That an ordinary situation with regard to travel between Judea and the Galilee is tantamount to a period of crisis.

§ 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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

§ 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,