Bava Batra 26b — the Talmud in English

until he said to him that which Rav Yehuda said: If the boundary that many people have used, it is forbidden to ruin it.

until I told him the ruling of Rav Yehuda: If a person has a field and many people have established a path through part of his field for public passage, it is forbidden for him to ruin it, meaning, to prevent the public from passing through that place so that it will belong exclusively to him, because the public have already acquired rights to it once they established their use of it.

Rav Pappa’s intention was to say that, just as there, although the field itself belongs to its owner, nevertheless, once the public established a path through it, they had already acquired rights to it and he may not take it from them, so too here: Rav Pappa had already established for three years that his roots spread into his fellow’s field, and the owner of the field did not protest and did not cut the roots. Therefore, he may not now cut the roots, since Rav Pappa had already acquired the right for his roots to enter his fellow’s field.

After he left, he said,

after Rav Pappa left, Rav Huna said:

Why did I not say to him: Here, within sixteen cubits; there, outside sixteen cubits?

Rav Huna regretted this and said: Why did I not tell him that Rav Pappa’s established use is effective only within sixteen cubits of the tree? Within this measure, if one cuts the roots, he causes loss to the tree, because the measure of a tree’s nourishment is sixteen cubits, as will be stated below. But outside sixteen cubits, he does not cause loss to the tree, and an established use is not effective with regard to this, since it does not belong to the tree. And Rav Huna had dug outside sixteen cubits.

We learned in our Mishna:

If one was digging a pit, a ditch, or a cave, he cuts downward, and the wood belongs to him.

Yaakov of Hadayev asked Rav Hisda,

who was from the place called Hadayev,

“The wood: to whom does it belong?”

To whom does the wood that he cuts belong? Does it belong to the owner of the tree, since the wood grew from his tree, or to the owner of the land, since the wood grew in his land?

He said to him,

Rav Hisda said to him:

You have learned it:

We learned in a Mishna in tractate Me’ila:

The roots of a non-sacred tree that enter consecrated property: one may not benefit from them, but there is no misuse of consecrated property.

When there is a non-sacred tree planted in non-sacred land, and its roots enter consecrated land, one may not benefit from the roots by rabbinic decree, but one is not liable to bring an offering for misuse of consecrated property, because by Torah law they do not belong to the consecrated property.

Granted, if we follow the tree, that is why there is no misuse of consecrated property,

if we say, in accordance with the possibility that the wood belongs to the owner of the tree, since the wood grew from it, it is understandable why there is no misuse of consecrated property: since the tree belongs to an ordinary person, the roots likewise belong to an ordinary person. The reason one may not benefit from them is only rabbinic, as they are located in consecrated land.

But if you say that we follow the land, why is there no misuse of consecrated property?

But if we say that the wood belongs to the owner of the land, why is there no misuse of consecrated property? The land belongs to consecrated property.

But the Gemara rejects the proof:

Rather, what is the alternative? That we follow the tree?

What do you wish to prove from here—that the wood belongs to the owner of the tree? If so,

say the latter clause: The roots of a consecrated tree that enter non-sacred property: one may not benefit from them, but there is no misuse of consecrated property.

The roots of a consecrated tree that enter non-sacred land may not be used by rabbinic decree, and there is no misuse of consecrated property by Torah law.

And if we follow the tree, why is there no misuse of consecrated property!?

If we follow the tree, and the roots belong to the owner of the tree, why is there no misuse of consecrated property here? The tree belongs to consecrated property!

Is that necessarily so?

Can the question at hand actually be resolved from this Mishna?!

We are dealing with growth that came afterward, and it holds that there is no misuse of consecrated property with regard to later growth.

The Mishna is speaking of roots that grew after the tree or the land was consecrated. There is an opinion that whatever grows after the consecration is not consecrated, and it is possible to say that the tanna of the Mishna likewise holds this view. Therefore, in both cases, in the first clause and in the latter clause, there is no misuse of consecrated property by Torah law; only benefiting from it is prohibited by rabbinic decree, since one of the two—the tree or the land—is consecrated.

