Citation (cont.): If they are less [separated] or more [separated], or he bought one after the other, he did not acquire land, and not the tree in between them;

Afterwards, it teaches about one who was Makdish, what is brought below (72a, that if there are 10 to a Beis Se'ah, also the land is Hekdesh).

It seems that "less [separated] than this" taught regarding Hekdesh refers also to the Shi'ur for a bull to pass in between with its Kelim, and "more than this" refers to [10 to] a Beis Se'ah, just like regarding a sale.

Suggestion: According to this (Perush, that the Beraisa and Tosefta argue), we can say that there is no difference between Chazakah and a sale, and Abaye holds like the Beraisa of the Tosefta!

Rejection: Abaye himself holds like Rav Nachman, who says that they must be between eight and 16 Amos apart, for Abaye said to Rav Yosef "do not argue with Rav Nachman!"

Question: If we compare a sale to Hekdesh, R. Shimon contradicts himself!

We establish the Beraisa on 72a like R. Shimon, and in 83a, it says that R. Meir and R. Shimon say that if one plants [vines] in his vineyard eight Amos apart, he may seed in between them;

This implies that R. Shimon holds that eight Amos apart is [too] scattered, and we bring a proof from there to one who sold trees!

Answer (Rashba): We establish the Beraisa on 72a like R. Shimon only regarding his opinion that one is Makdish stingily;

However, regarding his opinion that eight Amos is [too] scattered, we do not hold like him.

Explanation (R. Chananel): E.g. this refers to Benos Shu'ach (a species of figs), that from Chanatah (budding) until harvesting there are three years, like the Mishnah in Shevi'is (5:1) says that Shevi'is of Benos Shu'ach is the second year;

It is the second year of Shemitah, because the Peros picked in the second year of Shemitah, because their Chanatah was in Shevi'is, and they are forbidden like the law of Shevi'is.

R. Chananel established it to discuss Benos Shu'ach, because this would not occur to other trees in 1000 years, that amidst 30 trees, they will be blasted three years, and those that are stricken this year are not stricken this year, and (every year the trees that produce) are spread [amidst the field].

Question: How can it discuss Benos Shu'ach? Above (28b), we say regarding Chazakah that we require that at the time there is one Pri, there is not the other Pri (that will be the next period of consumption);

Here, when he eats the Peros of the first and second years, the Peros of the third year already budded!

Answer: Since there is still a year until they will be finished, this is properly called "at the time there is this Pri, there is not the other Pri."

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): We do not discuss Chazakah of three years. Rather, he sold land to one buyer, and trees to another buyer;

Each made Chazakah in his, e.g. he dug a little in the ground, and the owner of the trees pruned them, like it says below (54a) "if one pruned a date tree for the sake of the tree (so it will grow better), he acquired it."

Question #1 (Ri): This [Sugya] should not have been fixed [in the Gemara in the discussion] on our Mishnah, which discusses Chazakah of three years, rather, below (42a), regarding Chazakos of Kinyan!

Question #2: Why did it mention Chazakah more than a document, money or Chalipin? It should have said Stam "sold", like it says "sold" in the entire Sugya below!

Note: When one sells to two people at once, he is generous to both of them. Each gets less than a lone buyer would get (see the end of Tosfos DH Leima below). Two Chazakos cannot be made simultaneously. Why didn't the first get all rights of a lone buyer? We must say that he agreed to both sales before either made Chazakah. It is a Chidush that the first is not considered a lone buyer. (Perhaps this is even if he discussed selling to the second only after he told the first "go make Chazakah and acquire", but before he made Chazakah!) Had it taught other Kinyanim, which can be done simultaneously through a Shali'ach, we might think that only in such a case he is generous to both.

Answer (to both questions, and Explanation #2 - Ri): We discuss Chazakah of three years;

According to Rav Zevid, this one acquired trees, and this one acquired land, and the owner of the trees has no Kinyan at all in the land. Therefore, when [his trees] dry up, he may not plant others in place of them;

Rav Papa holds that this one acquired trees and half the land;

Explanation: He does not acquire anything in the land, for the other made Chazakah in the entire land! Rather, he acquired [rights] so that if they dry up, he may plant others in place of them.

Implied question: Below (37b), how do we learn from this that if he sold trees to one, and land to another, according to Rav Zevid, the owner of the trees has no [Kinyan] in the land to plant others in place of them when they dry up, and according to Rav Papa, he has [this right]? (According to the Ri, Rav Zevid and Rav Papa did not discuss a sale!)

Answer: It is reasonable that if he sold trees to one, and land to another, Stam (without specifying), the owner of the trees acquired in the land rights to plant others in place of them when they dry up, [therefore] also his Chazakah should help for this.

Explanation #1: He should be able to say so after they dry up.

Implied question: (What is Rav Papa's challenge to Rav Zevid?) Indeed, Rav Zevid holds [that he can say so]!

Answer: Even so Rav Papa challenges him, for it is unreasonable that he can force him to uproot his tree immediately when it dries, since he sold to him three trees.

Explanation #2: [He can tell him to uproot his trees] immediately;

This was difficult to Rav Papa. Since you say that even when he bought three trees, he owns no rights in the land, even though normally, with three trees he has land, because it is different with two buyers...

