To make Chazakah on ...

... a house or on a pit, a trench or a cave ...

... a dove-cote, a bath-house, an oil-press or a Sadeh Beis ha'Shalachin - it takes three years from day to day.

The commom principle that governs all of the above is - that they provide the owner with ongoing benefit (with a stress on the word ongoing).

The formality that the Chazakah dispenses with is - the need to retain one's Sh'tar (document of purchase).

It works - by the current resident claiming that he purchased it but lost his Sh'tar, countering the original owner' claim that he stole the property.

A Sadeh Beis-ha'Ba'al is - a field that is watered by rain.

Its Chazakah does not require a full three years - because, due to the fact that the owner does not water it constantly, it only produces fruit once a year (and not on an ongoing basis).

According to Rebbi Yishmael, to prove ownership, the Machzik of a Sadeh Beis-ha'Ba'al requires eighteen months - because by working the land the last three months of the first year, the entire middle year and the first three months of the third year, it is possible to obtain three produces (see Tosfos DH 'Sheloshah)'.

According to Rebbi Akiva - fourteen months will suffice, one month of the first year, the entire middle year and the following month.

According to Rebbi Yishmael, the above Halachos pertain specifically to a Sadeh Lavan - a wheat-field.

In the case of a Sadeh Ilan - if the current owner harvests the grapes, the olives and the figs in the same year, then that is considered a Chazakah (like three years in a wheat-field).

Rebbi Yochanan heard from the Holchei Usha that they learned the Din of Chezkas ha'Batim ... , from a Shor ha'Mu'ad - inasmuch as the three years correspond to the three times that an ox gores before it becomes a Shor ha'Mu'ad.

The reason that one only pays full damages after the ox has gored a fourth time is - because, although the ox became a Mu'ad after the third goring, there is nothing to pay for until it gores again.

'Chazakah she'Ein imah Ta'anah' is - where the Machzik claims that the field is his only because no-one stopped him from taking it.

The Mishnah later rules - that 'Chazakah she'Ein imah Ta'anah' is not considered a Chazakah.

Even though we learn the Din of Chazakah from Shor ha'Mu'ad, it is not effective in the case of a Chazakah she'Ein imah Ta'anah - because it is a S'vara that Reuven (the original owner) does not lose ownership of his field, unless Shimon (the Machzik) can prove that he bought it by means of a Sh'tar.

Rav Avira queries the previous ruling from 'Mecha'ah she'Lo be'Fanav'.

... A 'Mecha'ah' - is a formal objection.

... A 'Mecha'ah she'Lo be'Fanav' is - a Mecha'ah that is performed not in the presence of the Machzik.

The latter takes the form of - a testimonial in front of two witnesses that the field Shimon is currently working actually belongs to him (Reuven). This in turn, will have the effect that, if Shimon did indeed purchase it from Reuven, he will get to hear about the owner's objection, with the result that he will now take great care to safeguard his Sh'tar from getting lost.

We assume that Shimon will get to hear about it - because witnesses involved in any transaction generally pass on the information to others and word of the transaction spreads.

A Mecha'ah does not need to be made in the presence of the Machzik ('Mecha'ah she'Lo be'Fanav, Havi Mecha'ah'), as we just learned.

An ox on the other hand - cannot become a Mu'ad if its owner is not present.

This seeming contradiction forms the basis of Rav Avira's Kashya. We answer that, despite the fact that the Holchei Usha learn Chazakah from a Shor Mu'ad ...

... the ox requires warning in the owner's presence - because of the Pasuk in Mishpatim "Vehu'ad bi'Ve'alav".

... whereas, the Machzik does not - because of the S'vara 'Chavrech Chavra is leih, ve'Chavrech de'Chavrech Chavra is Leih' (once something is told to two people, they tend to pass on the information to others who pass it in to others ... ).

Rebbi Meir rules - that if an animal gores three times in one day it becomes a Mu'ad, 'Kal va'Chomer' from one that gored three times in three days.

Nevertheless, the Machzik will not acquire the field, according to him, if he eats for example, three lots of ...

... figs in one day - because unlike the case of Shor ha'Mu'ad, where each subsequent goring takes place when the previous one is no longer there, here all the fruits are available simultaneously.

... fruit of the caper-bush in three days (some say in one), because it is unlike other fruit ...

... inasmuch as, even though when the fruit begins to grow it is unrecognizable, within three days it is fully grown.

The reason that there is no Chazakah if one eats them in three days, (See Tosfos DH 'K'gon Tz'laf') is - because there too (even though the second batch of fruit has not grown when he eats the first as it has in the previous case), it has however, begun to grow.

'Aspasta' - is a sort of animal fodder that grows in one month, and after uprooting it, one re-sows it, and is able to clip it twice in two months.

Nevertheless, if the Machzik picks three produces of Aspasta in one month, it will not be considered a Chazakah - because that is called 'snatching' (picking it prematurely), and is not the way that one normally eats it.

If however, he eats three produces of Aspasta in three months - he will indeed acquire the field ...

... since the 'Holchei Usha' are synonymous with Rebbi Yishmael, who learns in our Mishnah that in a similar case (where the Machzik eats three different fruits in a Sadeh Ilan), it is a Chazakah.

The Rabbanan of Holchei Usha clearly have an independent source for the Chazakah of Karka than the C. Initially, we cite this source as the Pasuk "Sados ba'Sefer Yiknu ve'Chasuv ve'Chasum ... ". The Rabbanan learn Chazakah from there, Abaye suggests - because the Navi was speaking to them in the tenth year of Chizkiyah ha'Melech's reign, and warned them to safeguard their documents of sale, since they were destined to go into exile the following year, a proof that two years is insufficient to be considered a Chazakah (from which we can infer that if they would have remained another year in Eretz Yisrael, this would not have been necessary).

Abaye rejects this Pasuk as a possible source however, on the grounds that - (even assuming that Chazakah requires only one year) Yirmiyah was merely advising them to safeguard their documents of sale to strengthen their hold over the fields that they had purchased.

And he proves his point from the continuation of the Pasuk "Banu Batim ve'Sheivu ve'Nit'u Ganos ve'Ichlu es Piryan" - which certainly has no Halachic implications, and is merely a sound piece of advice.

And this is borne out still further by the Pasuk there - "u'Nesatem bi'Cheli Cheres Lema'an Ya'amdu Yamim Rabim", a piece of advice which is nothing more than a means of extending the life of the documents for a long period of time.