Bava Batra

do not constitute slander?  The one who says that a protest can be made in the presence of two persons [R. Hiyya bar Abba], we would say, does not accept the dictum of Rabbah son of R. Huna,  while the one who says that three persons must be present [R. Abbahu] does accept it? — No; both accept the dictum of Rabbah son of R. Huna, and the essential difference between them here is this: the one who says that the protest may be made in the presence of two persons is of opinion that a protest made not in the presence of the occupier is no protest,  whereas the one who says that three persons must be present is of opinion that a protest made not in the presence of the occupier is valid.  Alternatively we may reply that both [R. Hiyya b. Abba and R. Abbahu] agree that a protest made not in the presence of the occupier is valid, and the point on which they join issue here is this, that the one who says the protest may be made in the presence of two persons considers that [what] we require [them for is] to provide evidence,  while the one who holds that three persons must be present considers that [what] we require [them for is to ensure] that the matter should be bruited abroad. 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.  (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?  A robber, do you say? What you should rather say is 'Can one who is like a robber  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,  if he [always] adheres to his first plea the occupation confers no title, but if he does not then it does confer a title. Raba said in the name of R. Nahman: A protest [against the occupation of property] must be made in the presence of two persons