Implied question (Rivam): A Mishnah (Chagigah 24b) teaches "if the winepresses and olivepresses finished..." This implies that they have a fixed time! (Our Mishnah says that they produce constantly.)

Answer: Most people press them at the time of harvest, but some store them away the entire year, and press a little at a time.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Rashi connotes that R. Yishmael requires that he seed and harvest in those first three months (the last three months of the first year), and also in the last three months (the first three months of the third year).

Implied question: Can grain planted after Nisan (in the last three months of the first year) grow within three months? Its time [to be harvested] is not until the coming Nisan!

Answer: We find like this. We say in Rosh Hashanah (13a) that any grain harvested during Sukos, it is known that it grew a third before Rosh Hashanah. This shows that sometimes it grows in this time!

Question (Ri): If so, why do we need 18 months? It should suffice 15 months!

He seeds three months before Nisan, harvests in Nisan, and [plants and harvests a] second time at the end of the summer, and a third time in the coming Nisan!

Answer: We require an esteemed consumption of 12 months in the middle.

Implied question: In the Gemara (28b), we say that if he ate three harvests in three months, according to R. Yishmael it is a Chazakah!

Answer: There is different, for it is its [proper] time. (Then, we do not require an esteemed consumption in the middle.)

Question (Ri): We say in the Gemara (36b) that R. Yishmael and R. Akiva argue about major (eminent) Peros and minor Peros;

The Rashbam explained that R. Yishmael holds that [we require] major Peros, e.g. barley and oats, which grow in three months, and R. Akiva holds that minor Peros [suffice], e.g. vegetables that grow in one month.

In the Gemara (28b), we say that if he ate fodder in one month, according to R. Yishmael it is a Chazakah!

Explanation #2 (Ri): R. Yishmael does not require that he seed and harvest it. Rather, even if the first [owner] seeded it, or he (the one making a Chazakah) seeds it in the last three months (in the third year), even though he does not harvest it [it is a Chazakah].

[The Tana'im] argue about the following. R. Yishmael holds that the Pri must grow much in his Reshus, e.g. three months. This is major Peros;

R. Akiva holds that it suffices for the Pri to grow in his Reshus one month. This is minor Peros.

Question: How is it evident that he is making a Chazakah during the first three or last three months? In one or two days he can harvest or seed!

Suggestion: He weeds the field and fixes it.

Rejection: This is not a Chazakah, just like plowing. We say below (36b) that [plowing] is not a Chazakah, for [the owner] can say "whoever wants to come and plow, let him enter!" (Why should I protest?)

Answer #1: The case is, [his animals] eat fodder.

Implied question: We say there that eating fodder is not a Chazakah!

Answer: That is when he eats in a way that the grain does not grow back. It is appropriate to say that he did not make Chazakah the way people make. Therefore, [the owner] was not concerned to protest;

However, if he ate in a way that the grain is not ruined, like people do when it is still leaves, and its seeds did not yet come, this is a Chazakah.

Implied question: Regarding a tree field, the Rabanan who argue with R. Yishmael in the Gemara (36b), they require three years from day to day. There, eating fodder does not apply. (What can one do for a Chazakah the entire year?)

Answer #1: He prunes, and keeps the wood for himself.

Implied question: He improves [the field] through this. This is like plowing!

Answer: Since he keeps the wood for himself, it is not appropriate to say "whoever wants to come and plow (in this case, prune), let him enter!"

Answer #2 (Ri): He made Chazakah through locking and fencing the field. He locks it with a key, and does not allow anyone to enter.

Note: Below, Tosfos remarks that this also answers Question i:3 (about a Chazakah of three years from day to day). I.e. the Ri primarily came to answer Question (h), how is his Chazakah evident during the first three or last three months?

Implied question: The Gemara (29b) asked how one acquires a rocky land. Why didn't it say that he locks and fences it?

Answer: Locking helps only if he also eats [Peros], or seeds. Locking by itself does not help at all.

Support (and Answer #2 to Question i:3): Now it is fine for Rabanan who argue with R. Yishmael (and require a Chazakah of three years from day to day).

Question: Does the Tana come to teach addition?! The Gemara asks this in several places.

Suggestion: He comes to teach [that the months of Chazakah must be] consecutive.

Rejection: If so, what is Rav Huna's Chidush? The Gemara connotes that from our Mishnah, we would not know that it must be consecutive, had Rav Huna not taught this! (See Tosfos Yom Tov, who was astounded at this [for Rav Huna teaches about the Reisha, which requires three years from day to day. We can say that it is clear from the Mishnah that the 18 months of Chazakah must be consecutive!])

