How breaching a wall can be sufficient to take possession. Plus, when one moves stones to benefit the land - that can also be a chazakah. Also, one who builds palaces on the property of a convert who died without heirs, and someone else comes along and puts the doors on the palaces, and thereby achieves the presumption of ownership. Plus, one who does any of the activities that a slave might do for a master - functions for the master to take possession, such as it is, of the slave.

Neither father nor son can take possession of the other's property via chazakah. The question is in the case that they are separated in some way that means the father is no longer financially responsible for the son. Also, the difference between using a chazakah for ownership, which is not the case for gift-giving. Plus, a revision of the text of the mishnah. Which helps us understand various aspects or even kinds of chazakah.

Can a wife buy a property from her husband? Is that a valid sale? What is the property is given as a gift? What does the daf mean when it talks about hidden money

Ways in which a husband attempting to take ownership of his wife's property won't work. The Gemara continues to address the peculiarities of this dynamic (attempted sales between husband and wife). Plus, Ameimar on "m'log" property. Also, doesn't a married woman have to protest her husband's attempted possession of the property (in which case, doesn't he acquire it)? But there's no chazakah with regard to a married woman. Also, no chazakah via damage.

A husband cannot establish a presumption of ownership regarding his wife's property - nor a wife regarding her husband's. Which makes sense given the usual terms of rights in marriage, but even if he has foresworn those rights. Also, if there's proof of a sale, then he would take ownership of her property -- unless she then protests (possibly in contrast to Rav Huna and valid sales under duress). The ketubah itself can stipulate ownership too.

Rav Huna talks about a case where "they hung him up" -- to establish the duress under which a transaction might or might not work (Rav Huna says it does, even under duress). How does this compare to divorce? To sacrifices? Also, delving into the "hanging up of a person" - or suspension, which was done on a tree or about a shrub, to establish that coercion to effect a sale. Plus, how is that "duress" impacted by a preemptive declaration to prevent a sale and/or a bill of sale?

More on the craftspeople and the sharecroppers -- where they don't have the rights to the presumption of ownership, but their sons would. Whereas if the father's "profession" is robbery, the right to the presumption of ownership only kicks in for the grandson, not the son. Why the distinction? Also, all of the categories of people who can't establish a chazakah can still bring other means of proof to claim (and acquire) property -- except for a robber or thief. Plus, when even a robber or a thief has recourse...

The case of vessels or clothing left with a craftsperson, where the customer gets someone else's property in return - that customer can use the other person's property until the error is rectified - unless the error takes place in a private setting. The Gemara goes on to explore the difference in the two cases. Also, the case of the sharecropper - who doesn't have the presumption of ownership that is "chazakah," with the question of why it's not obvious that he doesn't.

The daf discusses a situation where one might bring a non-Jew to the beti din. Rabbah offers a very interesting qualification to the mishnah’s ruling that a craftsman does not chazakah.

More on the baraita, with a shift in explanation - when there's a claimant against movable property, there's no real concern of bias on the part of the creditor. Note the explicit difference - most of the time - between land a movable property. Also: the "apotiki" lien, which complicates the given that movable property won't be getting a lien on it, as indeed it can (when attached to property).