Explanation: It mentioned [that they were uprooted with their earth] due to within three years. If not, [what grows] would be Orlah.

Explanation: [The owner of the land says] "I would have bought young trees cheaply, and after three years they would be big, and bear fruits like your olive trees;

Since I did not do so, rather, I left your olive trees in my land, obviously I did not leave them with intent that you will eat with me after three years, unless also I eat with you within three years;

Therefore, also you left them in my land with this intent.

Explanation: Rather, the trees remain there, even though after three years, everything belongs to the owner of the land;

The owner of the land gives the value of the trees, like they are worth to sell for young trees;

It does not suffice to give the value of the wood, for they are destined to make Peros.

Explanation: He holds that [a Nochri] has no Kinyan [on land in Eretz Yisrael to uproot its Kedushah], and a Mekabel (a sharecropper who contracted to receive a fixed share of the Peros) is like a Choker (one who rented land on condition to pay a fixed amount of Peros every year, whether or not it produces).

Explanation (Ri): Because he holds Ein Kinyan, it is proper to be stringent about a Mekabel like a Choker;

For a Choker, according to letter of the law he must tithe [what he pays], lest he pay his obligation with Ma'aser;

Source: This is like it says (Gitin 44a) that if an officer seized one's granary - if it was for a debt, [the owner] must tithe.

Distinction: The first Tana of R. Yehudah, who said that if one was Choker a field from a Nochri, he tithes and gives [the rental]. R. Yehudah says, even one who is Mekabel from an extortionist....

[The first Tana] holds that Yesh Kinyan, therefore we should not be stringent about a Mekabel. Only for a Choker [Chachamim] were stringent mid'Rabanan, just like they obligated one who buys from a Nochri to tithe mid'Rabanan, like it says in Menachos (31a) regarding R. Shimon Shezuri, according to the opinion that Yesh Kinyan.

Implied question: A Mishnah (Gitin 43b) says that sharecroppers and Chokerim are all exempt from Ma'aser. This connotes that even the Choker's portion is exempt!

Answer: We can establish it to be in Surya (it has the law of Kivush Yachid. Some Tana'im hold that it did not get Kedushas Eretz Yisrael), like we answer there many Beraisos, and even a Choker is exempt there, like in Chutz la'Aretz;

[Even] without our Sugya, we must establish it there in Surya, since even the Yisrael's share is exempt, lest the Gemara in Menachos be difficult.

Implied question: Why did R. Yehudah need to mention "his fathers' field"? Also the first Tana discusses only in Eretz Yisrael, like I explained, for in Chutz la'Aretz, even a Choker is exempt!

Answer: R. Yehudah says to the first Tana as follows. Since you discuss in Eretz Yisrael, it is proper to be stringent about a Mekabel like for a Choker, since Ein Kinyan, for it is still considered his fathers' field;

According to the answer that really, Yesh Kinyan, and therefore it is not proper to be stringent about a Mekabel like for a Choker, according to this, R. Yehudah does not argue with the first Tana;

He only adds, that even one who is Mekabel from an extortionist, he tithes and gives to him, just like a Choker.

The Ri explains like this, that whether or not a Mekabel is like a Choker depends on whether Yesh Kinyan or Ein Kinyan. This is primary;

R. Tam explained differently. It is a poor explanation.

Explanation: It should be clear in his hand. Since he needs to tithe even the Nochri's share, and [the land] is dear in his eyes, he will not abandon it;

Since the expense of the tithe is difficult in his eyes, he will toil to pursue the Nochri to buy it from him;

Distinction: However, another Yisrael, if we will obligate him to tithe the Nochri's portion, he will refrain from accepting, for it is not dear in his eyes.

Alternative text: R. Chananel's text says "it should be Borah (fallow) in his hand." I.e. therefore they fined the heir to tithe the Nochri's share, so he will refrain from accepting it;

Since it will be fallow in the Nochri's hand, for they will not accept from him, through this he will sell it to a Yisrael for a small price, since he did not pay anything for it, rather, it came to his hand through theft. And therefore, he will not steal often again;

However, we did not need to fine another [person] to tithe, for [even] without this he heeds us (Chachamim) not to accept it. However, an heir, to whom the land is dear, a warning [not to accept it] will not help.

Implied question: Above, R. Yochanan himself already taught that the reason for the Beraisa "if he said 'I will take my olive trees', we do not heed him" is due to settlement of Eretz Yisrael! (Why did he need to teach this again?)

Answer: He needs to teach according to the opinion here that it is due to weakening the land, that even in Chutz la'Aretz we do not heed him;

However, above, only in Eretz Yisrael we do not heed him, for he did not overtly weaken the land. It happened by itself, through the overflowing of the river.

And according to the opinion that also here, it is due to settlement of Eretz Yisrael, he needs to teach that one should not say that even in Chutz la'Aretz we do not heed him, due to weakening the land.

Implied question: Shmuel taught that we may take Tzitzis from a garment and put them on another garment! (We should say similar about a Mezuzah!)

Answer: Regarding a Mezuzah it is forbidden, for Mazikin (harmful spirits) come to a house without a Mezuzah, and when he takes it, it is as if he damages those who will live in the house.