I had a hard time understating the logic in rabbi Yishmael's din on a sdei ilan having a Chazakah after collecting the olives, grapes, and figs in one year (seemingly), the problem is that seemingly the eating of the olives (and the silence of the Mara Kama following it) isn't a proof that the Machzik purchased the entire field rather only a proof that he bought the olives and etc for the figs and grapes (because if theoretically the Mara Kama would claim that he only sold him the olive tree and the Machzik claimed that he sold him the whole field, seemingly the silence of the Mara Kama on the eating of the olive tree wouldn't support the machzik's claim any Moreno than the Mara kama's claim), so all in all the Machzik only has one silence from the Mara Kama on all three trees, but of course we need three silences to create a Chazakah accordingly to the holchei oosha,
Eli kunstler, N.Y. USA
The Gemara later explains differently. See 37a that eating one fruit is proof for all fruits in the field if (1) that one type of produce was all that was available to eat, and (2) he ate from trees in a spread-out manner (see Rashbam 37a, DH v'Hu, that the olive and palm trees were all spread out throughout the field). In short, there are three -- not juse one -- "total" silences within one year (remember that the Rabanan argue and require three years).
All the best,
Reuven Weiner
So does that mean that if somebody sells a olive tree within a sdei Ilan and the buyer goes ahead and eats from the olive tree (when there are no other fruits available) the Mara Kama should protest? Because if not I don't see why his shtikah is a prove that he sold any more than the olive tree
You are basicly right. Eating one olive tree does not show control on the whole field. But if he sold several olive trees, spread throughout the field and no other crop was ready at the time of the olive harvest, then if the Mara Kama does not protest he will lose the whole field, since this a good sign of general ownership.
All the best
Reuven Weiner