel, he said: Of course! Do you imagine the protest has to be made in the presence of the occupier? What then does Rab desire to indicate [by this ruling?] That a protest made not in the occupier's presence is valid? But surely this has been laid down by Rab already? — The truth is that this is what Rab wishes to indicate, that even if the owner made his protest in the presence of two men who are not able to report it to the occupier,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., because they are about to go abroad. ');"><sup>7</sup></span> it is still a valid protest.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And Samuel did not think of this; hence his surprise at Rab's saying something which appeared self-evident. ');"><sup>8</sup></span> For so R. Anan reported: 'It has been expressly stated to me by Mar Samuel that if the protest is made in the presence of two men who are able to report it to the occupier, it is valid, but if of two men who are not able to report it to the occupier, it is not valid. And Rab?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What is his view? ');"><sup>9</sup></span> — [He goes on the principle that] "your friend has a friend and your friend's friend has a friend".'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore if the two persons in whose presence the protest is made are not themselves able to report it, the protest is still valid, as in any case it will eventually reach the ears of the occupier. ');"><sup>10</sup></span> Raba said: The law is that it is not permissible to take possession of the property of a fugitive,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Presumably because a protest made not in the presence of the occupier is not valid. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> and a protest made not in the presence of the occupier is valid. Are not these two rulings contradictory? — No; the latter relates to a fugitive on account of debt, the former to a fugitive on account of manslaughter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A fugitive on account of debt does not mind his whereabouts being known, so he will not refrain from making a protest, but a fugitive on account of manslaughter will not do this, for fear lest he may be discovered. ');"><sup>12</sup></span> What constitutes a protest? — R. Zebid says: If the owner says, 'So-and-so is a robber,' this is no protest.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because this constitutes no warning to the occupier to take care of his deed of purchase. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> If, however, he says: 'So-and-so is a robber who has seized my land wrongfully