Explanation: [Produce] of a vineyard is called Tevu'ah, because it says "u'Sevu'as ha'Kerem."

Question: Granted, it teaches Tevu'ah before olives, because wine (is ready) before oil, like we say in Bava Metzi'a (63a) "the time to sell wine came...", and afterwards it says "the time to sell oil came...";

However, why does it teach "he gathered his Kayitz (figs left to dry out in the summer)" after this? Figs are [ready] earlier!

It says in Bava Metzi'a (106b) that half of Nisan, Iyar, and half of Sivan is the time of harvesting [grain]. Half of Sivan, Tamuz and half of Av is the time of Kayitz;

Batzir (the time of harvesting grapes) was in Tishrei, like we say in Berachos (35b) that Rava told Rabanan "please, do not appear in front of me [to learn] in Nisan and Tishrei." (Rashi - harvest your grain in Nisan, and press your olives and grapes in Tishrei, and you will be free to learn the rest of the year.)

Also, we say in Sanhedrin (26b) that one who steals only in Nisan and Tishrei is not called a thief. This refers only to a sharecropper, who takes a little [more than he is entitled to from what he harvests then].

Also, we say in Bava Metzi'a (73b) "do you see these Rabanan who give money for wine in Tishrei, and they take it in Teves?!"

Summation of question: All of these connote that the grape harvest is in Tishrei, and Kayitz has already finished!

Answer #1: We say that Kayitz is half of Sivan, Tamuz and half of Av, for that is the primary time that figs dry on the tree. However, we do not cut them from the tree until after the grape harvest.

Answer #2: People gather them in half of Sivan, [Tamuz and half of Av,] and leave them to dry. The time to enter them into the house is not until after Tevu'as ha'Kerem.

Implied question: Why doesn't picking [figs count towards] a Chazakah?

Answer: Perhaps they used to dry them in the same field that they grew in. Therefore, it is not a Chazakah until he brings them to his house.

Answer #3 (R. Chananel): He gathered his grain in Tishrei, harvested his grapes in Shevat, and gathered his Kayitz in Av. This is a Chazakah. His Chazakah is within one year;

It adopted this order because Tishrei is the beginning of the year.

Remark: It would have been better had it taught them according to the order of the rains of the year, from which they grow.

Observation: Here Rashi retracted from what he explained in Bava Kama (23b) regarding the argument of Abaye and Rava;

Abaye says that "Temol" (yesterday) teaches one [goring], "mi'Temol" teaches a second, "Shilshom" teaches a third, and "v'Lo Yishmerenu Ba'alav" teaches a fourth goring;

Rava says that Temol mi'Temol teaches only one... (I.e. we do not learn an extra Negichah from the fact that it wrote mi'Temol, and not Temol.)

Abaye holds that until the fourth goring, it is not liable [like a Mu'ad]. Rava holds that it is liable [like a Mu'ad] for the third goring.

[Rashi retracted from this,] for if so, our Gemara concludes here unlike the Halachah follows, for we hold like Rava against Abaye!

Explanation #1: Rashi retracted [here], and explained that they argue only about how to expound the verses [but not about the Halachah].

Explanation #2 (R. Ezra): Surely, all agree that he is not liable until the fourth goring. They argue about the following:

Abaye learns the fourth goring from the verse "v'Lo Yishmerenu." If it gored the fourth goring on the third day, it is not liable [like a Mu'ad] until it gores on the fourth day;

This is because "v'Lo Yishmerenu" refers to days, similar to "mi'Temol Shilshom."

However, according to Rava, the fourth goring was not written explicitly. Even if it gored the fourth goring on the third day, it is liable [like a Mu'ad].

Question (Ri): What was the question? We learn from Shor ha'Mu'ad as follows: Just like there, it was established to be a gorer after three times, also here he is established to be silent after three years;

If so, from three years and onwards, [the land] is established in his possession!

Answer (Ri): The Makshan thought that he learns as follows. Just like there, from when it gored three times, it left the law of Chetzi Nezek, and goes to full damage...

Also here, since he ate three years and [the original owner] did not protest, it leaves the Reshus of the seller and goes to the Reshus of the buyer, even though there is no reason for this.

Question: What did the Makshan think? How can we establish it in the Chazakah of the Machazik, since he does not claim anything?

Answer #1: He asks as follows. Since you learn from Shor ha'Mu'ad, just like there, through three gorings it gets the status of a gorer, also here, since he ate three years and [the original owner] did not protest, the Chazakah is that he will not protest after this;

It should be his even without a claim, for we should say that he pardoned to him!

