The verse says "Asher Gavlu [Rishonim]"? Why did R. Yochanan change to say she'Gavlu?

Daf Al ha'Daf: The Chasam Sofer said, Asher is a reason. Surely, moving the border was not only when Yehoshua made Yisrael inherit the land. Rather, once someone received land via Yehoshua, it is forbidden to encroach on it. R. Yochanan explains she'Gavlu Rishonim - they determined the amount of nurturing.

What is the application of 'do not impinge on a Gevul that the early ones set'?

Rashi: If you want to plant near your neighbor's border, do not plant within the Shi'ur that can damage his land, like the Rishonim fixed.

Tosfos: Do not plant within a Shi'ur of nurturing of another species. If so, one who plants Kil'ayim should be lashed for this, in addition to "Lo Sizra." We say that if one sows Kilayim and Kilayim, he is lashed twice (Chulin 82b). This implies that for sowing Kil'ayim once, he is lashed only once! He is not lashed for "Lo Sasig", for it applies also to moving the border [to steal land from his neighbor], which can be returned (so there are no lashes for it). Also, it is Lav shebi'Chlalos (a Lav that applies to different Isurim; one is not lashed for such a Lav).

Rav Elyashiv: Tosfos says that he is not lashed for "Lo Sasig", for it applies also to stealing land, which can be returned, Even though "v'Heshiv Es ha'Gezelah" does not apply to land, since he has another's property, he must return it. Alternatively, anything that the Torah said not to do it, if he did it, it has no effect. If so, the land is not his, so he must return it. Ketzos ha'Choshen (97:3) asked, we find lashes for stealing land, e.g. if he stole land and it was flooded (so he cannot return it). He does not pay, for land is not [Halachically] stolen, so he is lashed! If so, lashes should apply also to Kil'ayim! I say, since the simple case of the Lav applies to something that can be returned, lashes does not apply to it, and even regarding Kil'ayim. This requires investigation.

Daf Al ha'Daf: Sho'el u'Meshiv (2, 4:161) wrote, this requires investigation. [Stolen] land on which one built can be returned, but what his crops nurtured from his neighbor's land cannot be returned. This was Tosfos' Havah Amina, that lashes apply. We must say that Kil'ai Zera'im can be returned - he gives to him all the crops that nurtured from his neighbor's field. Kil'ai ha'Kerem cannot be returned - the vineyard is his. (NOTE: All that grew is forbidden. Do not say that he must give the vineyard to his neighbor - that is not return. The neighbor has no claim to the vineyard! - PF) Rashi explained like his opinion, that the Torah does not forbid Kil'ai Zera'im, and Kil'ai ha'Kerem cannot be returned. (NOTE: i.e. our Gemara discusses planting near his neighbor's border. It cannot discuss Kil'ayim, for since it is not returned, there should be lashes for it, but Chulin 82b holds that he is lashed only once, i.e. for "Lo Sizra." However, Rashi could exempt due to Lav shebi'Chlalos! - PF) Further, Rashi holds that the Torah did not forbid Kil'ai ha'Kerem due to nurturing, rather, due to being mixed together.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Taima di'Kra (p.121): He should be lashed also for "Pen Tikdash ha'Mele'ah" - Pen is always a Lav! It is proven in Chulin (82b) that it discusses Kil'ai ha'Kerem! This requires investigation. (NOTE: Perhaps there are no lashes because (a) The verse does not apply at the time he plants, rather, when it becomes forbidden. All agree that one is not lest for leaving over Pesach until morning, either because there is no action, or the warning is Safek (Makos 16a). The same applies here (perhaps he or his neighbor will uproot it before it takes root or grows)! (b) It is only Gerama. The produce becomes forbidden only later, when it grows one part in 200 - this happens automatically. The Ritva (Mo'ed Katan 2b) says that R. Akiva obligates lashes for Mekayem Kil'ayim only via an action, e.g. he builds a fence. (c) It depends on intent. If he wants to uproot it, even if it grew before he uprooted it, it is not forbidden. (d) There are two Lavim of Temurah. One who makes Temurah is lashed only once, for one Lav is Nitak to (fixed via) "v'Hayah Hu u'Smuraso Yihyeh Kodesh" (Midrash ha'Gadol Vayikra 27:10, Rambam Hilchos Temurah 1:1), even though this Ase has no action. Perhaps also "Pen Tikdash ha'Mele'ah" is considered Nitak to "Tikdash ha'Mele'ah", to exempt from lashes. - PF)

What was the question 'what is "Gavlu Rishonim"'?

Rashi: Who are the Rishonim who fixed the Shi'urim?

Elsewhere it says Yoshevei ha'Aretz, and we do not expound it!

Maharsha: Elsewhere, it says the land in which they lived. Here, it says only Yoshevei ha'Aretz, which implies that they live on the ground. Therefore, we asked, does everyone else live in Shamayim?!

What is Kaneh?

Rashi: It is a measure of land.

Do we find that they knew how far trees nurture?

Rashi: Just like they knew which land is good for which trees, they knew the amount of nurturing.

Daf Al ha'Daf: Chasam Sofer (Sof Vayishlach) says that via their Chochmah, they merited to conclude in Hilchos Kil'ayim like Hash-m. Therefore, they merited that the Torah teach this about them.

Daf Al ha'Daf: R. Y. Engel says, we find that a Taya could smell earth, and know to which land a road leads. In Bechoros (9a), Chachmei Athens were silent. When Yehoshua put their native soil in front of them (and they smelled it - Rashi), they were brazen. This is because they recognized that it is of their land!

How does "Chori" teach that they would smell the land?

Rashi: We reverse the word to expound it like Meri'ach.

Maharsha: Several words are reversed, e.g. Keves-Kesev, Simlah-Salmah. Therefore, Rashi on Chumash brought only the Drashah 'they became Bnei Chorin of their possessions', for it is simpler. We expound it, for usually names have the prefix Hei only when they come to teach lineage, e.g. ha'Reuveni, ha'Shimoni, ha'Kena'ani and ha'Chivi. All those names were mentioned earlier. Ha'Chori were not mentioned earlier! Therefore, we expound it.

Who is "Chivi"?

Tosfos: This is not one of the seven Kana'ani nations, for we do not expound the rest of their names! Rather, it is Bnei Se'ir - "Bas Tziv'on ha'Chivi."

Maharsha: Simple meaning is that it is from the Kena'ani nation of this name. Here we expound differently, for Ahalavimah mentioned here is Yehudis in Parshas Toldah, like Rashi explained on Chumash; there it says that she was "Bas Be'eri ha'Chiti", and here she is attributes to Chivi! Therefore, we expound that they tasted the land.

Maharsha: Mizrachi explained that she is called Chiti and Chivi because men from both nations had Bi'ah with a woman, and Tziv'on was born. This is difficult. He was Ben Se'ir - he is not attributed to Chiti and Chivi! Also, if so, he was a Mamzer; Bereishis Rabah and Tanchuma say only that Anah, Ahalavimah, Timna and [some say] Korach were Mamzerim! (NOTE: If his mother was single, is he a Mamzer because two men helped to father him? - PF)

What is 'tasting the land like a Chavya', and why did they do so?

Rashi: Chavya is a snake; it eats earth. They did so to know what is proper to plant there.

How did they become Bnei Chorin of their possessions?

Rashi: They were dispossessed from their inheritance, and did not need to work it - "u'Vnei Esav Yirashum."