Bava Batra 26. I think it is worthwhile to mention the approach of Rav Shmuel Rozovski concerning the statement of Ula. Ula said one who has a tree with sixteen cubits of his neighbour cannot bring first fruits because he is a robber. The way Rav Shmuel Rozovsjki explains this in Zichron Shmuel chapter 14 is that the main part of a tree is the root. Since the roots are going into the neighbours’ field, therefore the main tree is in the neighbours’ field and so the fruit that it the tree bears has at least some portion in it that belongs to the neighbour. (Rav Shach says the main issue is that the roots draw substance from the neighbours’ field) The question I have on this is from the Mishna on page 81a (and that mishna is the law as decided in the Rambam Tur and shulchan aruch)The mishna says if one buys two tree in a field he does not own the land they are on. what comes out of the main tree belongs to him. what comes out of the roots belongs to the owner of the land. But if one buys three trees in that field, then he owns the land they are on between them and around them. Therefore, what comes out of the tree or the roots belongs to the owner of the tree. So, we have a question. It is clear that what comes out of the tree belongs to the owner of the tree. and even if there is only one tree in the case of ula, still the only thing that would belong to the owner of the ground is what comes out of the roots directly. But even in that case the fruit that the tree bears belong to the owner f the tree. I can imagine however that Rav Shmuel rozovski might answer this in the following way. That mishna is talking about when the tree is on the land of the person that sold the tree to him. The case of Ula is different. The case of Ula is when the roots are extending into someone else’s field--------------------------------------בתרא 26. I think it is worthwhile to mention the approach of רב שמואל רוזובסקי concerning the statement of עולא. NOW עולא said one who has a tree with sixteen cubits of his neighbour cannot bring first fruits because he is a robber. The way רב שמואל רוזובסקי explains this in זכרון שמואל chapter 14 is that the main part of a tree is the root. Since the roots are going into the neighbours’ field, therefore the main tree is in the neighbours’ field and so the fruit that it the tree bears has at least some portion in it that belongs to the neighbour. (רב שך says the main issue is that the roots draw substance from the neighbours’ field) The question I have on this is from the משנה on page פ''א ע''א (and that משנה is the law as decided in the רמב''ם טור and שלחן ערוך). The משנה says if one buys two trees in a field, he does not own the land they are on. What comes out of the main tree belongs to him. What comes out of the roots belongs to the owner of the land. היוצא מן הגזע שלו היוצא מן השרשים של בעל הקרקעBut if one buys three trees in that field, then he owns the land they are on between them and around them. Therefore, what comes out of the tree or the roots belongs to the owner of the tree. היוצא מן הגזע מו השורשים שלוSo, we have a question. It is clear that what comes out of the tree belongs to the owner of the tree. Even if there is only one tree in the case of עולא, still the only thing that would belong to the owner of the ground is what comes out of the roots directly. But even in that case the fruit that the tree bears belong to the owner f the tree. I can imagine however that רב שמואל רוזובסקי might answer this in the following way. That משנה is talking about when the tree is on the land of the person that sold the tree to him. The case of עולא is different. The case of עולא is when the roots are extending into someone else’s field