עַד דַּאֲמַרִי לֵיהּ הָא דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה מֶצֶר שֶׁהֶחֱזִיקוּ בּוֹ רַבִּים אָסוּר לְקַלְקְלוֹ לְבָתַר דִּנְפַק אֲמַר אַמַּאי לָא אֲמַרִי לֵיהּ כָּאן בְּתוֹךְ שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה אַמָּה כָּאן חוּץ לְשֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה אַמָּה: until I told him that which Rav Yehuda says: With regard to a strip of land over which the public has an acquired privilege of use, one may not destroy it. Here too, since I have an acquired privilege of use of this land, you are not permitted to destroy that which I possess. After Rav Pappa left, Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Why did I not say to him that there, an acquired privilege of use is effective when it is within sixteen cubits, as within that area the roots are considered part of the tree, whereas here I cut the roots of the palm trees beyond sixteen cubits.
הָיָה חוֹפֵר בּוֹר שִׁיחַ וּמְעָרָה קוֹצֵץ וְיוֹרֵד וְהָעֵצִים שֶׁלּוֹ (וְכוּ׳) בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ יַעֲקֹב הַדְיָיבָא מֵרַב חִסְדָּא עֵצִים שֶׁל מִי § The mishna teaches that if he was digging a cistern, a ditch, or a cave, he may cut downward and the wood is his. The Sage Ya’akov of Hadeyyav raised a dilemma before Rav Ḥisda: To whom does the wood belong? The mishna says that the wood is his, without specifying to which of the two individuals this refers, the owner of the tree or the owner of the land.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ תְּנֵיתוּהָ שׇׁרְשֵׁי אִילָן שֶׁל הֶדְיוֹט הַבָּאִין בְּשֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין Rav Ḥisda said to him: You learned the answer in a mishna in tractate Me’ila (13b). If roots of a tree belonging to an ordinary person [hedyot] extend into a field belonging to the Temple treasury, one may not derive benefit from them, but if one derived benefit from them he is not liable for misuse of consecrated property. That is, even if one does transgress the prohibition and benefit from them, it is not considered misuse and he is not liable to bring an offering.
אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא בָּתַר אִילָן אָזְלִינַן מִשּׁוּם הָכִי לֹא מוֹעֲלִין אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ בָּתַר קַרְקַע אָזְלִינַן אַמַּאי לֹא מוֹעֲלִין Granted, if you say that we follow the tree, and the roots are considered part of it, it is due to that reason that one is not liable for misuse, as the tree is not consecrated. But if you say we follow the land, i.e., the roots belong to the land’s owner, why is he not liable for misuse of consecrated property?
אֶלָּא מַאי בָּתַר אִילָן אָזְלִינַן אֵימָא סֵיפָא שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ הַבָּאִים בְּשֶׁל הֶדְיוֹט לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין וְאִי בָּתַר אִילָן אָזְלִינַן אַמַּאי לֹא מוֹעֲלִין The Gemara asks: Rather, what will you say, that we follow the tree? If so, say the last clause of that mishna: If roots of a tree belonging to the Temple treasury extend into a field of an ordinary person, one may not derive benefit from them, but if one derived benefit from them he is not liable for misuse of consecrated property. But if we follow the tree, why is he not liable for misuse of consecrated property?
מִידֵּי אִירְיָא בְּגִידּוּלִין הַבָּאִין לְאַחַר מִכָּאן עָסְקִינַן וְקָא סָבַר אֵין מְעִילָה בְּגִידּוּלִין The Gemara responds: Are the cases comparable? In both clauses of the mishna we are dealing with growths that came thereafter, i.e., after the tree was consecrated, and the tanna of that mishna holds that with regard to growths that grew from a consecrated plant or tree, they are not subject to the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property. Only the original plant is. Consequently, there is no connection between that mishna and the question of whether roots are considered part of the tree or part of the land.
רָבִינָא אָמַר לָא קַשְׁיָא כָּאן בְּתוֹךְ שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה אַמָּה כָּאן חוּץ לְשֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה אַמָּה: Ravina said that it is not difficult: Here, in the first clause of the mishna in Me’ila, it is referring to within sixteen cubits of the tree. In this case the roots are considered part of the tree. There, in the second clause, it is referring to roots beyond sixteen cubits, in which case the roots are considered part of the ground where they are found.
אָמַר עוּלָּא אִילָן הַסָּמוּךְ לַמֶּצֶר בְּתוֹךְ שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה אַמָּה גַּזְלָן הוּא וְאֵין מְבִיאִין מִמֶּנּוּ בִּכּוּרִים Ulla said: An individual who maintains a tree that is within sixteen cubits of a boundary is a robber, as it draws nourishment from the neighbor’s land, and one does not bring first fruits from it, since that would be a mitzva that is fulfilled by means of a transgression.
מְנָא לֵיהּ לְעוּלָּא הָא אִילֵּימָא מִדִּתְנַן עֶשֶׂר נְטִיעוֹת הַמְפוּזָּרוֹת בְּתוֹךְ בֵּית סְאָה חוֹרְשִׁין כׇּל בֵּית סְאָה בִּשְׁבִילָן עֵד רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה The Gemara asks: From where does Ulla derive that measurement? If we say it is from that which we learned in a mishna (Shevi’it 1:6), this is problematic. That mishna teaches: If there were ten saplings scattered in a beit se’a, one may plow the entire beit se’a for their sake until Rosh HaShana of the Sabbatical Year. Although it is prohibited to plow other land in the time leading into the Sabbatical Year, to avoid the appearance of preparing to work the ground in that year, it is permitted to do so for the purpose of sustaining these young trees.
כַּמָּה הָווּ לְהוּ תְּרֵי אַלְפִין וַחֲמֵשׁ מְאָה גַּרְמִידֵי לְכׇל חַד וְחַד כַּמָּה מָטֵי לֵיהּ מָאתַן וְחַמְשִׁין הָא לָא הָוֵי דְּעוּלָּא The Gemara calculates: How much is the area of a beit se’a? It is 2,500 square cubits. And how much area is allocated for each and every one of the ten trees? It is 250 square cubits. This is not the distance that Ulla taught. An area of sixteen cubits to each side of the tree is a square of thirty-two by thirty-two cubits, or 1,024 square cubits, which is much larger than 250.
וְאֶלָּא מִדִּתְנַן שְׁלֹשָׁה אִילָנוֹת שֶׁל שְׁלֹשָׁה בְּנֵי אָדָם הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מִצְטָרְפִין וְחוֹרְשִׁין כׇּל But rather, Ulla derived this measurement from that which we learned in the following mishna (Shevi’it 1:5): If there were three large trees belonging to three different people in one beit se’a, these trees combine, and one may plow the entire