According to Rav Z'vid, if the owner instructed the witnesses not to inform the Machzik of his Mecha'ah, the Mecha'ah is ineffective (and the Chazakah is valid). Rav Papa says that - since he only forbade them to tell the Machzik directly, there is nothing to stop them from passing on the warning to other people, in which case we will apply the principle 'Chavrach Chavra Is leih, and the Mecha'ah is valid.

In a case where the witnesses declare that they will not comply with his request (to inform the Machzik) ...

... Rav Z'vid again invalidates the Mecha'ah.

... Rav Papa repeats his previous ruling, and argues - that even if they will not inform the Machzik himself, they will pass on the information to others, who will pass it on to the Machzik.

According to Rav Z'vid, if the owner says 'Lo Teipak leih Shuta' - (Don't say a word to a soul), the Mecha'ah is ineffective.

In this case, Rav Papa says nothing, because he agrees with Rav Z'vid.

If the witnesses declare that they will not say a word to a soul, Rav Papa invalidates the Mecha'ah. According to Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua however - the Mecha'ah is valid ...

... since, seeing as they did not receive instructions to remain silent, we apply the principle 'Kol Milsa de'Lo Ramya aleih de'Inash, La'av Ada'teih', which in this case means that something from which one is not obligated to desist, one performs without even realizing that one undertook to do so.

The Halachah in all of the above cases is - that the Mecha'ah is valid, except for ythe third case (where the owner said to the witnesses 'Lo Teipak leih Shuta').

Rava Amar Rav Nachman 'Mecha'ah she'Lo be'Fanav, havya Mecha'ah' - because as we learned earlier 'Chavrach Chavra Is leih ... ', making it possible for the Mecha'ah to reach the ears of the Machzik.

Even if the Machzik does not get to hear about the Mecha'ah, and claims that he lost his Sh'tar - seeing as the owner did what he had to, and made a Mecha'ah, the Chazakah is invalid, and the Machzik will have to produce his Sh'tar (or return the field to the original owner).

Rava queries Rav Nachman from Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah, who ascribes the three-year period of Chazakah to the fact that the owner needs three years to hear about the Chazakah and travel to warn the Machzik - implying that the owner needs to make the Mecha'ah personally and not through two witnesses (i.e. 'Mecha'ah she'Lo be'Fanav Lo havya Mecha'ah').

Rava asks from Rebbi Yehudah, because, although Rav on the previous Amud, learned that, according to the Tana Kama, 'Mecha'ah she'Lo be'Fanav Havya Mecha'ah' - Rava understood the Tana Kama differently (see also Tosfos DH 'Leisev').

Even though Rava queries Rav Nachman from Rebbi Yehudah, (like whom he currently holds regarding Mecha'ah), he does not follow his opinion - regarding Chazakah she'Lo be'Fanav, which is nevertheless a Chazakah (which therefore requires a Mecha'ah) according to Rebbi Yehudah, but not according to Rava (as we see from his previous ruling 'Ein Machzikin be'Nechsei Bore'ach').

Rav Nachman answers Rava's Kashya - by establishing Rebbi Yehudah's choice of case (not as mandatory, but) as a wiser way of making a Mecha'ah ...

... because by going himself and taking the field back together with the fruit, before the Machzik concludes his Chazakah, he avoids the problem of having to retrieve Gezel, and Chazal have said 'Kashah Gezel ha'Nigzal' ('It is difficult to retrieve something that has been stolen').

We reconcile Rava's Kashya on Rav Nachman (implying that he holds 'Mecha'ah she'Lo be'Fanav Lo havya Mecha'ah', with the fact that he himself declared ' ... havya Mecha'ah' - by establishing the latter ruling after he heard Rav Nachman's answer, which he accepted.

When Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina asked Rebbi Yochanan's Talmidim whether they had heard from him before how many witnesses the owner needs to make a Mecha'ah, Rebbi Chiya bar Aba answered 'two'; Rebbi Avahu - three.

We try to connect their Machlokes with a statement of Rabah bar Rav Huna, who said that any derogatory statement that is said in front of three people is no longer subject to Lashon ha'Ra (i.e. one is permitted to pass it on to the person about whom it was spoken).

This is not because (seeing as the owner informs the witnesses that the Machzik is a Gazlan) Mecha'ah itself is considered Lashon-ha'Ra - since warning the Machzik is the owner's obligation as instigated by Chazal, so that in the event that the Machzik did purchase the field, he will know that he has to look after his Sh'tar.

What we learn from Rabah bar Rav Huna is - that once three people are told something, it is considered as if everyone knows about it.

Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan however, maintains - that the same applies to where only two people know about it.

Alternatively, both opinions agree with Rabah bar Rav Huna (that once three people are told something, it is considered as if everyone knows about it), and they argue over whether 'Mecha'ah she'Lo be'Fanav, havya Mecha'ah (Rebbi Avahu) or not (Rebbi Chiya bar Aba). Seeing as they both agree that publicity requires three, the reason that ...

... Rebbi Chiya bar Aba makes do with two witnesses is - because since Mecha'ah needs to be made in the presence of the Machzik, all that is needed is two witnesses to testify that it was in fact, performed.

... Rebbi Avahu nevertheless requires three is - because since Mecha'ah can be performed not in the presence of the Machzik, it requires publicity, which in turn, requires three people (like Rabah bar Rav Huna taught).

Yet a third alternative suggests that they both agree with Rav bar Rav Huna and both hold 'Mecha'ah she'Lo be'Fanav, havya Mecha'ah'; and the basis of their Machlokes is - whether Mecha'ah requires publicity (to ensure that the Machzik gets to hear about the warning) or just testimony (which creates the possibility that the Machzik gets to know about the warning [either directly from the two witnesses or indirectly], but does not guarantee it).

Gidal bar Minyumi made a Mecha'ah in front of three Amora'im - (not because Mecha'ah requires three people, but) because there happened to have been three people present when he made it).

When, the following year, he came to repeat the Mecha'ah, they told him - that since he had made it the previous year, it was not necessary to repeat it.

Resh Lakish quoting bar Kapara rules - that the owner needs to make a new Mecha'ah at the end of each three-year period.

We object to Rebbi Yochanan's protest 've'Chi Gazlan Yesh lo Chazakah' - because there is no justification to call the Machzik a Gazlan.

What Rebbi Yochanan really meant to say was - that someone who is comparable to a Gazlan (inasmuch he has been accused of setting out to steal the owner's field) ought to look after his Sh'tar, even without an additional Mecha'ah.

bar Kapara rules - that if the owner repeats the Mecha'ah another two times ('Ir'er, Chazar ve'Ir'er, Chazar ve'Ir'er') - his Mecha'ah is valid, provided he issues the same warning each time, but not if he changes it from one time to the next.

It is appropriate for bar Kapara to issue this ruling - since he is the one who requires a new Mecha'ah after each set of three years (though as a result of this ruling, it became customary to also make a Mecha'ah a number of times during the first three years).

The two different claims might be 1. that the Machzik is stealing his fruit 2. that the field is only a Mashkon, and has not been sold to him.

We do we not accept ...

... the owner's first claim - because, in his second one, he admits that the Machzik is not a thief (and we have a principle 'Hoda'as Ba'al-Din ke'Me'ah Eidim Dami' (the admission of the claimant is like a hundred witnesses).

... his second claim - because it contradicts his first one.