Explanation: Similarly, we discuss when there is a little fruit on the olive trees. Therefore, it is principal even according to Abaye;

Since they produce only a little fruit, he buys land (through the money he gets for them) and eats the Peros, and this is good for both of them.

However, in our Sugya there are no Peros. Then the trees are called Peros according to Abaye!

Answer: In any case it is properly proven that it is principal even when it totally dries. This is why the first Tana says that he buys land with it, even now that it produces a little fruit, for the husband's benefit;

He argues with R. Shimon ben Gamliel, who says that she does not sell, due to honor of her father's house. We are not concerned for the husband's benefit as long as they produce some Peros, until they totally dry up, and then he buys land.

Note: Some texts say here "R. Yehudah", like Tosfos said at the beginning of this Dibur. Some texts say above "R. Shimon ben Gamliel", like it says here.

However, according to Abaye, who says that it is Peros, and when it totally dries the husband takes everything. If so, it is not the husband's benefit to buy land and the Peros are his;

It is better for him to wait a little until it totally dries, and then it is all his.

Explanation: Rather, surely he is not believed [to say that he bought it].

Question (R. Elchanan) Citation (Bava Basra 28a - Mishnah): Chazakah of houses... is three years. (After this, he is believed to say that he bought it!)

Answer (Ri): There, [the original owner] claims that he stole it. It is a Chazakah, for [the original owner] should have protested within three years;

Since he knows for sure that [the Machazik] entered to steal it, if he will be silent for three years and not protest, [the Machazik] will claim through three years that it is his;

Therefore, he should have protested. Everyone knows that Chachamim enacted to protest within three years, and if he did not protest, he lost.

However, when [the land] came to him through Mashkanta, the Makshan holds that Chachamim did not enact. There is no concern that after three years he will make a false claim.

Question: If so, the owner of the land will always be believed to say that [the Machazik] stole it, Migo (since) if he wanted, he could say that "it was collateral with you", or "I rented it to you for Peros!"

Answer #1: This is a Migo against witnesses, for Anan Sahadei (we can testify) that had he stole it, [the original owner] would not have been silent. Rather, he would have protested.

Answer #2: This is not a Migo, for he does not want to claim that it was collateral or "I rented it to you for Peros", because he expects to get the Peros that [the Machazik] ate already.

Answer #3: It is considered a Migo to take [from a Muchzak], since he ate the years of Chazakah.

Question: The reason why three years makes a Chazakah is because until three years, a person (buyer) is careful with [guarding] his document. He is not careful longer than this;

Now, you are forced to say that he must guard it forever, lest [the seller] say that it is Mashkanta!

Answer: [Ravina] did not want to say that he is not believed to say "I bought it." Rather, he asks what solution the borrower can do so [the lender] cannot be Machazik and claim "I bought it";

It seems that protest helps only when he says "Ploni is eating my field through theft."

Rav Ashi answered that he needs to protest and say within three years "it is Mashkanta in his hand." This is considered a proper protest.

Support: We can explain like this in Bava Basra (35b) regarding if he claims and says "I rented it to you for Peros", he is believed.

Implied question: There, Rav Ashi asked Rav Kahana "if he descended for Peros, what should [the owner] have done?", and Rav Kahana answered that he should have protested, and he brought a proof from Mashkanta of Sura;

In our Sugya, Rav Ashi answered that he should have protested, and so Rav Ashi answered there in that Perek (38a) regarding one who sold a date tree to his friend!

Answer: We can say that there, Rav Ashi accepted Rav Kahana's answer, therefore also he answered like this.

Implied question: This itself here, perhaps it is Mashkanta of Sura!

Answer: It is proper to ask in this expression, because for Mashkanta of Sura he knew that Chachamim enacted to do so. Therefore, he said "if so, the enactment of Mashkanta of Sura..."

Question: Since the reason why the orphans must bring a proof is because land is in the Chazakah of the creditor, i.e. when he made it an Apotiki, like we conclude...

If so, he is like one who entered another's field and planted it without permission. Obviously, he does not collect the Shevach from the field itself!

Answer #1: Since the land was initially in the Chazakah of their father, and it still did not leave their Reshus, this is better than entering another's field and planting it without permission.

Answer #2: Also regarding one who enters another's field and plants it, he held that we dispel him with land.

Observation: Similarly in the Reisha, regarding one hired by the hour at night, even though he left his job and it was still night, he collects the entire day, and he does not transgress "Bal Talin" at dawn;

"Linah" connotes the entire night, and these wages were not delayed the entire night (from when they were owed).

Question: "Lo Yalin" of "Chelev Chagi" is at dawn alone. If he brought Emurim on the Mizbe'ach at the beginning of the night, and took them down before dawn, they were disqualified due to Linah, like it says in Zevachim (86a)!

Answer: Because they are proper to offer at the beginning of the night, Linah applies even at dawn.

Objection #1: This is difficult.

Objection #2: In Zevachim (20b), regarding Kidush (washing) of hands and feet, and water of the laver, dawn disqualifies due to Linah, even if the Linah began only after the beginning of the night!