## Bava Batra Daf 37a

###### Bava Batra 37a:1
[Bava Batra 37a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/37a:1)

לָאו מִי אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: חַד פֵּירָא הָוֵי חֲזָקָה לְכוּלְּהוּ פֵּירֵי? הָכָא נָמֵי – הָנֵי הָווּ חֲזָקָה לְהָנֵי, וְהָנֵי הָווּ חֲזָקָה לְהָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Batra 37a:2
[Bava Batra 37a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/37a:2)

וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּלָא אַפִּיקוּ, אֲבָל אַפִּיקוּ וְלָא אֲכַל – לָא הָוְיָא חֲזָקָה. וְהוּא דְּבַאזִּי בַּאזּוֹזֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Batra 37a:3
[Bava Batra 37a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/37a:3)

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.

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


###### Bava Batra 37a:4
[Bava Batra 37a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/37a:4)

פְּשִׁיטָא – מָכַר קַרְקַע, וְשִׁיֵּיר אִילָנוֹת לְפָנָיו – יֵשׁ לוֹ קַרְקַע. וַאֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: מוֹכֵר בְּעַיִן יָפָה מוֹכֵר, הָנֵי מִילֵּי גַּבֵּי בּוֹר וָדוּת –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Batra 37a:5
[Bava Batra 37a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/37a:5)

דְּלָא מַכְחֲשׁוּ בְּאַרְעָא, אֲבָל אִילָנוֹת,

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