Question (Riva): A Pisla [block of wood] is a Karmelis, for in Gitin (77b) it explains that regarding Get, Pisla is its own Reshus, e.g. it is not 10 Tefachim tall;

Inference: It is at least three Tefachim tall (if not, it is Batel to the ground). Presumably, it is four [by four Tefachim] wide, for we do not find something considered to be an independent Reshus less than four;

A pillar three tall and four wide in Reshus ha'Rabim is a Karmelis. If so, why does it say "but not a Pisla"?

Answer: In any case, since it is so small, and it can be moved, Abaye holds that it is not important to divide between two Reshuyos, like a Karmelis.

Explanation: This refers to Tum'ah, like is proven explicitly in the Tosefta in Taharos (7:7);

It teaches that one who enters a valley in winter, and there is Tum'ah in a particular field, they said in front of R. Eliezer "it is of an individual!"

R. Merinus explained in his (R. Eliezer's) name, anything that has its own name [is a separate Reshus. If it is possible that he did not enter the Reshus with the Tum'ah, this is Safek entrance.]

This is unlike the Rashbam, who explained that R. Merinus explained in the name of R. Yochanan (who discussed what interrupts property of a convert - 55a).

Suggestion: This refers to the borders of Eretz Yisrael.

Rejection: It lists several cities in the middle of Eretz Yisrael! Rather, it is the borders of each Shevet.

Observation: It would have been better to mention the borders given in Parshas Mas'ei, which lists cities on the border. There, the borders of Eretz Yisrael are explained well.

Question: This is not accurate! Olei (those who ascended to Eretz Yisrael from) Mitzrayim conquered many cities, and Olei Bavel did not conquer them, and they did not become obligated in Ma'aser (in Bayis Sheni, and onwards), even though [Hash-m] showed them to Moshe!

Answer: He holds that the first Kedushah was for its time, and for the future (forever).

Support: Now, it is not difficult 'what does "all" come to include?' It includes cities that Olei Mitzrayim conquered, and Olei Bavel did not conquer them.

Question: What does he ask "what does this exclude?" He said all! (Nothing is excluded.)

Answer: He infers from "what He showed him." It connotes that it comes to exclude.

Question: He should say that it excludes Chutz la'Aretz!

Answer: This is no Chidush. Therefore, he says that it excludes [the lands of] Kini, Kenii and Kadmoni, even though they are from [what will later be part of] Eretz Yisrael.

Question: This connotes that Olei Mitzrayim did not conquer them;

In Yevamos (16a), we say that Amon and Mo'av tithe Ma'aser Oni in Shevi'is, for it was taught that many cities [Olei Mitzrayim conquered them, and Olei Bavel did not], and [the Tana] holds that the first Kedushah was not permanent;

[Olei Bavel] refrained [from conquering them] so Aniyim can be fed from them in Shevi'is. (Since they did not get Kedushah, one may farm them in Shemitah.)

Suggestion: There it refers to [the parts of] Amon and Mo'av that were permitted through Sichon. (Bnei Yisrael were not permitted to take land from Amon and Mo'av. However, we were permitted to take what Sichon took from them.)

Rejection: Shevi'is applies there, i.e. in Ever ha'Yarden!

Source - Citation (Pesachim 52a): There are three lands regarding Bi'ur [of Peros Shemitah] - Yehudah, Ever ha'Yarden and Galil.

Answer #1 (R. Tam): Ever ha'Yarden is the land of Sichon and Og that was not from Amon and Mo'av.

Answer #2 (R. Tam): Also in Yevamos, it discusses [the parts of] Amon and Mo'av that were not permitted through Sichon, like here;

It does not come to explain there why Shevi'is does not apply there, for it is Chutz la'Aretz! Rather, it explains why they tithe [in Shemitah] Ma'aser Oni, and not Ma'aser Sheni, to avoid changing the order of [the tithes in] the years.

Source: In Yadayim (4:3) there is an argument. R. Elazar ben Azaryah decreed that they tithe Ma'aser Sheni, like in Bavel, to avoid changing the order of the years;

R. Tarfon decreed that they tithe Ma'aser Oni, like Mitzrayim, which is nearby, and they tithe Ma'aser Oni, so Aniyim can be fed from them. Also Amon and Mo'av, which are close...

Question: Why doesn't it bring in Yevamos the reason for Mitzrayim that is taught in Yadayim?

Answer: He prefers to say that they conquered many cities, for according to the opinion that the Kedushah was not [permanent], they refrained from conquering even from Eretz Yisrael itself, due to support for Aniyim.

Support: This answer is primary. It answers why there is no contradiction of R. Eliezer against himself, and R. Yehoshua against himself. It is not proper to elaborate.

Inference: Asiya is in Chutz la'Aretz;

Question: If so, how can it say in Sanhedrin (26a) that R. Chiya bar Zarunki and R. Shimon ben Yehotzadak were going to Asiya to be Me'aber the year? A Beraisa in Sanhedrin (11b) teaches that we are Me'aber only in Yehudah!

