Inference: Here it connotes that R. Yosi is unsure whether the first expression is primary, or the second expression, according to Shmuel, who establishes it when he comes in the middle of the month.

Question #1: In Temurah (25b) and Bava Kama (73b), R. Yosi said that [if one said] "Temuras Olah Temuras Shelamim", his words are fulfilled, i.e. we fulfill both expressions!

Question #2: In Nazir (9a), Menachos (103b), Zevachim (30a) and Pesachim (53b), R. Yosi holds that his final words are primary!

Answer: In all of them, according to R. Yosi it is as if he said both together. Therefore, here it is a Safek, for one contradicts the other, and we cannot say that he intends for both;

However, in Temurah and Bava Kama, R. Yosi said that we fulfill both expressions, for one does not contradict the other.

In the case in Nazir, Menachos, Zevachim and Pesachim, he explains his words. [R. Yosi] says that his final words are primary.

Explanation: [The landlord gets the entire month] because the tenant is ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah. Even so, at the end if the month, it belongs entirely to the tenant (he need not pay).

Inference: If the Motzi (who must bring a proof) seized, we do not take [back] from him.

Support: It connotes like this also in Kesuvos (20a). A Beraisa says that if two signed a document and died, and two came from the market and said "we know that this is their handwriting, but they were coerced, minors or Pasul witnesses, if we have another source of the witnesses' handwriting (from which we can validate the document), they (the witnesses who say that the ones who signed were Pesulim) are not believed;

Citation (20b): Do we collect [through the document]? There are two pairs of contradictory witnesses! (Why do we rely on the ones who signed to take from a Muchzak?)

Rav Nachman concludes that the two pairs cancel out each other, and we leave the money with the Muchzak.

Question: Why did the Beraisa say that [the latter witnesses] are not believed, since we leave the money in its Chazakah? (I.e. we believe that the document is invalid!)

Answer #1 (Rashi): [They are not believed] regarding if the lender seized [his debt]. We do not take it [back] from him.

Question: This is astounding. If so, ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah is Kol d'Alim Gevar (Beis Din withdraws, and whoever is more powerful will seize it by force)!

[If so,] what was the question above (35a) from one who swapped a cow for a donkey (and we are unsure if it give birth before or after the Kinyan) against the case of "this one says ['I inherited this land or ship] from my fathers', and this one says [similarly]", in which case the law is Kol d'Alim Gavar?

We explained that [the Gemara] did not ask from Sumchus' opinion [that they divide the calf due to the Safek], for the Halachah does not follow Sumchus. Rather, from Sumchus we learn about Rabanan, that when there is no Chazakah of a first owner, Rabanan admit to Sumchus that they divide;

What was the question [according to Rashi]? Regarding one who swapped a cow for a donkey, Rabanan say that ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah, and if the Motzi (who must bring a proof) seized, we do not take it [back] from him. All the more so, when this one says '[I inherited] from my fathers', in which neither is Muchzak, we say Kol d'Alim Gavar!

Answer: It is logical to him that regarding one who swapped a cow for a donkey, there is Chazakah of the original owner, and Rabanan do not say that they divide, rather, ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah, since he has a Chazakah;

However, when one is not more Muchzak than the other, Beis Din should say that they divide, and not leave them to seize. Even Rabanan agree to Sumchus about this.

Question: In Bava Metzi'a (6b), we conclude regarding a Safek Bechor that if the Kohen seized it, we take it from him. This shows that when the law is ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah, seizing does not help!

Answer: In our Sugya, the reason is because when he did not come until the end of the month, he admitted to him. Therefore, the tenant gets the entire month;

However, if he comes in the middle of the month, it seems that admission does not apply so much to half of the month. If he admitted, he admitted about everything! Therefore, they divide. (Chidushei Basra - Kovetz Shi'urim (Bava Basra 133) said that Chazakah does not help when the Safek leans more to one side. Here, it leans to the side that he admitted. Therefore, the landlord's Chazakah does not Mevatel the Tefisah of the tenant.)

Implied question: In Kesuvos (20a) [why does Tefisah help]?

Answer: We can say that because he makes a Vadai claim, Tefisah helps. However, the Kohen comes only due to a Safek.

Answer #2: "[The latter witnesses] are not believed" affects when the lender seized before the Safek arose. We do not take from him. In Kesuvos it is explained more.

Implied question: We could have answered like we said above that regarding the landlord, we can say that he retracted, and we can say that Perushei Ka Mefaresh (the latter expression explains the former), but here, he retracted, and really, [Shmuel said that] this [is like Ben Nanas], and [Shmuel] holds like him!

Answer #1: Even though we answered so above, it does not connote to [the Gemara] that this is the primary reason. Above, we made a mere Tzerichusa [why R. Aba needed to teach that other Tana'im argue with Ben Nanas].

Answer #2: The Rashbam explained that Zu (this is like Ben Nanas) connotes that he does not hold like him.

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): He told him as follows. It is 12 gold coins for the year, since I think that it is a regular (not a leap) year. However, if it is Me'uberes, I want you to give to me a gold Dinar per month.

Consequence: According to this, the text does not say "had it taught about this, and not about that", for it does not explain about this anything, why we cannot learn the case of the landlord from the case of [different amounts of] coins;

Rather, the text says "what might one have thought? Perushei Ka Mefaresh..."

Explanation #2: In the name of Rashi, [the Rashbam] explained that Perushei Ka Mefaresh refers to "Istira, 100 Ma'os", i.e. a big Sela worth 100 Ma'os.

Consequence: According to this, the text properly says "had it taught about this, and not about that." We cannot ask against Rashi's Perush why we cannot learn the case of Istira from Rav's teaching 'had I been there, I would have given all of it to the landlord';

One might have thought that Rav's reason is not because the latter expression is primary, rather, because land is in the Chazakah of its owner.

Question: According to Rashi, how could one think that "Istira, 100 Ma'os", Perushei Ka Mefaresh, and really, Rav holds like Rabanan, who say that we follow the smaller expression?

A Mishnah (below, 165b, says that if in a document is) written "100 Zuz, which are 20 Sela'im (a Sela is four Zuz)", he [collects] only 20 [Sela'im]. If it says "100 Zuz, which are 30 Sela'im", he [collects] only 100.

Inference: Even though it explicitly explains, we follow the smaller expression! (Rav follows the latter, even when it is bigger.)

Answer: The case below (165b) is different, for [the two amounts] are far from each other, and it is not so applicable to say Perushei Ka Mefaresh.

Remark: The Rashbam's Perush is better here, for initially we asked that Rav already taught this. This connotes that we ask why he needed to teach the case of Istira, and answer that it is needed, for we cannot learn from a landlord that the latter expression is primary, for one might have thought that Perushei Ka Mefaresh;

However, in Bava Metzi'a (102b), Rashi's Perush is better. We refer to the case of a landlord, and it asks that Rav already taught this here, regarding Istira.

Explanation #3 (Ri): Here, Perushei Ka Mefaresh is exactly like above. It means as follows. Had he taught the case of Istira, and not the case of a landlord, one might have thought that Perushei Ka Mefaresh, i.e. the case of a landlord, and the tenant gets the entire [month], for we do not say that the latter expression is primary, and not that he retracted. Rather, Perushei Ka Mefaresh.