Explanation #1 (Rashbam): If it died, he may plant another in place of it.

Question (Ri): It explicitly says below (81a) regarding one who bought two trees, that if they died, he has no land!

Answer (and Explanation #2 - Ri): He acquired the place of the tree only so that he cannot dig a cavity under it, until the depth.

Question (Rashba): It says below (72a) that if one was Makdish three trees one after the other, he redeems them for their value;

If the place of the tree has any Kedushah at all, he should redeem according to the calculation of to 50 Shekalim of silver for the area in which one sows a Chomer of barley. This applies when he is Makdish any amount of land with the tree!

Answer #1 (Ri): (We could have asked this.) Even without this, Rava properly rejected Neharde'ei's teaching.

Answer #2 (Rashba): There, it is like the opinion that people sell [and are Makdish] stingily. Therefore, even the place of the tree is not Kadosh. Neharde'ei hold that people sell generously.

Explanation: The Gemara discusses garden saffron, which stays three years in the ground, i.e. the years of Chazakah. It is normal to leave it in the ground as long as it can last.

Explanation: It is a year's journey [from Eretz Yisrael] to there. It is not normal to distance more than this from one's land. If he distanced more, Chachamim did not distinguish [to give more time].

Question: Everywhere it mentions Mach'ah [she'Lo Befanav]. Why doesn't it say that Chazakah she'Lo Befanav is a Chazakah?

Answer: It is because the reason depends on Mach'ah, and not on the Chazakah, for a person who is Machazik in another's land, this has publicity, for one investigates and asks about his property;

However, Mach'ah does not have such publicity. One who is Machazik does not pursue to see if the [original] owner protests against him;

Therefore, his Chazakah is not a Chazakah when he cannot hear the Mach'ah, for [the original owner does not protest, for] what will it help to protest?

Question: Why is a Get different? It says in Gitin (4b) that [a Shali'ach] who brings a Get from region to region in Eretz Yisrael need not say Befanai Nechtav u'Befanai Nechtam (it was written and signed in front of me);

The reason is, since people ascend [to Yerushalayim] for the festivals, witnesses are available to be Mekayem it. Even when there is no Mikdash, since Batei Dinim are fixed, witnesses are available!

Answer: Surely regarding a Get, witnesses are available to be Mekayem it, even from Yehudah to Galil, because the divorcee normally pursues witnesses for Kiyum;

However, here, if [traffic between the places] were not exceedingly common, he would not hear the Mach'ah, for the Machazik is not wont to pursue to see whether or not [the original owner] protests against him. Therefore, caravans of people coming for the festival, or fixed Batei Dinim, do not suffice.

Question: We say in Gitin (6a) that Rav Sheshes obligated [saying Befanai Nechtav u'Befanai Nechtam] from one Shechunah (neighborhood) to another, and Rava obligates even in the same Shechunah;

The Gemara asks that Rava says that [Chachamim obligated the declaration only because] witnesses are not available for Kiyum, and answers that people of Mechuza (Rava's city) are different, for they are transient;

Will we say that in Mechuza, Mach'ah she'Lo Befanav does not help, and he must come in front of him to protest?!

Answer: These are different. When [witnesses] sign on a Get in Mechuza, and go away, it is not common to scream in the city [before leaving] "we signed on Get Ploni";

However, regarding Mach'ah, when they leave it is normal it say "Ploni protested", and others hear, until it is heard in the house of the Machazik.

Explanation: We discuss one who fled for monetary reasons. If it were due to rebellion (mortal danger), Shmuel would not argue, like is proven below;

This is only regarding one who fled. For a regular person, it is a Chazakah [not in front of him], for he can come to where the Machazik is, and protest;

However, one who fled cannot come to where he (the Machazik) is, so Mach'ah she'Lo Befanav is invalid.

He holds like R. Yehudah, for he taught "he comes in a year, and protests." This implies that he must protest in front of him!

Question: Perhaps also R. Yehudah does not require protesting in front of him! He means as follows. He comes to the region of the Machazik and protests;

E.g. if he was in Yehudah, he comes to Yehudah and protests, for then his protest will be heard.

Suggestion: Since Chazakah is heard until Aspamya, also Mach'ah should be heard until Aspamya. If it were true that Mach'ah she'Lo Befanav is valid, he should stay in his place and protest!

Rejection: This is wrong. If wherever Chazakah is heard, also Mach'ah is heard, if so, how is it proven above that Rabanan hold that Mach'ah she'Lo Befanav is valid?

I could say that really, it is not Mach'ah. When he (the original owner) was in Yehudah, and [the Machazik] made Chazakah in Yehudah, this is a Chazakah, because it is heard, and [the original owner] will come and protest in front of the Machazik;

However, from Yehudah to Galil, the Chazakah is not heard. Therefore, it is not a Chazakah!

Conclusion: Rather, it is clear to the Gemara that Chazakah is heard even far away, but Mach'ah is not. Therefore, it is properly proven above that Rabanan hold that Mach'ah she'Lo Befanav is valid;

If it were not valid, rather, he must come in front of the Machazik, if so from Yehudah to Galil should be a Chazakah;

Just like in Yehudah, he should go to protest, also from Yehudah to Galil he should go to protest!

Answer: Since it did not teach that R. Yehudah says that he comes in a year and protests and they inform him, this shows that he must protest in front of him. The Ri said so.

Assertion (Ri): He need not say "later, I will take him [to Din]." Rather, it is normal practice [to say so].

Source: Rav Zevid did not say '"Ploni is a robber. He consumes my land through theft" is not a Mach'ah, but "Ploni is a robber. He consumes my land through theft. Later, I will take him to Din" is a Mach'ah.'