לָאו מִי אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל חַד פֵּירָא הָוֵי חֲזָקָה לְכוּלְּהוּ פֵּירֵי הָכָא נָמֵי הָנֵי הָווּ חֲזָקָה לְהָנֵי וְהָנֵי הָווּ חֲזָקָה לְהָנֵי The Gemara explains the inference from the statement of Rabbi Yishmael and how it clarifies the opinion of the Rabbis: Didn’t Rabbi 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, these trees are sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership for those trees, and those trees are sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership for these trees.
וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּלָא אַפִּיקוּ אֲבָל אַפִּיקוּ וְלָא אֲכַל לָא הָוְיָא חֲזָקָה וְהוּא דְּבַאזִּי בַּאזּוֹזֵי: The Gemara notes two restrictions to the aforementioned ruling: And this statement applies specifically where the other twenty 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 ownership with regard to the other trees. And this principle, that consuming the produce of some of the trees each year establishes the presumption of ownership for the entire field, applies only if it is the case that the trees are scattered [devazei bazuzei] throughout the field. Otherwise, he establishes the presumption of ownership only over the section where the trees are located.
זֶה הֶחְזִיק בָּאִילָנוֹת וְזֶה הֶחְזִיק בַּקַּרְקַע אָמַר רַב זְבִיד זֶה קָנָה אִילָנוֹת וְזֶה קָנָה קַרְקַע מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב פָּפָּא אִם כֵּן אֵין לוֹ לְבַעַל אִילָנוֹת בַּקַּרְקַע כְּלוּם לֵימָא לֵיהּ בַּעַל קַרְקַע לְבַעַל אִילָנוֹת עֲקוֹר אִילָנָךְ שְׁקוֹל וְזִיל אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא זֶה קָנָה אִילָנוֹת וַחֲצִי קַרְקַע וָזֶה קָנָה חֲצִי קַרְקַע: § 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 share in the land at all. Let the owner of the land say to the owner of the trees: Uproot your trees, take them, and go. Rather, Rav Pappa said: This one acquired the trees and half of the land, and that one acquired half of the land.
פְּשִׁיטָא מָכַר קַרְקַע וְשִׁיֵּיר אִילָנוֹת לְפָנָיו יֵשׁ לוֹ קַרְקַע וַאֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּאָמַר מוֹכֵר בְּעַיִן יָפָה מוֹכֵר הָנֵי מִילֵּי גַּבֵּי בּוֹר וָדוּת The Gemara 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 Rabbi Akiva, who says: One who sells, sells generously, and he is presumed to have included in the sale even items that were not explicitly specified, because that statement applies only concerning a case such as when one sold land and retained ownership of a pit or a cistern. In that case, Rabbi Akiva ruled that he does not retain any land, not even a path to access the pit or cistern, as he sold generously, including all of the land in the sale.
דְּלָא מַכְחֲשׁוּ בְּאַרְעָא אֲבָל אִילָנוֹת The Gemara 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 the entire land. But in the case of his retaining the trees,