1)CHAZAKAH ON LAND UNDER A TREE

(a)(Chachamim of Neharde'a): If Reuven bought Shimon's date tree, he acquires with it the ground underneath, all the way down. (Rashbam - if the tree dies, Reuven can plant another; Tosfos - Shimon cannot dig there.)

(b)Objection (Rava): Shimon can say 'I sold to you (like people sell) Krug (saffron?) (i.e. until it dies)!

(c)(Rava): Rather, one who was Machazik three years in a tree is believed to say that he bought the ground underneath, all the way down.

(d)Question (Mar Kashisha brei d'Rav Chisda): If Shimon did not sell the ground underneath, all the way down, how can he stop Reuven from claiming this?

(e)Answer (Rav Ashi): He should have made a Macha'ah (told people that Reuven bought only the tree. If Reuven truly bought the ground underneath, he would know to continue to guard his document).

(f)Support: If we would not say so, why did Chachamim sanction Mashkanta of Sura?

1.(The lender deducts a fixed amount from the loan for each year that he eats the Peros.) They write 'at the end of these (allotted) years, the land reverts to Ploni (the borrower) for free.'

2.If the lender will hide the document after three years, he will be believed to say that he bought it. Chachamim would not sanction the Mashkanta if it can lead to theft!

3.We must say that the borrower must make a Macha'ah. (If he does not, he caused his own loss.)

4.Also here, Shimon should make a Macha'ah.

2)A CHAZAKAH NOT IN FRONT OF THE ORIGINAL OWNER

(a)(Mishnah): There are three regions regarding Chazakah: Yehudah, Ever ha'Yarden and Galil:

1.If the original owner (Reuven) was in a different region than the Machazik (Shimon), the Chazakah is invalid. If they were in the same region, it is valid.

(b)R. Yehudah says, it is valid. The reason we require three years for Chazakah is in order that Reuven will have time to protest, even if he is overseas!

1.After Shimon uses the land for one year, people start talking about this. It takes one year for word to reach Reuven, and another year for Reuven to come and protest.

(c)(Gemara) Question: What is Chachamim's opinion about Macha'ah?

1.If they hold that a Macha'ah not in front of the original owner is valid, Chazakah in a different region than the original owner should be valid!

2.If they hold that a Macha'ah not in front of the original owner is invalid, Chazakah in the same region (if not in front of the original owner) should be invalid!

(d)Answer (R. Aba bar Mamal): Really, they hold that a Macha'ah not in front of the original owner is valid;

1.Our Mishnah discusses a time when there is hostility between the regions (so caravans do not pass between them, and word does not spread from one region to another);

2.The Tana illustrated this with Yehudah and Galil to teach that they are considered to have hostility with each other even in peacetime.

38b----------------------------------------38b

(e)Version #1 (Rav Yehudah citing Rav): One may not be Machazik in property of one who fled.

(f)(Shmuel): One may, for a Macha'ah not in front of the Machazik is valid! (The original owner can protest, just as if he were here.)

(g)Question: What did Rav come to teach?

1.Suggestion: He teaches that a Macha'ah not in front of the Machazik is invalid.

2.Objection: Rav holds that such a Macha'ah is valid!

(h)Answer (to both questions): Rav explains Chachamim of our Mishnah, but he rules unlike them.

(i)Version #2 (Rav Yehudah citing Rav): One can be Machazik in property of one who fled.

(j)Objection (Shmuel): This is obvious, for a Macha'ah not in front of the Machazik is valid!

(k)Question: Seemingly, Rav came to teach that a Macha'ah not in front of the Machazik is invalid. He already taught this. Why must he teach it again?!

(l)Answer: Rav teaches that a Macha'ah is valid even if the two who heard it cannot tell the Machazik.

1.(Rav Anan citing Shmuel): A Macha'ah is valid only if the two who heard it can tell the Machazik.

2.Rav disagrees, for the two who heard it can tell their friends, those friends can tell their friends... (and the Machazik will hear). (end of Version #2)

(m)(Rava): One may not be Machazik in property of one who fled. A Macha'ah not in front of the Machazik is valid.

(n)Objection: These two laws contradict each other!

(o)Answer: Rava invalidates Chazakah in property of one who fled only if he fled for his life (for he cannot protest, lest the authorities hear where he is);

1.If he fled for monetary reasons (e.g. from a creditor), he could protest (so one can be Machazik in his property).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF