Support #1: Also the Ri says that this text is primary. We discuss when he ate branches.

Support #2: It is proven like this in Kesuvos (80a). A Mishnah says that one who spends money on his wife's property, whether he spent much and ate little, or spent little and ate much, what he spent, he spent, and what he ate, he ate;

It says in the Gemara that Rav Yehudah ruled in a case with bundles of branches. This is like Rav Yehudah taught elsewhere, that if one ate Orlah, Shevi'is or Kil'ayim, it is a Chazakah.

Suggestion: Perhaps really, the text here says "it is not a Chazakah", and there he ate branches, and here he ate Peros that are forbidden. Therefore, it is not a Chazakah, for he did not eat like people eat.

Rejection: If so, the Gemara should have brought that episode also here, for we discuss laws of Chazakah!

Question #1: Here it connotes that branches and wood of Kil'ayim are permitted;

Why is this different than what we say in Pesachim (26b), that an oven ignited with peels of Orlah or straw of Kil'ai ha'Kerem - if it is new, it must be broken (the first time an oven is ignited, this solidifies it, so using the oven is benefit from Isurei Hana'ah);

Inference: [Straw of Kil'ai ha'Kerem, and the same applies to wood] is forbidden!

Question #2: Also, we say there that the Ikar of Kil'ai ha'Kerem (the tree itself) becomes forbidden!

Answer #1 (to Question #2): We can say that their Ikar is forbidden, because it says "ha'Zera".

Answer (and Answer #2 to Question #2): There we discuss something that was initially sown [b'Isur]. The Zera'im were seeded with the young vines in the vineyard. The branches grew b'Isur;

However, here we discuss branches that already grew before Kil'ayim was sown. Those do not become forbidden until they grow another one part in 200;

This is like it says in Pesachim (25a) and Chulin (116a) "if it was already planted [b'Heter, before there was Kil'ayim], if it grew another one part in 200, it is forbidden. If it did not grow another one part in 200, it is not [forbidden].

Here we discuss when the branches did not grow another one part in 200, and the Peros increased [this amount]. Therefore, there is a Chazakah only through the branches.

Implied question: This is difficult! (Why do we assume that the branches did not increase one part in 200, and the Peros did?)

Answer: This is normal, that the Peros increase one part in 200 before the branches do, for the branches were already big before the Kil'ayim was planted.

Explanation: It discusses when he plowed it (and did not seed it) for two years and seeded it one year for a Chidush according to R. Acha. Even so, it is a Chazakah.

Limitation (Ri): This is only if he plowed it, seeded it, and plowed it;

However, if he plowed it for two consecutive years [and seeded it before or after those two years], even R. Acha agree that it is not a Chazakah. What does it help to plow it so much, for two years without seeding it?!

Question (Rashba): How is it proven from here that he comes to exclude plowing? Perhaps Rabanan hold that plowing is a Chazakah;

He needs three years from day to day, because until three years, a person is careful with his document, like we said above (29a)!

Even if in those three years he only plowed, it is a Chazakah, for a person is not prone to be silent when others plow his field!

Question: There are many differences between them! There can be three harvests in two years. He harvested at the end of the year, and two harvests afterwards in two years!

Answer (Ri): It connotes to him three complete harvests, the entire years of the harvests.

Question (Ri): Why don't we answer that they differ about crops that ripen quickly, and crops that are late to ripen?

This is like we say in Avodah Zarah (75b) "how long do we leave [Kelim used to make Tamei wine or oil, before using them for Taharos? One must wait 12 months. R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, one must wait until the next season of pressing grapes or olives. What is the difference between them? (The pressing season is the same time every year, after the harvest!) They differ regarding [grapes or olives that are] early or late to ripen.

Assertion: It seems that this is only if there were 30. However, if there were three trees planted 10 in a Beis Se'ah, and he ate one this year, and [another] one this (the next) year, this is not a Chazakah;

This is just like 30 trees, when they (the 10 he ate each year) are not spread among the entire property.

These are not mature trees. Mature trees are planted only three in a Beis Se'ah, like it says above (26b).

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): Less than a Beis Se'ah for 10 trees is too dense. It is like a forest. It is not a Chazakah.

Objection: This is wrong. It is clear from our Sugya that if he ate densely, it is a Chazakah, for Rava challenge Neharde'ei "if so, how does one acquire (make a Chazakah in a patch used to grow) fodder (which is seeded very densely)?

Defense (of Rashbam - Rashba): Below, we discuss when he consumed all of the trees, even though they are dense. It is a Chazakah, for he ate those destined to be uprooted, and those destined to remain;

However, here he did not eat all the trees. He ate only a third every year. If there were 33 trees in three Beis Se'ah, there are among them three trees destined to be uprooted;

When he eats 11 trees every year, perhaps among the 11 he eats this year are two or three of those destined to be uprooted. We require that every year he eat three of the trees destined to remain.

Pesak: If 10 are in more than a Beis Se'ah, it seems that he does not acquire land at all;

This is unlike the Rashbam, who says that it is not a Chazakah in the entire land, but it is a Chazakah in what is needed for the trees.

Question (Ri): Why is Chazakah unlike a sale? Regarding "one who bought three [trees], he acquired land", 10 in a Beis Se'ah, they are [too] scattered, and he did not acquire land!

When there are 10 in a Beis Se'ah, there are 250 square Amos to each tree, and below (82b), regarding one who acquired three, it says "how much is between them? Between eight and 16 [Amos]. If there are more than 16, they are scattered [and he did not acquire].

When there are 16 between them, each tree has eight around it in every direction. This is a circle of diameter 16, for a tree nurtures equally [in every direction] around it.

A square of 16 by 16 has area 256. Deduct a quarter, for the area of a square exceeds the area of the circle in it (that touches all the sides) by a quarter [of the area of the square]. Not even 200 remains [for the area of the circle]!

Inference: They are not the Shi'ur of 10 to a Beis Se'ah. (They are denser. They must be more than 16 Amos from each other so that there will be 250 Amos for each tree, but then one does not acquire land!)

Answer: Perhaps we can distinguish between a sale and Chazakah. Regarding a sale, surely we do not say that he acquired land if they are not dense the way people normally plant;].

People do not normally distance more than 16 Amos from tree to tree.

Implied question: The nurturing area of this tree enters the nurturing area of this tree, for mature trees nurture 16 Amos in every direction!

Answer: The reason people do not distance one tree from another the entire Shi'ur of nurturing, i.e. 32 Amos, is because if they did, one would plant in a big field only two or three trees;

However, regarding Chazakah, it is a Chazakah on the Shi'ur [of land] that they nurture from, even though [the trees] are distanced the Shi'ur of nurturing [which is not normal].

Question (Ri): A person has greater power [to acquire] than Hekdesh! A person who bought three trees acquired land when they are spaced between eight and 16 Amos apart;

Regarding Hekdesh, a Beraisa below (72a) teaches that one who was Makdish three trees planted 10 to a Beis Se'ah, he was Makdish the land. If they were more or less [dense] than this, he was not Makdish the land. Why is Hekdesh different than a sale?

Answer #1 (Rashbam on 72a): There (a sale), it depends on the intent of the seller. Hekdesh depends on nurturing.

Answer #2 (Rashbam on 83a): The same Shi'ur applies to a sale, and to one who was Makdish trees;

The Beraisa (72a), that teaches that [one was Makdish land with the trees only] when there are 10 to a Beis Se'ah, disagrees.

Proof: A Tosefta in Bava Basra (4:7) teaches that one who bought three [trees] acquired land;

Citation (Tosefta): How close can they be [to each other, and he still acquires]? Enough for a bull to pass in between with its Kelim. How far can they be [from each other]? [There can be only] 10 to a Beis Se'ah.