Some say that an (Arev) Kablan (the lender may collect from the Kablan even before trying to collect from the borrower) can testify about land of the borrower. Others say that he cannot.

Some say that he can testify, just like a regular Arev (when the borrower has other land. Even if the Arev's land is taken, he will be paid back from the other land);

Some say that he cannot testify. He prefers that he have two lands from which the lender can collect (Rashbam - e.g. if the disputed land is Beinonis and the other land is Ziburis, the lender is more inclined to collect from the borrower; Tosfos - when the borrower has more land, the lender is more inclined to collect from the borrower, which saves the Kablan the toil of paying and collecting from the borrower.

(R. Yochanan): A craftsman does not get a Chazakah, but his son does;

A sharecropper does not get a Chazakah, but his son does;

A robber does not get a Chazakah, nor does his son, but his grandson does.

Question: What is the case?

If the child (or grandchild) claims that he received the property from his father, he should not get a Chazakah more than his father!

If he claims that he himself bought the property, also a robber's son should get a Chazakah!

Version #1 - Rashbam - Answer: The case is, the original owner admitted in front of witnesses to their father that their father owns it;

Version #2 - Tosfos - Answer: The case is, the son says that he saw the original owner admit to his father; (end of Version #2)

Regarding a craftsman or sharecropper, we believe the admission. Regarding a robber, we do not, like Rav Kahana taught.

(Rav Kahana): The owner admitted to the robber out of fear lest the robber be Moser (entice the authorities to seize) him and his property.

Version #1 (Rava): Sometimes even a robber's grandson does not get a Chazakah, e.g. when he claims that he received the property from his grandfather.

Version #2 (Rava): Sometimes a robber's son gets a Chazakah, e.g. when he claims that he received the property from his grandfather.

Question: What is the case of a robber?

Answer #1 (R. Yochanan): He is established to be on another's field without permission (he can never make a Chazakah on that field).

Answer #2 (Rav Chisda): His family kills people due to money.

(Beraisa): A craftsman gets no Chazakah. After he ceases his trade, he gets a Chazakah;

A sharecropper gets no Chazakah. After he ceases to be a sharecropper, he gets a Chazakah.

A son who is not supported by his father and a divorcee are like strangers. (He/she can make a Chazakah in the property of the father/ex-husband).

Question: Granted, it must teach about the son. One might have thought that the father owns it, but he does not protest to his son's usage. Rather, the Beraisa teaches that the son gets a Chazakah;

It is obvious that a divorcee gets a Chazakah! (Her ex-husband would not pardon her usage.)

Answer: The case is, she is divorced and not divorced (i.e. doubtfully divorced);

(R. Zeira): Whenever Chachamim said that a woman is divorced and not divorced, her husband must feed her. (One might have thought that he allows her to take her food from his property, therefore he did not protest. The Beraisa teaches that this is not so.)

(Rav Nachman): Anyone (even one who cannot get a Chazakah) who brings a proof (e.g. document) of ownership, we accept it and establish him to be the owner;

If a robber brings a proof, we do not accept it, and we do not establish him to be the owner.

Question: A Mishnah teaches this!

(Mishnah): If Reuven bought a field from a Sikrikon (an extortionist who accepts land in place of killing people), then bought it from the real owner (Shimon), his purchase is void. (Shimon fears to refuse to sell, lest this anger the Sikrikon.)

Answer: Rav Nachman teaches that the Halachah does not follow Rav.

(Rav): The Mishnah discusses when Shimon told Reuven to acquire through Chazakah, but if Shimon wrote a document, Reuven acquires.

Rather, the Halachah follows Shmuel.

(Shmuel): Even if Shimon wrote a document, Reuven acquire only if Shimon wrote in the document that he accepts Acharayos (to compensate him if the land is legally taken from him).

(Rav Bivi citing Rav Nachman): If a robber brings a proof, we do not establish him to own the land, but he gets back the money he paid.

This is only if witnesses testify (or if it is written in the document) that the robber paid the money;

If they only saw the owner admit that he was paid, the robber does not get his money, like Rav Kahana taught;

(Rav Kahana): The owner admitted to the robber out of fear lest the robber be Moser him and his property.

(Rav Huna): If Reuven hung Shimon (or afflicted him in another way) until Shimon agreed to sell his property, the sale is valid.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer #1: In every sale, the owner is coerced. He would not sell unless his need for money, and nevertheless it is valid.

Objection: Perhaps a self-induced Ones is different than an externally induced Ones!