Ravina said: It is not difficult. Here, it is within sixteen cubits; there, it is outside sixteen cubits.

Actually, the Mishna holds that there is misuse of consecrated property with regard to growth that grew after the consecration, but the first clause is speaking of roots that are within sixteen cubits of the tree. Since the tree’s nourishment extends to sixteen cubits, they belong to the tree, and therefore there is no misuse of consecrated property with regard to them. And the latter clause is speaking of roots that are outside sixteen cubits of the tree. Since they are not within the area from which the tree draws nourishment, they do not belong to the tree but to the land; therefore, in the latter clause there is no misuse of consecrated property.

It follows that the question has been resolved: With regard to roots that are within sixteen cubits, their wood belongs to the owner of the tree, whereas what is outside sixteen cubits belongs to the owner of the land.

Ulla said: A tree adjacent to a boundary, within sixteen cubits, is a robber, and one may not bring first fruits from it.

Since the tree draws nourishment up to sixteen cubits, the tree is found to be the “robber,” as it robs nourishment from the field of its fellow, being within sixteen cubits of his field. But the owner of the tree is not considered a robber, since he is not required to distance the tree by such a measure. And one may not bring first fruits from it, because it is stated with regard to first fruits: “that you shall bring from your land,” meaning that all the produce must grow from your land, whereas this is considered to have grown partially from his fellow’s field.

The Gemara asks:

From where does Ulla derive this?

From where does Ulla know that the measure of a tree’s nourishment is sixteen cubits in every direction?

Shall we say that he derives it from that which we learned: With regard to ten saplings scattered within a se’a, one may plow the entire se’a for their sake until Rosh HaShana?

That is, there is a law of the additional period before the Sabbatical year, according to which it is forbidden to work the land on the eve of the Sabbatical year by plowing when the plowing is not for the needs of the produce of the sixth year but for the needs of the produce of the Sabbatical year.

The measure of this additional period depends on the type of field. In an orchard, one may plow until Atzeret of the sixth year, because until then the plowing benefits the produce of the sixth year; from that point onward, it is forbidden to plow. In a grain field, by contrast, one may plow only until Passover of the sixth year, because until then the plowing benefits the produce of the sixth year; from that point onward, it is forbidden. And in the Mishna at the beginning of tractate Shevi’it, the measure of an orchard is explained: “Three trees within a se’a, suitable to produce a cake of dried figs worth sixty maneh in Italian currency.” All this applies to mature trees. But for young saplings, there is a measure that is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai: If there are ten saplings evenly scattered within a se’a, which is fifty cubits by fifty cubits, one may plow the entire se’a for their sake until Rosh HaShana of the Sabbatical year, because they require extensive plowing. But if there are not ten saplings within a se’a, it is considered a grain field, in which plowing is forbidden from Passover onward.

In any event, we learn from here that ten saplings scattered within a se’a draw nourishment from the entire se’a, since it was permitted to plow the entire se’a for their sake.

How much area does that comprise? Two thousand five hundred square cubits.

The measure of a se’a is fifty cubits by fifty cubits. When you multiply fifty by fifty, the result is two thousand five hundred. Thus, the area of a se’a is two thousand five hundred square cubits.

For each one, how much area does it receive?

When you divide the area of a se’a among ten saplings, how much area does each one receive?

Two hundred and fifty.

Two hundred and fifty square cubits.

And if so, the Gemara challenges:

This is not Ulla’s measure!

This is not the measure stated by Ulla, for Ulla said that the tree draws nourishment to a distance of sixteen cubits in every direction. Consequently, the total area would be thirty-two cubits by thirty-two cubits, and when thirty-two is multiplied by thirty-two, the result is one thousand twenty-four square cubits, which is considerably greater than the measure stated in the Mishna.