Implied question: R. Meir was Me'aber the year in Asiya (Megilah 18b)!

Answer: He did not leave [a Chacham] like himself in Eretz Yisrael, like it says in Berachos (63a) about R. Akiva;

However, we cannot say so about R. Chiya [bar Zarunki] and R. Shimon [ben Yehotzadak], for Reish Lakish called them cattle herdsmen, and suspected them about [transgressing] Shemitah!

Answer: They were going to be Me'aber, i.e. to consider [whether or not to be Me'aber], like "he was Me'aber three years one after the other" (Sanhedrin 12b. The Gemara concludes that he only considered doing so.)

Proof: [The episode with R. Chiya] was in Shevi'is, and it taught there (12a) that we are not Me'aber Shemitah years.

Implied question: Why don't we ask here that the first ones should say "how should we know that everyone standing in Beis Din came to testify about this land? We came [to testify that he ate Peros for one year,] to obligate the Machazik for Peros!"

We ask like this in Bava Kama (24b), regarding an ox (testimony to make it Mu'ad). The last witnesses can say 'we came only to obligate the owner half-damage!'

Answer: Since the Machazik brought them to Beis Din, surely they came to testify for his benefit, to establish him to own the land, and not to obligate him for Peros.

Explanation: The witness who testified first, he himself can testify about the second. We do not say that a person is a relative to himself;

Similarly, his brother can testify about the second.

Explanation: They pay only if all of them are Huzam.

Question: Here, all expound Davar v'Lo Chetzi Davar. In Bava Kama (71b), we say "the Torah said five cattle, and even five half-cattle" (if one stole and slaughtered a cow in which he was a partner)!

Answer: Here [all expound] because "Davar" is extra.

Question: We need it for a Gezeirah Shavah "Davar- Davar" from monetary laws, to teach that Ein Devar sheb'Ervah Pachos mi'Shnayim (two witnesses are required to testify about Kidushin, Gitin and adultery - Gitin 90a)!

Answer: "Davar" written regarding Ervah is extra.

Implied question: There is an opinion that when a Gezeirah Shavah is free from only one side, we learn from it, but if we can challenge it, we challenge it!

Answer #1: Perhaps there is nothing to challenge.

Answer #2: If there is something to challenge, we can say that we do not expound from "Davar", rather, from "Al Pi Shenayim... Yakum", which connotes that the entire testimony will stand, and not only half

However, regarding money (a thief), there is no difference between much money and little. Based on what he stole, he pays. Therefore, there is no reason to exclude half cattle.

Implied question: We expound (Bava Kama 40a) regarding the ox of two partners "Kofer", and not half-Kofer!

Answer: There is different, for it comes for atonement. One cannot bring half atonement, e.g. half a Chatas, or half an Asham.

Implied question: We say there (Gitin 42b) regarding a half-slave, half Ben Chorin that a [Mu'ad] ox that gores him pays half-Kofer!

Answer: There, he pays the entire Kofer that applies to him. It is considered full Kofer, for he killed only a half-Ben Chorin.

Implied question: In Bechoros (48b) we expound "five [Sela'im for Pidyon ha'Ben]", and not half of five!

Answer: Also there, the Mitzvah of Pidyon is five Sela'im. One does not fulfill the Mitzvah with less.

Explanation (Rashba): We need not distinguish like the Rashbam explained;

[Rather,] even if she would be considered an adult when the two witnesses checked today everywhere, and saw only one [hair] on her back, and the same witnesses checked tomorrow and found only one on her stomach...

Regarding two groups of witnesses, it is considered Chetzi Davar, even though they saw all that they can.

Implied question: Why is this unlike testimony of Chazakah?

Answer: Here (regarding hairs), their testimony is not testimony without the latter two. It does not help for anything in the world. Therefore, it is Chetzi Davar;

However, when two testify about the first year, even though their testimony does not help regarding Chazakah, in any case their testimony helps to obligate paying for Peros. This is a full matter.

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): Rav Nachman held that Rav Yehudah discusses one who says that he consumed wheat, i.e. in the first, third and fifth years.

Rebuttal: This is wrong. If so, what did he ask "according to this, if one ate in the first..."? Indeed, Rav Yehudah holds that this is a Chazakah!

He should have asked "why is it a Chazakah? No one testifies that he ate it consecutive years!" This is unlike R. Yehoshua ben Korchah (who accepts testimony that witnesses saw at different times).

Explanation #2: Rather, Rav Nachman knew that both of them testify about the same year. He means as follows. Since you say that it is a Chazakah, even though they contradict each other, because both of them testify about a Chazakah...

If so, if one says that he consumed in the first, third and fifth years, and the second, fourth and sixth years he left it fallow, the way people leave fallow in the valley...

And one says no, rather, he consumed in the second, fourth and sixth years, and in the first, third and fifth years he left it fallow, is this a Chazakah?!

Even though they contradict each other, both testify that he made Chazakah (just like your case, in which they contradict each other about what he consumed)! (This Dibur continues on the coming Daf.)