ז אמר רבא א"ר נחמן מחאה בפני שנים
7 Giddal b. Minyumi had occasion to make a protest [against the occupation of some land of his]. He found R. Huna and Hiyya b. Rab and R. Hilkiah b. Tobi sitting together and made his protest in their presence. A year later he again came to make a protest. They said to him: This is not necessary. Rab has laid down distinctly that if the owner makes a protest in the first year he need not repeat it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Within the next three years, v. infra. ');"><sup>6</sup></span> (According to another report, Hiyya b. Rab said to him: Since the owner made a protest in the first year he need not repeat it.) Resh Lakish said in the name of Bar Kappara: It is necessary to repeat the protest every three years. R. Johanan found this dictum very surprising. Can a robber, he said, obtain a title from continued occupation?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the rightful owner neglects to protest within a given time. ');"><sup>7</sup></span> A robber, do you say? What you should rather say is 'Can one who is like a robber<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he pleads that he had a deed of purchase and lost it, he can hardly be put on the same footing as a robber. On the other hand, since he cannot produce the deed and continues to occupy the land after the former owner's protest, he is like a robber. ');"><sup>8</sup></span> obtain a title from continued occupation?' Raba said: The law is that the owner must make a protest at the end of every three years. Bar Kappara taught: If an owner protests [against the occupation of his land] and [after an interval] repeats his protest a second and a third time,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'repeats his protest and repeats his protest'. ');"><sup>9</sup></span> if he [always] adheres to his first plea the occupation confers no title, but if he does not then it does confer a title.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., if he says on the first occasion 'so-and-so is robbing me of my field,' and on the second occasion 'so-and-so has only taken this field from me on mortgage, not purchased it,' this being a virtual admission that his first plea was false. Hence neither plea is accepted, and the occupier is entitled to the land. ');"><sup>10</sup></span> Raba said in the name of R. Nahman: A protest [against the occupation of property] must be made in the presence of two persons