Explanation: Would you (Rav Papa) demand Shevach for thickening of a date tree? Surely, even Abaye does not say so!

Only regarding Shevach of sycamore, which has no Peros, just the branches get thicker, Abaye said that he gets [Shevach], for he entered [the land] with intent for this. However, he did not enter for thickening of a date tree;

Likewise, you (Rav Papa) did not enter with intent for new trees, rather, for fodder!

[Rav Papa answered that] there, surely, he entered with that intent, like you said;

However, I entered with intent for what the land will sprout, i.e. fodder, and these [trees] sprouted in its place.

Explanation: According to Rava, who says that he does not receive Shevach of sycamore, even though we can say that he entered with intent for this (all the more so he does not get new trees that sprouted)!

We answer he can even hold like Rava, for there [he did not lose. Here, Rav Papa lost]!

Implied question: Above (101a), it says that (when one's olive trees were washed away and deposited on another's land), he could say "I will take my trees", if not due to settlement of Eretz Yisrael!

Answer #1: Here he cannot say so, for we discuss when these are trees were not proper to plant elsewhere, and if he would take them, they would die, and they would have value only for the wood.

Answer #2: Since he did not say "I would have planted trees", rather, saffron, which after uprooting them, we do not plant them elsewhere, you revealed your intent that you are not concerned for something proper to plant. Therefore, you get only the value of the wood;

The case is, the trees would not weaken [the land] more than fodder and saffron. If not, he could not say "I would have planted trees", for he received it for fodder.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is because once a mistake enters [a Talmid's mind], it stays. Therefore, it is considered a loss that cannot be returned.

Rejection: Rava himself holds (Bava Basra 21a) that a mistake leaves by itself!

Explanation #2: Rather, he calls it a loss that cannot be returned because at the time he was learning mistakes, he was idle from learning true [Torah].

Explanation (Rivan): He (Rav Yehudah, Rav Huna or Rav Nachman) never said this. [Rav Yosef] said so to make (the son-in-laws) afraid.

Question: If he never said this, why did [Rav Yosef] mention so many Amora'im - Rav Huna, and some say Rav Yehudah, and some say [Rav Nachman]?!

Answer: Rav Yosef mentioned only one of them. [Talmidim] of the Beis Midrash [who recorded his words] were unsure which of them he mentioned.

Question: [Rav Minyomi] taught that [the planter] gets half of the old vines. It is difficult to say that Rava argues with Rav Minyomi!

Answer: He gets half of the old vines because a planter gets half even in the land itself;

When he leaves early, he receives a quarter, because he must pay what the Ba'al ha'Bayis will need to give to a sharecropper to guard his share that the planter should have guarded.

Similarly, when a river flooded [the field], he gets a quarter, for he entered with this intent, that if he will leave early, for whatever reason he leaves, he receives only a quarter, and for old vines, there is nothing that still must be guarded, so he receives half;

However, here the lender does not own anything in the land, except for Peros.

Explanation #1: It is not normal to cut early and lose Peros.

Explanation #2: We say in Bava Basra (26a) that if a date tree bears a Kav [of dates], it is forbidden to cut it.

Alternative text: Some texts say oppositely "it dried in its time." The Ri rejects this.

Explanation: "It dried" connotes not in its time, for it did not say "it became old."

Implied question: Also "it became old" connotes not in its time, like we say below (110a) "I can say that they became old"!

Answer: "It became old" connotes both in its time, and not in its time. "It dried" connotes only not in its time.

Question: Why must we say that also "it was cut" is not in its time? Initially we asked only from "it dried", which should resemble "it was cut";

However, we do not ask from "it was cut" (which connotes) in its time, for we can say that it was cut in its time, i.e. after it dried not in its time.

Now that we answer from "it dried", it is not difficult for Abaye! (What forced us to retract from what we initially said that it was cut in its time?)

Answer: Also initially, it was difficult from "it was cut", for Stam "it was cut" connotes after it dried in its time, like its way.

Implied question: Why does it say just like "it was cut" is in its time, also "it dried" is in its time? (This connotes that the question is only from "it dried"!)

Answer #1: This is because he wants to ask from both of them.

Answer #2: We need this only so we will not infer oppositely, that cut is like dried, like it answers afterwards.

Inference: However, he may not cut for wood. This shows that it is principal, and this is difficult for Abaye, who says that wood is Peros, when there are no other Peros.

Question: What was the question? There, you are forced to say that they produce some Peros, for R. Yehudah argues and says "she does not sell, due to honor of her father's house." We establish it to discuss a field that is not hers;

If there are no Peros at all, what is the honor of her father's house? The owner of the field will not let them remain after they dry. The husband should cut them for wood!

It connotes like this, that initially we wanted to establish the argument when olive trees fell to her in her field, but in a field that is not hers, all agree that he sells them!

We ask that old male and female slaves are like [trees] that fell in a field that is not hers, and they argue!

These male and female slaves, you are forced to say that they do some work. If not, how could one sell them? Who will buy them?!