This is because [the owner of the land can say] just like I have no [rights] in the trees, also you have no [rights] in the land;

If this reason is correct, if so immediately he can tell him to uproot his tree, even though normally, in any case of one buyer, when he bought two trees, he did not acquire land, in any case the tree stands there until it dies;

Here is worse, for this reason that you hold, just like I...

Rather, surely you should not say this reason. Therefore, when he sold land to one, and trees to another, the owner of the trees acquires the place of the trunk to plant others in their place when they dry up.

Assertion: We discuss whether [he bought] three trees or two, like the Rashbam explained. Even regarding three, he does not own land needed for the trees (i.e. around them, to harvest the fruits), since [the seller] specified explicitly that the other gets the land;

And even regarding two trees, when they dried, he plants others in place of them, because just like he sold generously to you (to get all the land except for the trees), he sold generously to me (and gave to me permanent rights to have trees here).

Explanation: [The buyer can tell him to uproot his tree] after it dried up, for it weakens the land. If he does not leave over, he can say "uproot your tree", for b'Al Korcho (against his will) he cannot leave his tree in [the buyer's] field.

Also, [the buyer can tell him to uproot it] for he wants to sow the place of the tree.

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): We discuss two trees. If there were three trees, all agree that he acquired land, like the Mishnah below (81a), and we establish it in the Gemara like Rabanan;

We reject this, and establish it even like R. Akiva. According to this, the Reisha, which teaches that he does not get land, is not like R. Akiva.

Proof: This is proven below (72a). It teaches that if one was Makdish three trees spaced 10 to a Beis Se'ah... if he was Makdish one after the other, he was not Makdish the land;

We ask, who taught this [that one is Makdish stingily]? If it is R. Akiva, he said that people sell generously, and all the more so people are Makdish generously! I.e. if he was Makdish one after the other, why wasn't he Makdish the land?

Inference: Also one who acquired one tree, acquired land.

Rebuttal (Ri): Since we establish the Mishnah below (81a), which says that one who acquired three trees acquired land, like R. Akiva, if so you are forced to say that R. Akiva holds that one who acquired [even] two trees did not acquire land!

[The Mishnah] connotes that only if he acquired three, he acquired land, but if he acquired two, he did not acquire land.

Explanation #2: Our Sugya means that [if he acquired] three, even though normally with three trees he acquired land, here is different, for there is land only enough for the trees, and he explicitly specified that he leaves over the land for himself;

Or, in a big field, and he explicitly said that he keeps all the land, all agree that he did not acquire anything in the land itself;

However, according to the opinion that people sell generously, he may plant another in place of it when it dries up.

Explanation #2 (cont.): The Sugya below (72a) means as follows. Who taught this [that one is Makdish stingily]? If it is R. Akiva, and according to Rabanan who argue with R. Shimon, who hold that people are Makdish generously...

[This cannot be, for R. Akiva] said that people sell generously, and all the more so they are Makdish [generously]!

Rather, it is Rabanan [of R. Akiva], and according to Rabanan of R. Shimon, who hold that one who was Makdish, was Makdish all of them. This means that people sell stingily, but they are Makdish generously;

Since they hold that one is Makdish so much more generously than he sells, that even a pit and cistern, which are not needed for the land, he was Makdish...

All the more so one who was Makdish a tree, he was Makdish the land needed for the tree, even though one who sells, did not sell the land!

Question: We cannot explain the continuation [there] like this! It says "rather, surely it is R. Shimon (regarding Hekdesh). Like whom is it (regarding a sale)?

If it is R. Akiva, he says that people sell generously, and all the more so they are Makdish [generously]!

Answer: Even so, with difficulty we can explain that he asks from reasoning. Since people sell generously, we should say that all the more so they are Makdish a little more generously...

Also regarding one tree, the one who was Makdish it, was Makdish the land, even though regarding a sale he does not acquire.

Explanation #3: We do not infer (there, on 72a) from the law of one who was Makdish one after the other, that one is Makdish stingily;

Rather, we infer from what it taught [in the Seifa of the Beraisa] that one who was Makdish three trees planted 10 to a Beis Se'ah, he was Makdish the entire land. Therefore, when he redeems, he redeems according to [the amount the Torah fixed, 50 Shekalim for 75,000 square Amos, which is] the area in which one sows a Chomer (30 Sa'im) of barley [regardless of its actual value]...

If [the Tana] holds that people are Makdish generously, even though he was Makdish the land and the trees together, we should say that he redeems and redeems again;

He redeems the trees for their value, and returns to redeem the land according to [50 Shekalim for] the area in which one sows a Chomer of barley;

This is like Rav Huna said in Erchin (14a) "if one was Makdish a field full of trees, when he redeems, he redeems the tree for its value, and returns to redeem the land according to 50 Shekalim of silver for the area in which one sows a Chomer of barley."

Inference: Rav Huna holds that one who is Makdish [is Makdish generously].

Citation (14a): Rav Nachman challenged Rav Huna. He asked from the Beraisa (72a), and [Rav Huna] answered that it is R. Shimon, who says that one is Makdish stingily.

Consequence: Now, the inference below (72a) is simple. The entire Sugya below is like Rav Huna, according to the reason he said in Erchin, that one is Makdish generously.

Consequence #1: If he wants to sow [anything other than grape seeds], he need not distance four Amos [like from a vineyard], rather, only three Tefachim, like from a single vine.

Consequence #2: This affects also one who planted a vineyard and did not redeem the fruits (in the fourth year). He does not return from war [due to this densely planted vineyard].