Answer #2: We ask "this teaches that a Chazakah without a claim is a Chazakah", e.g. if he says "I bought it from Ploni, who bought it from you", even though he did not say "in front of me, Ploni bought it from you";

Also, Ploni did not live in it even for one day, and he (the Machazik) does not know whether or not he bought it from him, just Ploni said so to him.

Question (Rashba): We ask in Bava Kama (24a) whether we require [three times] testimony against the ox, or against the person (owner);

We should resolve from here that we require testimony against the ox, since Holchei Usha said that just like Shor ha'Mu'ad, once it gored three times, it leaves...

If we required testimony against the person, it would not be Mu'ad until the fourth goring, for then he is Mu'ad to transgress warnings!

When it gored the third time, and they warned him, he still did not transgress three warnings until it gores a fourth time!

Answer #1: Our Sugya here is like the one who requires testimony against the ox;

Holchei Usha said only that we learn from Shor ha'Mu'ad, and no more. [Perhaps] we learn from the three warnings of the person, and not from the three gorings of the ox.

Answer #2: According to the one who requires testimony against the person, he need not be Muchzak to transgress the warnings. If we did, he would not pay [full damage] until the fifth goring!

Rather, they must inform him each time it gores, so he will guard his ox. In any case, liability depends on the ox, that it is established to gore.

Explanation (Ri): Just like you learned from Shor ha'Mu'ad that it is a Chazakah after three times, we should also learn that just like an ox needs testimony in front of it, and we do not say that it has publicity [and this suffices]...

Also here, regarding Mach'ah she'Lo Befanav, we should say that it has no publicity, and the Chazakah should be invalid, even if he (the original owner) heard about the Chazakah...

Since a Mach'ah has no publicity, what would it help if he protests, since the protest will not reach the Machazik (he will not hear it).

Even though protest comes to be Mevatel the Chazakah, and the testimony comes to fulfill (make it a Mu'ad), it is a proper question.

Question: Why does [Rav Avira] mention protest, and not Chazakah? (He could have said that Chazakah she'Lo Befanav is invalid.)

Answer: This is because Chazakah is heard more than testimony, but Mach'ah is not heard more.

Implied question: Without Shor ha'Mu'ad, he could have asked that [Mach'ah she'Lo Befanav] should not be a Mach'ah, like [Abaye] asks according to Rabanan (29a, when Rava explains that they hold that a buyer guards his document only for three years)!

Answer: Since (R. Yishmael) learns from Shor ha'Mu'ad, [Rav Avira] prefers to ask from it.

Explanation: We answer that your friend has a friend, so it has publicity, both regarding Mach'ah and testimony [about goring];

However, only regarding becoming Mu'ad, it is a Gezeras ha'Kasuv that it becomes Mu'ad only if they testify in front of him, even if it became clear to him from 1000 witnesses that they testified about his ox in Beis Din.

Explanation #1: After he answered him about figs, he asked from Tzelaf (caperbush);

A fig is big at the time they take another fig off the tree, just [the first] was not ripe yet [so it is not considered a separate Achilah]. Regarding Tzelaf, the fruit is very small when they take [another] from the tree.

This is like it says in Shabbos (30a) that in the future, trees will bear fruits every day. A Talmid jeered "Ein Kol Chadash Tachas ha'Shemesh"! [R. Gamliel] showed to him Tzelaf.

Explanation #2: R. Chananel's text says first "three fruits in one day, like Tzelaf", which has three fruits together;

Afterwards, the text says "such as figs." (I.e. they are not together. The first fig is very small when they take [another] from the tree.)

Support for Explanation #1: The Gemara in Shabbos connotes like our text (that Tzelaf grows faster than figs).

Observation: Also, we could have asked that perhaps it was within 10 [years], and he was warning about the beginning of the 11th, and there is not even one year in between, and really, one year makes a Chazakah.

Explanation (R. Chananel): Rav Yosef learns as follows. The text says "the Navi stood in the ninth year, and warned about the 11th, that the city will be conquered and the documents will be lost, and they will rely on Chazakah of three years.

Support: In Seder Olam, it says that it was in the ninth year, in the 10th month.

Rebuttal #1 (of Support): However, in all our Seforim, it says "the Navi stood in the 10th year." Also in our [text of] Seder Olam, it says the 10th year.

Rebuttal #2: Also according to his text, it is difficult. What is the source for three years from day to day?

According to the text of Seder Olam, there are only 18 months, for in the 11th year, in the fourth month, on the ninth of the month, the city was breached.