Bava Batra 38B

דסתם יהודה וגליל, כשעת חירום דמו.

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

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב: אין מחזיקין בנכסי בורח. כי אמריתה קמיה דשמואל, אמר לי: וכי למחות בפניו הוא צריך?!

§ 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.

ורב ⁠– מאי קא משמע לן? מחאה שלא בפניו לא הויא מחאה?! והאמר רב: מחאה שלא בפניו הויא מחאה! רב ⁠– טעמא דתנא דידן קמפרש, וליה לא סבירא ליה.

The Talmud 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 Talmud answers: Rav was explaining the reason of the tanna of our Mishnah, but he himself does not hold accordingly. Rav holds, in accordance with the opinion of R' Yehuda, that the protest is valid.

ואיכא דאמרי, אמר רב יהודה אמר רב: מחזיקים בנכסי בורח. כי אמריתה קמיה דשמואל, אמר לי: פשיטא! וכי למחות בפניו הוא צריך?!

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?