I have two questions one is also on daf 29a.
1) Is the arguement that R.Yohanan presenting and later challenged by R. Avira up until "m'an holchei usha" going on the reisha of the Mishna or the seifa?
2) R. Nahman holds that when the land goes back so too the produce. What happens to the rent that he many potentially owe? Is this even relevant to this inyan?
Thank you for your time.
Jonathan Mottahedeh, Syosset, NY, USA
1) Rebbi Yochanan is merely presenting the source for the amount of three years. As the CHIDUSHEI RABEINU YONAH says, if having possession of land would be enough, there would not be a necessary time one would have to possess it. Being that the Mishna says three years, Rebi Yochanan gives a source for the number of years.
2) This is definitely a good relevant question. The Gemara (29a) tells us (after quoting Rav Nachman) that a person is not Makpid on someone who is on his land for two years. However, from Rav Nachman's statement we see that he is Makpid on the fruit which the person took from his land. The tresspasser therefore does not have to pay rent.
All the best,