Explanation: [Rav Yehudah] answers that here, they do not contradict each other. People are not precise to distinguish between wheat and barley.

Implied question: People are precise to distinguish between a black Maneh (coins, i.e. they are old) and a white Maneh (Sanhedrin 30b)!

Answer: There, they must be precise, for he must pay back the same Maneh that he borrowed;

Here, people are not precise. Whatever he consumed, whether wheat or barley, is a Chazakah.

Distinction: However, if one says that he consumed wheat, and one says legumes, the testimony is Batel. Even without precision, one does not err between wheat and legumes.

Implied question: There is a solution, like we say in Kesuvos (21a)!

Citation (21a): If one of the witnesses who signed died, and there are not two in the market [who recognize his signature] to testify about him, [the live witness] writes his signature on earthenware, and gives it to Beis Din, and establishes his signature [so we do not need him to testify about his own signature, and he can testify about the dead witness]. We can do similarly here!

Answer: Ravina only comes to say that without this, his brother can testify. He compared this to our Mishnah.

Question: Here it says that when they are adamant, he acquires;

Above (42b) it says that partners cannot make a Chazakah against each other, for sometimes one allows his friend to use it for three years, and afterwards he will use it!

Answer #1: We distinguish a Chazakah in half the property from a Chazakah in the entire property. We can explain this either way (which works, and which does not work), like it says above (42b. Only a Chazakah in the entire property is valid, for one would not let his partner to use the entire field for three straight years, but it is normal for each partner to use the same half for several years, and then they switch. Or, only a Chazakah in half the property is valid, for had they not divided, and they wanted to share the fruits every year, they would work the entire field together. However, it is normal for a partner to let the other use the entire field for three years, and then he will get it for three years.)

Answer #2: We can distinguish between a field and a Chatzer. Here we discuss when houses open to this Chatzer. Since he exits and enters through this Chatzer, when they are adamant, he would not let the other do [these matters], if he did not sell to him.

Explanation: The Gemara establishes this to discuss whether the Chatzer had Din Chalukah (one can force his partner to divide it), or has no Din Chalukah.

Implied question: When it has no Din Chalukah, he cannot protest against his friend entering the Chatzer!

Answer: In any case, he can forbid him, just like one who rents his house to his friend;

The landlord can be Makdish it, like it says in Erchin (21a), even though he cannot protest against the tenant from entering it.

Question: Why is this different than a borrower? If he was Makdish his field (that his creditor has a lien on), the creditor comes and takes it (Erchin 23b. According to letter of the law, it is not Hekdesh at all);

However, due to R. Avahu's concern, lest people say that Hekdesh becomes Chulin without redemption, he must add a Dinar [to the loan and give it to Hekdesh, so it will seem that there was a Pidyon].

Answer: A creditor is different, for the land itself leaves the hand of the one who was Makdish it;

However, there the land itself never leaves the hand of the landlord.

Inference: Here it connotes that all agree that people are adamant about Derisas ha'Regel (walking through property). Even Ravina said only [that they are not adamant] regarding partners.

Question: A Mishnah (Megilah 8a) says that the only differences between one who is Mudar Hana'ah from his friend, and one who is Mudar Ma'achal (food) from his friend's [property], is Derisas ha'Regel, and Kelim not used for food;

The Gemara asks that people are not adamant about Drisas ha'Regel!

Answer (R. Tam): There it connotes to the Gemara that our Mishnah discusses a valley, in which people are not adamant;

If it were in a Chatzer, it is forbidden even if he is Mudar Hana'ah. Since people are adamant, such matters are rented!

Citation (Nedarim 33a - Mishnah): If such matters are rented, it is forbidden, even Kelim not used for food. (If he lends them for free, the Mudar could buy food with the money he saved.)

Therefore, we ask that since you are forced to say that we discuss Derisas ha'Regel in a valley, which people are not adamant about, if so even if he is Mudar Hana'ah, why is it forbidden?

Observation: Similarly, we could have asked about Kelim (why they are forbidden). People are not adamant [about them]!