Assertion (Ri): Rav Papa could properly hold like Shmuel, who says above that if he protested in front of people who cannot tell him (the original owner), it is not a Mach'ah;

There, he discusses a sick or old person, who will never go to the place where he is Machazik;

However, here they will go to the place of the Machazik and tell people of the city, and they will tell him (the Machazik), so it is a Mach'ah.

Question: Why do we ask from R. Yehudah? We should support him from Rabanan! It is proven above that they hold that Mach'ah she'Lo Befanav is valid!

Answer (Ri): Rava erred. He thought that whenever the Chazakah is heard, also the Mach'ah is heard;

Just like Chazakah is heard from Yehudah to Aspamya, also the Mach'ah, and even so R. Yehudah says that he comes in front of him and protests;

Rabanan hold that even from Yehudah to Galil, Chazakah is not heard. Therefore, it is not a Chazakah;

However, from Yehudah to [elsewhere in] Yehudah [Chazakah] is heard, and it is a Chazakah, unless he comes in front of him and protests.

All (both Tana'im) hold that not in front of him is not a Mach'ah.

Implied question: Why did Rav Nachman need to answer that the Mishnah gives a good counsel [for the original owner to return]? Why couldn't he answer that he cannot protest in his place, because Mach'ah is heard only in the same region?

Answer: Still, [Rava] could challenge him why R. Yehudah obligates to come in front of him. He should come until the region where the Machazik is, and protest!

Since he did not teach that he comes in another year and protests, and they inform [the Machazik], this connotes that he must come in front of him, like I explained.

Explanation: The text does not say "however, Rava said in the name of Rav Nachman..."

Explanation: There is publicity, and in the end, [the one spoken about] will know.

Implied question: A Milveh Al Peh (a loan without a document), even in front of many witnesses, cannot be collected from buyers [who bought from the borrower]. This is because it has no Kol (publicity), like it says below (42a)!

Answer #1: There, the reason is because one who borrows, he borrows covertly.

Answer #2: There, they (witnesses who see the loan) do not know who will buy [from the borrower], that they would tell him "Ploni (the borrower) owes money." However, one who knows about a Mach'ah will tell the Machazik.

Explanation: [There is no Isur of Lashon ha'Ra] for the one who tells it in front of three.

Source: In Erchin (15b), we bring regarding this R. Yosi's teaching "I never said something and turned around." I.e. he was not concerned if the one whom he spoke about hears it.

Question: This version is astounding! Below, Rava says that Mach'ah is in front of two, and above Rava ruled that Mach'ah she'Lo Befanav is valid!

Explanation: If not [that we need] testimony, one would suffice, for your friend has a friend...

Implied question: Lashon ha'Ra is not heard [if it was told to less than three]!

Answer: This is because they conceal it from people.

Explanation (cont.): The one who obligates saying in front of three, he requires revealing the matter, like Lashon ha'Ra.

Explanation (Rashbam): [He need not protest again] until the end of three years.

Question: Our Mishnah teaches so! It says "so he is Machazik for a year, they inform [the original owner] in a year, and the next year he comes and protests. This shows that one needs to protest only once in three years! (Why did Rav or Chiya bar Rav need to teach this?)

Answer: If we had [only] our Mishnah, one might have thought that he needs only one Mach'ah at the end of three years, but if he protested at the beginning of the three years, and did not protest during all [the rest of] the three years, one might have thought that he admits that it is his [of the Machazik].

Suggestion: [Rav teaches that] he need never protest again.

Rejection: If so, he argues with Reish Lakish, and the Gemara should have said "Reish Lakish Amar." (Rather, it says "Amar Reish Lakish." This connotes that it is an independent teaching. He does not come to argue with Rav.)

Suggestion: The reason is lest [the Machazik] say "I bought it after the Mach'ah"!

Rejection #1 (Rashbam): Since he is forced to admit that initially, before the protest, he did not enter [the land] due to a sale, he is not believed to say afterwards "I bought it."

Rejection #2: If so, [R. Yochanan] properly calls him a Gazlan! (Why did we retract to say that he is like a Gazlan?)

Explanation: Rather, it is like the Rashbam explained. A person is careful with his document for three years after a Mach'ah, but no longer.

Consequence: According to this reason, this that was said above (31a, regarding Reuven who was Machazik in land, and four years ago, the original owner Ploni sold it to someone else), if [Reuven] ate it for [only] six years, "this [Ploni's sale, before Reuven was there for three years,] is the ultimate Mach'ah", argues with this, for here we say that he must protest every three years. (There, one sale was sufficient Mach'ah for six years!)

Pesak: The Halachah follows the above Sugya, for the Stam Gemara said so.

This is unlike R. Chananel, who ruled like Bar Kapara.

Question: How does writing help? It is not considered a document if it was done without the consent of the one whom the document obligates;

E.g. a sale document must be with the consent of the seller, a gift document must be with the giver's consent, and a loan document must be with the borrower's consent!