## Bava Batra Daf 26b

###### Bava Batra 26b:1
[Bava Batra 26b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/26b:1)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Bava Batra 26b:2
[Bava Batra 26b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/26b:2)

הָיָה חוֹפֵר בּוֹר, שִׁיחַ וּמְעָרָה – קוֹצֵץ וְיוֹרֵד וְהָעֵצִים שֶׁלּוֹ (וְכוּ׳). בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ יַעֲקֹב הַדְיָיבָא מֵרַב חִסְדָּא: עֵצִים שֶׁל מִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Bava Batra 26b:3
[Bava Batra 26b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/26b:3)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ, תְּנֵיתוּהָ: שׇׁרְשֵׁי אִילָן שֶׁל הֶדְיוֹט הַבָּאִין בְּשֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ, לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Batra 26b:4
[Bava Batra 26b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/26b:4)

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא: בָּתַר אִילָן אָזְלִינַן – מִשּׁוּם הָכִי לֹא מוֹעֲלִין; אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ: בָּתַר קַרְקַע אָזְלִינַן, אַמַּאי לֹא מוֹעֲלִין?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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?


###### Bava Batra 26b:5
[Bava Batra 26b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/26b:5)

אֶלָּא מַאי? בָּתַר אִילָן אָזְלִינַן?! אֵימָא סֵיפָא: שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ הַבָּאִים בְּשֶׁל הֶדְיוֹט, לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין. וְאִי בָּתַר אִילָן אָזְלִינַן, אַמַּאי לֹא מוֹעֲלִין?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Bava Batra 26b:6
[Bava Batra 26b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/26b:6)

מִידֵּי אִירְיָא?! בְּגִידּוּלִין הַבָּאִין לְאַחַר מִכָּאן עָסְקִינַן, וְקָא סָבַר: אֵין מְעִילָה בְּגִידּוּלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Batra 26b:7
[Bava Batra 26b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/26b:7)

רָבִינָא אָמַר: לָא קַשְׁיָא; כָּאן בְּתוֹךְ שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה אַמָּה, כָּאן חוּץ לְשֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה אַמָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bava Batra 26b:8
[Bava Batra 26b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/26b:8)

אָמַר עוּלָּא: אִילָן הַסָּמוּךְ לַמֶּצֶר – בְּתוֹךְ שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה אַמָּה, גַּזְלָן הוּא – וְאֵין מְבִיאִין מִמֶּנּוּ בִּכּוּרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bava Batra 26b:9
[Bava Batra 26b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/26b:9)

מְנָא לֵיהּ לְעוּלָּא הָא? אִילֵּימָא מִדִּתְנַן: עֶשֶׂר נְטִיעוֹת הַמְפוּזָּרוֹת בְּתוֹךְ בֵּית סְאָה, חוֹרְשִׁין כׇּל בֵּית סְאָה בִּשְׁבִילָן, עַד רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Batra 26b:10
[Bava Batra 26b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/26b:10)

כַּמָּה הָווּ לְהוּ – תְּרֵי אַלְפִין וַחֲמֵשׁ מְאָה גַּרְמִידֵי; לְכׇל חַד וְחַד כַּמָּה מָטֵי לֵיהּ – מָאתַן וְחַמְשִׁין; הָא לָא הָוֵי דְּעוּלָּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Batra 26b:11
[Bava Batra 26b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/26b:11)

וְאֶלָּא מִדִּתְנַן: שְׁלֹשָׁה אִילָנוֹת שֶׁל שְׁלֹשָׁה בְּנֵי אָדָם – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מִצְטָרְפִין, וְחוֹרְשִׁין כׇּל

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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**