Implied question #1: [He should acquire, for] he improves the land!

Implied question #2: One who pruned a date tree with intent for [feeding the branches to] animals, [he should acquire, for] he fixes the tree through this!

Answer (to both questions): One acquires only if he intended to acquire, like we said above (53b) "if he intended to acquire the other [field], he did not acquire even this one", since he did not intend to acquire it.

Support #1: In Yevamos (52b), it says "this is like one who dug in property of a convert, and thinks that it is [already] his. He did not acquire."

Support #2 - Citation (Bava Kama 49b) Question: If one made Chazakah in documents of a convert, what is the law?

One who makes Chazakah in documents does so with intent for the land, and he did not make Chazakah in the land, so also the document he did not acquire, for he did not intend for the document;

Or, perhaps he intends also for the document.

Question: Even if he does not intend for the document, why doesn't his hand acquire for him without his intent, just like his Chatzer? A Chatzer was included [to acquire for its owner] through the law of a Yad!

Answer: A Chatzer acquires without intent, i.e. when he does not know if it is in his Chatzer, and if he would know, he would want to acquire. However, if he knows, and he does not intend to acquire, he does not acquire.

Question: If one found [a Metzi'ah] in a rock pile or old wall, a Mishnah (Bava Metzi'a 25b) says that it is his, because he can say that it is from Emoriyim (the Kena'ani nations). Why didn't his Chatzer acquire for him?

Answer: Something that it is not commonly found, his Chatzer does not acquire without intent.

Question #1 (Ri of Orlins): This connotes that one needs level land for plowing more than for threshing;

We can testify [from experience] that for threshing, it must be far more level and smooth [than for plowing]!

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): If one [levels the land] for the sake of a fixed granary, he acquires.

Question #2: How do we know whether he did so for the sake of a fixed granary, or a granary that is not fixed?

Explanation #2 (Ri of Orlins): Here, "Bei Dari" means to set up animals, like it says in Shabbos (32a) "in Bei Dari, is reckoning" (goats that deserve to be hit, they will be stricken in the pen);

Below (57a), a Mishnah teaches that setting up animals does not acquire.

Answer (to Question #1 - R. Tam): They used to thresh with perforated boards, so they did not need to level the land so much.

Explanation #1: How much does he acquire through one [excavation of earth with a] shovel? [He acquires] like yoked oxen go and return.

This is the size of a furrow. They knew the length of a furrow. In a big field, they would not plow the entire length of the field in one furrow.

Explanation #2 (Rashbam): When one plows one row with yoked oxen, from one end of the field to the other, through this he acquires the entire field.

Rejection #1: The words connotes unlike this.

Rejection #2: Why must it return? [It should suffice] to plow once, even though he does not return!

Note: Maharsha explains that the Rashbam requires plowing once lengthwise, and once widthwise.

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): This is because a Nochri acquires only through money, like it says in Kidushin (14b) we find that a Nochri [acquires an Eved Ivri through money], because he acquires only through money.

Objection: This is not a proof according to R. Tam, who explains there that only regarding an Eved Ivri it says that [a Nochri] has no other Kinyan;

This is because we know that a document acquires [an Eved Ivri] only because he is equated to Amah Ivriyah, and Amah Ivriyah is equated to "another" (a Bas Yisrael who becomes Mekudeshes);

However, for a Nochri, to whom Kidushin does not apply, we cannot learn from "another".

Also, a Beraisa there teaches "mi'Kesef Miknaso" - he is acquired through money, but not through grain or Kelim, i.e. Chalipin.

Inference: Also a document, he is not acquired through it. Even all Shavah Kesef we would have excluded there (16a) from "Kesef", if not that it says "Yashiv" to include Shavah Kesef like Kesef.

Distinction: Elsewhere [other than Eved Ivri], R. Tam says that just the contrary, a Nochri acquires only through Meshichah;

We hold like R. Yochanan, who expounds "mi'Yad Amisecha" through money. This implies that from a Nochri, [a Yisrael acquires Metaltelim] through Meshichah;

Also in Avodah Zarah (71a), we conclude that a Nochri acquires through Meshichah.

Implied question: Why does it say here that a Nochri, once money comes to his hand, he removes himself [from the land]?

Note: Why is this difficult? Since Meshichah does not apply to land, it is reasonable that he acquires through Kesef! Perhaps since Kesef acquires Metaltelim for Yisrael, but not for Nochrim, Tosfos assumes that a Nochri never acquires with Kesef.

Answer: This is because we find that money acquires for a Nochri, regarding Efron;

Surely a document does not acquire for Nochrim. For Yisrael themselves, a document acquires only due to "Sefer ha'Miknah" of Yirmeyah, and there he was a Yisrael!

Explanation: They were in a place where [the custom is that] they write a document.

Question (R. Shimshon ben Avraham): Why doesn't he acquire through money alone? We should learn from Efron (Avraham bought his field through money)!

A Kal va'Chomer from [a Nochri] himself [teaches that one Kinyan suffices]. One acquires him (the Nochri) himself through one Kinyan. Are two Kinyanim needed to acquire his property, like we say in Bechoros (13a)?!

Suggestion: [The Yisrael] does not resolve to acquire until he gets a document.

Rejection: Since the Nochri removes himself, why doesn't [the Yisrael] resolve to acquire, and [rather,] he leaves the land Hefker?!

We should have said that it is as if he specified "if I want, I will acquire with money", from the reason I explained!

Answer: We must say that Anan Sahadei that he intended only like he usually acquires from Yisrael, i.e. through a document, since he did not specify "if I want, I will acquire with money."

Question (Rashba): In Bechoros (13a), R. Yitzchak taught that if a Yisrael gave coins to a Nochri for a Behemah, according to their laws, even though he did not do Meshichah, he acquired, and it is obligated in Bechorah (if its firstborn is a male, it is Kadosh);

Why don't we say that even though it acquired mid'Oraisa, like Abaye said there, according to their laws that the Torah gave for them - "from your nation" through Meshichah, but from a Nochri, through money...

In any case, he does not intend to acquire until he does Meshichah, like he usually acquires from Yisrael, like we say here!

Answer: There, we say according to their laws. (Also the Yisrael intended to acquire according to their laws that the Torah gave for them.)

Pesak: A Yisrael may demand his money from [the buyer], even though due to this the Nochri will retract and steal from the Machazik [who properly acquired it from Hefker];

This is because he properly claims from him. He gave the coins only on condition that the land will come to him.

If the Machazik can evade the Nochri, he evades him, even though the buyer will lose (the Nochri will not return the money unless he gets back his land).

Distinction: However, if the Machazik wants to pay [the buyer] his coins, if the buyer uproots the land [from the Machazik] through the Nochri, it seems that he is truly a Moser (one who incites Nochrim to take property of Yisrael. Since the buyer will not lose, he has no Heter to do so.)

Implied question: It says in Gitin (58b) that the owners of a valley went away, and Gidul bar Re'ilai paid the land tax for three years. When the owners returned, the land returned to them;

We do not say that since they did not pay the tax, the land was uprooted from them, and Gidul bar Re'ilai acquired it!

Answer: There, the case is, the owners told the people of the valley to plow the land, seed it and eat the Peros, and pay the tax, until they return;

The people of the valley agreed, and they gave it to Gidul. Therefore, the land was not uprooted from them, and when they returned, [the land] returned to them;

However, here they were hiding due to the tax. They did not want to pay it.