עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא לְקִיחָה וַהֲבָאָה כְּאֶחָד וְהָא לֵיכָּא אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַוְיָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי מִכְּדֵי פְּסוּקֵי נִינְהוּ לִיקְרֵי The passage is not recited until the taking and the bringing of the first fruits are performed by one person, and that is not the case here. Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi: Since the passage is composed of verses, let him read them. What is objectionable about reciting verses from the Torah?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם דְּמִחֲזֵי כְּשִׁיקְרָא רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב חִיָּיא אָמַר דִּלְמָא אָתֵי לְאַפְקוּעִינְהוּ מִתְּרוּמָה וּמַעֲשֵׂר: Rav Ashi said to him: The problem is due to the fact that this practice has the appearance of falsehood, because he issues a declaration before God that is possibly untrue, as he might not own the ground. Rav Mesharshiyya, son of Rav Ḥiyya, said: The declaration is not recited lest he come to remove the fruits from their obligation of teruma and tithes, if they are treated entirely as first fruits. For this reason one does not recite the passage, to ensure that their unique status is maintained.
הִגְדִּילוּ לֹא יְשַׁפֶּה כּוּ׳ הֵיכִי דָּמֵי מִן הַגֶּזַע וְהֵיכִי דָּמֵי מִן הַשׇּׁרָשִׁין § The mishna teaches: With regard to one who buys two trees in the field of another, if the trees grew, the owner of the field may not cut down their branches. The mishna further teaches: That which grows out of the trunk belongs to the owner of the tree, but that which grows out of the roots belongs to the owner of the ground. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which something is considered to be growing out of the trunk, and what are the circumstances in which it is considered to be growing out of the roots?
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן כֹּל שֶׁרוֹאֶה פְּנֵי חַמָּה זֶהוּ מִן הַגֶּזַע וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ רוֹאֶה פְּנֵי חַמָּה זֶהוּ מִן הַשׇּׁרָשִׁין Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to anything that sees the face of the sun, i.e., which is visible and aboveground, this is considered to be growing out of the trunk. And with regard to that which does not see the face of the sun but is concealed in the earth, this is considered to be growing out of the roots.
וְלֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא מַסְּקָא אַרְעָא שִׂירְטוֹן וְאָמַר לֵיהּ תְּלָתָא זַבֵּינְתְּ לִי וְאִית לִי אַרְעָא אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן יָקוֹץ וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן יָקוֹץ The Gemara asks: But if everything that is visible belongs to the owner of the tree, no matter how close it is to the ground, let us be concerned that perhaps the land is covered with sediment from flowing water, and some of the tree’s trunk will be covered, in which case the branches that grow from the trunk will appear as though they are separate trees; and the owner of the trees will say to the owner of the field: You actually sold me three trees and I therefore have ownership over the ground. Rather, Rav Naḥman said: That which grows from the trunk belongs to the owner of the tree, but he must cut it down. And Rabbi Yoḥanan himself likewise said: The owner of the tree must cut it down.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן נְקִיטִינַן דֶּקֶל אֵין לוֹ גֶּזַע סָבַר רַב זְבִיד לְמֵימַר אֵין לוֹ גֶּזַע לְבַעַל דֶּקֶל דְּכֵיוָן דִּלְמִחְפַּר וּלְשָׁרֵשׁ קָאֵי אַסּוֹחֵי מַסַּח דַּעְתֵּיהּ Rav Naḥman said: We hold by tradition that a palm tree bought from another has no trunk. Rav Zevid thought to say this means that the owner of the palm tree has no right to that which grows from the trunk. The reason is that since it stands ready to be dug up and uprooted, as when the tree dies its owner is not entitled to plant another in its place, he diverts his mind from that which grows from the trunk.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב פָּפָּא וְהָא קוֹנֶה שְׁנֵי אִילָנוֹת דִּלְמִחְפַּר וּלְמִשְׁרַשׁ קָיְימִי וְקָתָנֵי דְּיֵשׁ לוֹ גֶּזַע אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא אֵין לוֹ גֶּזַע לְבַעַל דֶּקֶל לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מוֹצִיא גֶּזַע Rav Pappa objects to this: But this is comparable to one who buys two trees in a field belonging to another, as the trees stand ready to be dug up and uprooted because their owner has no right to plant new trees in their place when they die; and yet it is taught in the mishna that he has the right to that which grows from the trunk. Rather, Rav Pappa said: The statement of Rav Naḥman means that the owner of a palm tree, in contrast to owners of other types of trees, has no right to that which grows from the trunk, since a palm tree does not produce branches from its trunk.
וּלְרַב זְבִיד קַשְׁיָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּזַבֵּין לַחֲמֵשׁ שְׁנִין: The Gemara asks: But according to the opinion of Rav Zevid, who maintains that Rav Naḥman is referring to all types of trees, the mishna is difficult. The Gemara answers: Rav Zevid interprets the mishna as referring to a situation where the owner of the trees bought the trees for five years and stipulated that he may plant new trees in place of the original trees in the event the original ones are cut down.
קָנָה שְׁלֹשָׁה קָנָה קַרְקַע וְכַמָּה אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הֲרֵי זֶה קָנָה תַּחְתֵּיהֶן וּבֵינֵיהֶן וְחוּצָה לָהֶן § The mishna teaches: If one bought three trees he has acquired the ground along with them. The Gemara asks: And how much of the field does he acquire? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This buyer has acquired the ground that is located underneath the trees, and the area between them, and with regard to the space outside of the trees and their branches,