Study Bava Batra folio 28B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
and the requirement for there to be another, 4th, incident for the owner to be liable to pay full damages exists because before it gores after having become a forewarned ox, what is there for the owner to pay? Here, once he has worked and profited from the land for 3 years, the land is established
The Talmud asks: If that is so, according to the explanation that the forewarned ox is the source for the presumption of ownership with regard to land, even possession that is not accompanied by a claim, i.e., where the possessor has no explanation as to how he acquired it, should be sufficient to
The Talmud answers: What is the reason that possession that is not accompanied by a claim is not sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership? Because in a standard case where one has presumptive ownership, we say that even if the claimant proves that the field was once his, since the other
Rav Avira objects to the explanation that the presumption with regard to land is derived from the halakha of a forewarned ox: If that is so, a protest that the claimant lodges during the 3 years not in the presence of the possessor should not be considered a protest, because it must be similar to t
The Talmud answers: This is not difficult. There, with regard to a forewarned ox, it is written: “And warning has been given to its owner” (Exodus 21:29), indicating that the warning must be issued in the presence of the owner. Here, with regard to the protest, your friend has a friend, and the fr