Study Bava Batra folio 37A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
The Talmud explains the inference from the statement of R' Yishmael and how it clarifies the opinion of the Rabbis: Didn’t R' Yishmael say that harvesting one type of fruit is sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership for all of the types of fruit, i.e., for the entire field? Here too, t
The Talmud notes two restrictions to the aforementioned ruling: And this statement applies specifically where the other 20 trees did not produce fruit, but if the other trees produced fruit and he did not consume their fruit, then his conduct is not sufficient to establish the presumption of ownersh
§ In a case where there was a field with trees in it, and this person took possession of the trees and that person took possession of the land, Rav Zevid says: This one acquired the trees and that one acquired the land. Rav Pappa objects to this: If this is so, then the owner of the trees has no sh
The Talmud notes: It is obvious that if one sold a section of land and left the ownership of the trees in that land for himself, he has ownership of the land surrounding the trees. And this is the halakha even according to the opinion of R' Akiva, who says: One who sells, sells generously, and he i
The Talmud explains the difference between the cases: That ruling applies there, as the pit or cistern causes no harm to the land surrounding them, and since the seller does not foresee a conflict arising from his pit and cistern being located adjacent to the buyer’s property, he therefore transfers