Question: What is the source that only R. Yishmael learns from Shor ha'Mu'ad, and Rabanan do not? Also they could learn from Shor ha'Mu'ad!

Also the reason above, that he learns from Shor ha'Mu'ad, is since a person is adamant [about others using his property, after] three times, and he did not protest, [we know that] surely he sold or gave it to him!

Answer: These are different. Surely, according to R. Yishmael, who follows Achilos, we can learn from Shor ha'Mu'ad. Just like there, it was established to be a gorer through three times, also here, through three Achilos, had he not sold it to him, he would have been adamant;

This does not depend on the time he delayed [on the field].

However, Rabanan hold that it depends on the time he delayed, how long one delays and [the original owner] is adamant. We cannot learn this from Shor ha'Mu'ad!

Explanation (Ri): We can establish Abaye's question only when they are in one city;

If [the original owner] is in a different city [than the Machazik], how can he ask that it should not be a Mach'ah, and the Chazakah is valid? Just the contrary, since it is not a Mach'ah, it is not a Chazakah!

[The original owner] need not come to another city in front of the Machazik and protest [in front of him], like is proven below. (Since the original owner had no need to protest, the Chazakah has no significance.)

Question: Why are they Noge'a (partial) in their testimony? There is a Migo. They could have said "we paid you rent"!

Implied question: (What was the question?) After Rabanan enacted Shevu'as Heses, they are not believed to testify through this Migo, like it says in Kidushin (43b)!

Answer: Here we discuss our Mishnah. Shevu'as Heses was not yet enacted. What was the question? They should be believed due to a Migo!

Answer: This is not a Migo. They fear to say "we paid you", lest the other merit [we will rule that it is his house], and he will demand that they pay another time (for they admitted that they did not pay him. See also Tosfos Shevuos 45b.)

Question (Rivam): According to the Rashbam, also when he does not claim, why don't we ask them? Perhaps they do not know about the nights!

We should not remove property [from its owner] improperly through them! In all testimonies, we investigate well. Also here, why don't we investigate them due to Safek?

Answer: This is not difficult. Since they testified about the days, even if they say "we do not know about the nights", presumably, since [the Machazik] lived there during the days, he lived there also at night, unless the protester (the original owner) says that surely, he did not live there [at night].

Explanation #2: R. Chananel explained that Mar Zutra discusses Rav Yemar's question; he had asked that they are Noge'a in their testimony;

Mar Zutra said that if the Machazik says "let come (i.e. let me bring) two witnesses who lived there three years, day and night, and paid me rent, and left, and different people live there now", it is a claim;

They are not Noge'a in their testimony, for they do not live there now, that [the original owner] could say "pay me rent." Rather, they say "we lived there", and they say "we paid rent." Ha'Peh she'Asar Hu ha'Peh she'Hitir (we have no source to obligate them other than their admission, therefore they are believed to exempt themselves).

If they wanted, they could have said "we did not live there."

Implied question: Perhaps he (the original owner) would contradict them!

Answer: He did not know at all that they lived in the house.

Below, the text does not say "Mar Zutra admits", rather, "and Rava admits" for he (Rava) said that we need three years day and night;

If the witnesses are peddlers who go around in cities, even if they do not say "we lived there three years day and night", rather, they say "the house was in our hands for three consecutive years" [this suffices];

Even though many days they went around in cities, and they were not in this house, their testimony is valid.

Alternate text: R. Tam's text says "we lived in it three years." He explains that Abaye and Rava both hold that he need not bring witnesses about the days and nights;

Rava said day and night only to refute the Makshan's reasoning. He does not come to argue with Abaye.

Mar Zutra said that if he said "testify for me Stam that I lived [there] for three years" this is b'Chezkas (assumed to be) days and nights, even though they did not truly see all the days and nights;

Rather, we establish his Chazakah based on this assumption, that whenever they entered, sometimes during the day, and sometimes at night, they saw him in his house. [If he requested such Stam testimony], his claim is a claim.

Implied question: [Mar Zutra] should have said "their testimony is testimony"!

Answer: Since he initially said "if he claimed...", he said also "his claim is a claim."

Rava agrees - and likewise, Mar Zutra and Abaye hold - that peddlers who go around in cities, even if he did not claim, we claim for him;

They need not testify that they literally saw [three years day and night], for they go around in cities, and they cannot testify about seeing [this];

Rather, they testify that this house was in his Chazakah for three years, days and nights.

Explanation: It helps for them if they made a Chazakah for three years, even though they are not consecutive, rather, they are scattered, since this is their way. This is like a place where they leave a valley fallow.

Question: If so, obviously Rav Huna agrees! We asked like this above regarding a valley.

Answer: Since people who are not grocers live in houses day and night, and they need three consecutive years day and night, one might have thought that also grocers need this;

For this reason, it is fine that we require for them three full years, i.e. six years [of day usage].

Implied question: Regarding fields and olivepresses, we require only three years in all!

Answer: That is because just like other people who live there who are not grocers need three years day and night, also grocers need three full years, i.e. six years [during the days].

Implied question: Why don't we bring this above, regarding "Rav Huna admits [about a store in a city, that day usage suffices for a Chazakah]"?

Answer (R. Tam): It is because we had not yet concluded the Sugya of houses.

Support: We find like this in Bava Kama (61b) regarding "Chachamim agree to R. Yehudah..."

Implied question: A Mishnah below (42a) says that partners have no Chazakah against each other! (Why did they need to alternate years?)

Answer #1 (Rashbam): Here, they needed to do so because they did not have witnesses that they were partners.

Objection (Ri): If so, the one who made Chazakah in the first year, he could say that she is his, since there are no witnesses that his friend has a share!

Answer #2 (Ri): They did not want one to make a Chazakah for three years, lest the partnership be forgotten.

Implied question: It says in Bava Metzi'a (39a), regarding that we do not put a relative [to be an overseer] on a minor's property, "whether they made Itra (a document of division), or did not make Itra, we do not put"! (We are concerned lest the relative make a Chazakah, and say that it is his!)

Answer: Regarding orphans, Chachamim were stringent [even when they made Itra, even though it has publicity].

Explanation: I used to pass through your [quarters].

Assertion: It seems to me that he had witnesses that he was in the inner room, but he did not have witnesses about which way he used to leave;

If he had no witnesses at all that he was in the inner room, how could Rav Nachman say "go clarify your usage"?

Must witnesses of Chazakah know that the protester was not in the house all three years, and if the protester says "I was with you two days, and you do not have three full years", and the witnesses do not know, will [the Machazik] lose?!