QUESTION: The Mishnah states that a Chazakah (Chezkas Shalosh Shanim) is not effective unless the Machzik (occupant) and the Me'ar'er (the claimant) live in the same country. The Gemara asks that if the Mishnah is of the opinion that a Macha'ah -- a protest against occupancy -- is effective even when it is not done in the presence of the Machzik, then why is it not effective even when it is done from a different country?

The RASHBAM (DH Iy Kasavar) explains that according to the opinion that "Macha'ah she'Lo b'Fanav" is a valid Macha'ah, when the two litigants live in the same city the Macha'ah is effective even if it is not done in the presence of the Machzik. This implies that according to the opinion that "Macha'ah she'Lo b'Fanav" is not a valid Macha'ah (but rather the Macha'ah must be in the presence of the Machzik), the Macha'ah is not valid even when they live in the same city.

The Gemara continues to ask that if the Mishnah maintains that a Macha'ah is ineffective when it is not made in the presence of the Machzik, then even when they live in the same country the Chazakah should not be effective. Here, the Rashbam (DH Afilu Hayah) explains that the question of the Gemara applies when the two litigants live in different cities in the same country.

The Rashbam seems to contradict his earlier explanation. Earlier, the Rashbam implies that according to the opinion that the Macha'ah must be made in the presence of the Machzik, this applies even when they both live in the same city. The Rashbam later, however, says that the Macha'ah (that is not made in the presence of the Machzik) is not effective only when they live in different cities, but when they live in the same city the Macha'ah (and hence the Chazakah) is effective!

How these two contradictory explanations of the Rashbam to be reconciled?

ANSWER: The PNEI SHLOMO answers that there is a difference between a Macha'ah made not in the presence of the Machzik, and a Chazakah made not in the presence of the original owner. TOSFOS earlier (29a, DH Ela) writes that according to the opinion that the Macha'ah must be made in the presence of the Machzik, when the two litigants are in different cities a Chazakah made not in the presence of the original owner is ineffective, because the original owner is not aware that someone is occupying his field such that he should protest. However, when they live in the same city, the Chazakah is valid even if the original owner does not actually see the Machzik occupy his property, because it is assumed that he hears about it. In contrast, even when they live in the same city, the original owner must appear in front of the Machzik personally in order to protest, because otherwise the Machzik can claim that he did not hear of the protest.

This explains the apparent contradiction in the words of the Rashbam. The Rashbam, in his second explanation, discusses the act of making a Chazakah. He says that only when the two litigants are in different cities is the Chazakah not effective. In his first explanation, the Rashbam discusses the act of making a Macha'ah, and thus he says that even when the two litigants are in the same city, the Macha'ah (not in the presence of the Machzik) is not effective, because the one who protests is obligated to appear in front of the Machzik to submit his protest. (Y. MARCUS)

OPINIONS: Rav Zevid states that when the claimant protests against the unauthorized use of his field he must declare, "So and so is a thief, because he is eating from my field through theft, and tomorrow I will summon him to Beis Din!"

Must the claimant use exactly this formula in his protest in order for his protest to be valid?

(a) RABEINU CHANANEL maintains that if the claimant does not declare that he will summon the occupant to Beis Din, the protest is invalid because he does not emphasize that he intends to take action. Those who hear his protest interpret his protest merely as a complaint about the occupant, and therefore they do not bother to tell the occupant about it.

The ROSH disagrees and says that if Rabeinu Chananel is correct, then Rav Zevid should have stated this explicitly.

(b) If the claimant does not say, "So and so is a thief," but he says merely, "So and so is eating from my field through theft, and tomorrow I will summon him to Beis Din," RABEINU YONAH maintains that this suffices. However, if the claimant says only, "So and so is a thief," Rabeinu Yonah maintains that this does not suffice because the claimant does not stress that the occupant is a thief in reference to his field; he might be referring instead to other objects that he accuses the occupant of having stolen from him.

(c) If the claimant declares that the occupant does not own the field but is occupying the field as collateral for a loan, Rabeinu Yonah maintains that he does not have to say that he will soon take the occupant to Beis Din, because in this case the claimant does not accuse the occupant of behaving wrongly. Rather, he simply is declaring that the field does not belong to the occupant, in order that he be able to reclaim his field without difficulty at the expiration of the term of the collateral.

The RAMBAM (Hilchos To'en v'Nit'an 11:7), however, writes that even when the field is being held as collateral, the original owner must declare, "If the occupant should argue later that I sold it or gave it to him, I will take him to Beis Din." It appears that the Rambam maintains that if the claimant does not stress at the time of his protest that he is prepared later to contest the ownership of the field in Beis Din, his Macha'ah is not taken seriously. This also seems to be the view of the RASHBA, who writes that the claimant must say, "Tomorrow I will remove him from the field," even when the field is being held as collateral.

The S'MA (CM 146:7) says that the Rosh -- who maintains that when the claimant declares that the field is stolen he does not have to say that he will take the thief to Beis Din (as mentioned above) -- certainly disagrees with the Rambam who rules that in the case of a field being held as collateral the claimant must state that later he will summon the creditor to Beis Din if he does not return the field. The Rosh rules like Rabeinu Yonah in this regard. (Y. MARCUS)